Monday, April 18, 2005

Guns Don't Kill People...Abortions Kill People!!!




It's no coincidence that the Right to Bear Arms comes directly after the 1st amendment. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to protect the 1st amendment. Many liberals falsely believe that we were granted the right to bear arms mostly for hunting purposes or to protect ourselves from other citizens. Our founding fathers stated that this right is so important not for hunting or private protection, but rather to protect our right of revolution and to protect us from abuses of government. The following quotes I have collected will illustrate this.

In regard to private protection, it is obvious that the right to bear arms results in lower crime and violent crime rates. ALL statistics show this clearly. The following link provides some proof: Just having the Right to Bear Arms offers everyone (whether you own a gun or not) protection as criminals think twice about breaking into your home because they don't know whether you will have a gun or not. It's called…"the fear of the unknown".


http://www.diac.com/~ekwall2/gun_control/moreguns_lesscrime.shtml Statistics on Gun Control

Did you know that Hitler and Communist dictator Mao tse-Tung both support gun control?

"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms ..." -- Adolph Hitler, German Dictator

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” -- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment

Which side do you feel Ghandi or Jesus would take?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahtma Gandhi, Indian Political Leader

“Jesus said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke, Chapter 22, Verse

"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 - establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime." -- Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii."

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -- Sigmond Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." --Aristotle

"Outlawing guns leaves only outlaws with guns." --Anonymous

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942

"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." -- Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality, 1988

"You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." -- Rush Limbaugh

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it." -- Jeff Snyder

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." -- James Earl Jones

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author

"... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

"Am I the only one who finds it unconscionable that an Air Force fighter can now shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner full of passengers, but the pilots of that airliner are not allowed to defend the aircraft from the hijacker, thus preventing the hijacking in the first place?" -- American Airlines Capt. Tom Snelling, Honolulu Advertiser, 2001

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant." -- James Madison

"Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem." -- Mike Royko

"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." -- L. Neil Smith

"Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first and then the rest of our freedoms." -- Andrew Ford

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject." -- John R. Lott

"Gun control" is a job-safety program for criminals." -- John R. Lott

"The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale developments with armed security guards -- and who want to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves. But what about lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can 'make a statement' by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books?" --Thomas Sowell

"Banning gun shows to reduce violent crime will work about as well as banning auto shows to reduce drunken driving." -- Bill McIntire, Spokesman for the National Rifle Association

"If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not free." -- Pol Anderson

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us with a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined with a Bonaparte at their head and disposing of all the treasure of the earth, our own excepted, could not by force make a track on the Blue Ridge or take a drink from the Ohio in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1838

"Gun Control: The assumption that everyone is a potential criminal." –Anonymous

"A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject. Our forefathers knew this to be true..... Why do so many of us question their wisdom?" --D. Michael Wiechman

"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -- Walter Mondale, U.S. Ambassador to Japan

"The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it." -- James A. Donald

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and
restrictive legislation are not the answers.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs - politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
-- Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado (address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee)

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford

"Liberalizing concealed carry laws won't lead to a return to the Wild West. ... in 19th Century cattle towns, homicide was confined to transient males who shot each other in saloon disturbances. The per capital robbery rate was 7% of modern New York City's. The burglary rate was 1%. Rape was unknown." --David Kopel - quoted in the WSJ 28 Feb 1994

"Firearms have been around for over 400 years, yet it is only in the last 20 years that people have begun shouting "gun control". Why then, only recently, has this become such an issue? Moreover, why are there more mass-murderers than at any other time in our known history? It is not because weapons are more powerful -- 200-year-old muzzleloaders have a much greater force-per-round than today's "assault rifles". It is not because weapons are semi- or fully-automatic -- rapid-fire weapons have been available for most of the last century. It is not due to a lack of laws -- we have more "gun control" laws than ever. It IS, however, because we have chosen to focus on "gun control" instead of crime control or "thug control." It IS because only recently has the public become complacent enough to accept, by inaction, the violence present in our society." - Kevin Langston, Tuesday, 29 October, 1991

"A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia." --Charlie Reese, syndicated columnist

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." -- William Burroughs

"Prohibiting law-abiding people from owning guns because they might be stolen by criminals is like prohibiting women from going out at night because they might be raped." – Unknown

"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed." -- Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus.

"I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can't agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don't wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them." -- Hugh Downs, veteran ABC newsman

"If the Government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?" – Unknown

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." --John Adams

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." --John Adams Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763

"It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The militia is composed of free citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own rights, or suffering others to invade them." --Samuel Adams

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." --Fisher Ames, in a letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

"The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, Oct. 7, 1789

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"The very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for 'tis a wise and true saying, that `One sword often keeps another in the scabbard.' The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. They that are on their guard, and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked than the supine, secure and negligent." --Benjamin Franklin, 1747

"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." --Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788)

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788)

"They tell us we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an advesary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we aquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of the means which the Gods of nature has placed in our power. Millions of people armed in the holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Many cry 'Peace, peace' - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me death!" – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775, Addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." -- Thomas Jefferson

"It [appears] that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson, in the Diffusion of Knowledge Bill (1779)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776)

"The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people;that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, .....or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled of property, and freedom of the press." -- Thomas Jefferson

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." -- Thomas Jefferson, Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, January 30, 1787

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322

"...;whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;..." --Richard Henry Lee

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit to. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, Federalist Papers, Article 46 January 29, 1788

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [State] governments possessing their affections and confidence." --James Madison, Federalist Papers, Article 46 January 29, 1788

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason, During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788)

"A well regulated militia, composed of Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from a standing army." --George Mason

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while, on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them; ...the weak will become a prey to the strong." --Thomas Paine

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour." --George Washington, Address to the Second Session of the First United States Congress, January 7, 1790

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." --George Washington

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention (1787)

"A Covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For ... no man can transfer or lay down his Right to save himself from Death." - Thomas Hobbes, 17th Century English Political Philosopher

"If you want to feel the warm breath of freedom on your neck ... if you want to touch the pulse of liberty that beat in our founding fathers, you may do so through the majesty of the Second Amendment." - Charlton Heston, Actor and Political Activist

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which ... historically has proven to be always possible." – Hubert Humphrey, United States Senator

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Cesare Beccaria, 18th Century Italian Criminologist

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Cesare Beccaria, 18th Century Italian Criminologist

"If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right." - Cicero, Roman Orator, 1st Century B. C.

"Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years." - Niccolo Machiavelli, 16th Century Italian Political Theorist

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, American Statesman and Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

"In countries under arbitrary government, the people oppressed and dispirited neither possess arms nor know how to use them. Tyrants never feel secure until they have disarmed the people." - Unknown Author, from the Connecticut Courant, 1788

"Those who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." - Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

"The Constitution should never be construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Organizer of the 'Boston Tea Party' and signer of the Declaration of Independence

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms ..." - Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

"Arms like laws discourage and keep the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world." - Thomas Paine, American Revolutionary Political Theorist

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear -- and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom." - Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the 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, 20 Feb 1788

"The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

"Don't think of it as `gun control', think of it as `victim disarmament'. If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed." -- Jeff Snyder

"As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people." -- Jeff Snyder

"Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem." -- Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America"

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". -- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things To Do Until The Revolution"

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Joseph Story, Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice, 1840

"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest." -- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

"Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents." -- Don B. Kates

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." -- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"The disarming of citizens has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral force; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression." -- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." -- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972

"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such gun control laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist." -- Robert Anson Heinlein, 1949

"According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance." -- G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

"President Clinton boasts about 186,000 people denied firearms under the Brady Law rules. The Brady Law has been in force for three years. In that time, they have prosecuted seven people and put three of them in prison. You know, the President has entertained more felons than that at fundraising coffees in the White House, for Pete's sake." -- Charlton Heston, May 18, 1997

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns." -- U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

"During waves of terror attacks, Israel's national police chief will call on all concealed-handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where concealed permit holders have saved lives." -- John R. Lott

"Let therefore every man, that, appealing to his own heart, feels the least spark of virtue or freedom there, think that it is an honor which he owes himself, and a duty which he owes his country, to bear arms." -- Thomas Pownall

"On every question of the Constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." -- North Carolina Supreme Court, State v. Kerner (1921)

". . . if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" -- Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail

". . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper 29

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discression... in private self-defense..." -- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of the UAS, 471 (1788)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Trench Coxe, "Remarks on the first part of the amendments to the Federal Constitution", Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state." -- Georgia Supreme Court, Nunn v. State, (1846).


More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
(Studies in Law and Economics)

Challenging conventional wisdom, legal scholar John Lott presents a timely and provocative work in which he comes to a startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. Relying on the FBI's massive yearly crime figures over 18 years, "More Guns, Less Crime" should be required reading for anyone interested and open minded in the critical debate over gun control.

The author, John R. Lott, Jr. , , 03/10/98:

Comments from the book's reviewers:

"This sophisticated analysis yields a well established conclusion that supports the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than of those who would limit the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns. The general reader may find of most interest chapter 7 which documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. John Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue." —Milton Friedman

"Armed with reams of statistics, John Lott has documented many surprising linkages between guns and crime. More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates that what is at stake is not just the right to carry arms but rather our performance in controlling a diverse array of criminal behaviors. Perhaps most disturbing is Lott's documentation of the role of the media and academic commentators in distorting research findings that they regard as politically incorrect." —W. Kip Viscusi, Cogan Professor of Law and director of the Program on Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School

"John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws. Regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions, his work is mandatory reading for anyone who is open-minded and serious about the gun control issue. Especially fascinating is his account of the often unscrupulous reactions to his research by gun control advocates, academic critics, and the news media."—Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University

"Until John Lott came along, the standard research paper on firearms and violence consisted of a longitudinal or cross-sectional study on a small and artfully selected data set with few meaningful statistical controls. Lott's work, embracing all of the data that are relevant to his analysis, has created a new standard, which future scholarship in this area, in order to be credible, will have to live up to." —Dan Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, Northwestern University.

"John Lott destroys the politically correct argument that arming law abiding citizens will have a harmful effect on their safety. There is no doubt that criminals prefer to prey upon the unprepared. This book will arm those who read it with the important facts they need in order to decide where they stand on the gun control issue." —Dale Gulbrantson, executive director, Illinois Police Association, Inc.

"This book will — or should — cause those who almost reflexively support the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to rethink their positions." —Steve Shavell, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School


Ted Nugent to Fellow NRAers: Get Hardcore

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050418/D89HG71G0.html

Apr 17, 8:46 PM (ET)

HOUSTON (AP) - With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."

Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.

"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."
Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.

He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.

"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."

Friday, April 15, 2005

Credit Card / Bankruptcy...Who Is Scamming Who?

Not that I don't support accountability and responsibility. I don't condone innocent businesses having to suffer because of the irresponsibility of a few individuals. However…I do have to admit that I hate to see the credit card industry come out on top on this one.

I want to bring to light a few of the unknown, dirty little secrets of the credit card industry.

For instance, you probably thought banks loaned money. Banks do not loan money, instead it is your promise to pay that creates the money. A bank’s records will reveal that they did not debit any account for the money they loaned. The money really came from you! You were the depositor in the transaction. Banks risk losing no money because they don't loan any money. When an account is opened, the banks entered a dollar amount of credit in your name, but that money did not come from the bank or other depositors. The money came from your promise to pay. You created currency that never existed before the account was opened. This account is actually your receivable, not the banks.

You see…there is no gold or hard currency backing up the credit they gave to you. They created money out of thin air with the expectation that the money will one day be there because of your promise to pay. Think about it…if everyone who had credit asked for cash for that credit at the same time…the money wouldn't exist to give to them.

A basic general accounting principle is that when an account is credited, another is debited for the same amount. This is not the case with credit cards. The banks [creditor] did not risk any assets in the "credit" arrangement, YOU funded the account with your promise to pay, which is an undisclosed material fact.

Ask your credit card company to answer the following questions:
-Please disclose the amount of money purportedly loaned to me in creating this account.
-Please identify the account number of the account from which the funds originated to fund my credit account.
-Please identify the depositor in the credit arrangement.

The bank is legally bound to answer these questions pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

I recently requested copies of various publications published by several branches of the Federal Reserve Bank. The quotes reproduced below are taken verbatim from several of these publications. They explain that the customer of a bank is the depositor when he obtains a loan and that he is entitled to the return of his deposit. The explanations you will read below admit that banks or depository institutions within the Federal Reserve System do not loan money from their own assets but rather, they create money by simply entering the amount created or crediting it in an accounting ledger.

Hats the Federal Reserve Wears
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Public Affairs Department
P. O. Box 66
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0066
215-574-6115

Page 6, Paragraph 3:

"Money for loans comes from two sources: 1) people who have saved and are willing to lend their savings; and 2) institutions such as banks, which have the power, within limits, to create money in checking-type accounts when they make loans."

Page 8, Paragraph 3:

"Federal Reserve notes are the only kind of paper money issued today."

Modern Money Mechanics
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
P. O. Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111

Page 3, Second Column, Paragraph 1:

"Who Creates Money? … The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. … checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts. … Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. … Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes.

Page 7, Example 3, Expansion-Stage 1:

"Expansion takes place only if the banks that hold these excess reserves increase their loans or investments. Loans are made by crediting the borrower's deposit account, i.e., by creating additional deposit money."

"Stage 7: Expansion continues as the banks that have excess reserves increase their loans by that amount, crediting borrowers' deposit accounts in the process, thus creating still more money."

Points of Interest
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
P. O. Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111

Page 6-7, Paragraphs 7-10:

"Banks and Deposit Creation
Depository institutions, which for simplicity we will call banks, are different from other financial institutions because they offer checking accounts and make loans by lending checkbook deposits. The deposit creation activity, essentially creating money, affects interest rates because these deposits are part of savings, the source of the supply of credit. Banks create deposits by making loans. Rather than handing cash to borrowers, banks simply increase balances in borrowers' checking accounts. Borrowers can then draw checks to pay for goods and services. This creation of checking accounts through loans is just as much a deposit as one we might make by pushing a ten-dollar bill through the teller's window. With all of the nation's banks able to increase the supply of credit in this fashion, credit could conceivably expand without limit. … When banks create checkbook deposits, they create money as well as credit since these deposits are part of the money supply."

Two Faces of Debt
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
P. O. Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111

Page 19, Paragraphs 3-5:
"For an individual institution, they arise typically when a depositor brings in currency or checks drawn on other institutions. The depositor's balance rises, but the currency he or she holds or the deposits someone else holds are reduced a corresponding amount. The public's total money supply is not changed.

But a depositor's balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit-either by granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositor's account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total of currency and checkable deposits-the money supply-is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit. Such newly created funds are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations as intermediaries between savers and users of savings.

But individual depository institutions cannot expand credit and create deposits without limit. Furthermore, most of the deposits they create are soon transferred to other institutions. A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer's deposit of checks or currency in a bank."

Notes, Mortgages and Signature Loans

A promissory note is not negotiable in the consumer marketplace (general economy) until a depository institution (bank) takes ownership and deposits it into an account. (A consumer cannot buy groceries with a promissory note.) The account into which the deposit is made appears as an asset equal to the value of the note and a liability equal to the negative value of the note. The entries balance to zero. The record of this transaction is made in an accounting ledger that is subject to audit and public disclosure. This method conforms to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the rules promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board.

Example, a $100,000 promissory note on deposit:

Account No. 9999999999999999 for Bank Customer (depositor):

Asset Liability Balance

+ $100,000 - $100,000 $0

The bank then draws a check from this account to pay the seller of the property being purchased. The seller’s bank accepts the check as a deposit, just like the first bank that accepted the note as the deposit. The note is the money owned by the maker, the bank customer, before the bank (lender) takes ownership and deposits it. The note or deposit is then transferred to the seller of the property in the form of a check to pay for the property. The first bank obtained ownership and possession of the note without risking any assets and in exchange for giving the bank the note and making it negotiable in the consumer market place, the bank customer agrees to pay the bank the value of the note, what the bank calls “principal,” plus interest and fees.

The idea of a “principal” is a fiction that represents the value of the note; it is not the actual note. There is no principal. The money for the property came from the buyer’s note. The buyer could not give the note to the seller directly because the banking system will not allow it, it would be considered counterfeiting without the bank being involved.

The bank must claim the existence of principal so that interest can be charged against something. The bank cannot charge interest against the note because it was used to buy the property. The bank is charging interest against the value of the note, what it calls the “principal.” The customer’s money, the note, was first deposited into the bank’s account and then transferred to the seller’s bank account. Only banks can do this because only banks have the license and the monopoly in the banking industry. Only banks have access to clearing houses (databases for commercial paper) for checks, consumers do not, so consumers are not able to negotiate checks or notes without the banks.

The cost to the consumer, or bank customer, for this service is what the bank calls the “principal” plus interest and fees. The bank secures the payment of this money by having the depositor, the bank customer, sign a mortgage. A mortgage is a lien against property that gives the bank legal title and one hundred percent equitable interest until the customer acquires more equity by payment. The customer acquires legal title once the mortgage is satisfied. There are two transactions, one where the note buys the property and the other where the buyer pays the bank for providing the service of moving (birthing) the note into the economy to make it negotiable, otherwise known as the mortgage. The first transaction is called the note and the second is called the mortgage.

The mortgage is a bank receivable, an asset to the bank, and the bank wants the depositor of the note, its customer, to believe that the bank originated the funds for the purchase of the property and that paying on the mortgage is the way to pay it back. Because the customer is truly the depositor, the originator of the funds, it is the principal or the value of the note that is owed to the customer and not to the bank. Legally, the mortgage should be set aside as being null and void for failure of consideration and disclosure violations of the truth in lending law; however, experience tells us the best way to remedy the inequity of the arrangement is to sue the bank for the return of the deposit, “money lent.” Yes, many of our subscribers have forced many banks to withdraw their complaints in about three to six months of litigation (both secured and unsecured collection). In fact, it has worked perfectly in all of the collections described in our publications with the exception of mortgage and student loan collections. In these categories of collections, we have seen the banks default in some and are waiting for results of the rest, but over the last eight years and approximately 2,000 collections, no collector or creditor has succeeded in taking any property of our subscribers who follow the program, for any collection.

The bank is unable to identify the source of the funds for the principal it claims to be owed and against which it is collecting interest and fees. Because there are only two parties to the note and two parties to the mortgage (borrower and lender), and one of them cannot establish that it provided the funds for the account, we must conclude that the other party, the bank customer, provided the funds that created the account. If the bank truly provided the funds like it wants everyone to believe, then the bank would be able to identify the account that was debited when the loan account was created. In reality, the bank customer is paying the value of the note twice, once by trading his note for property and the second time by paying the bank what they call the principal, then he pays an additional two or three times the value of the original note in interest.

If the truth were admitted, an equitable arrangement would be where the bank is allowed to maintain its monopoly and only charge the customer a fee for creating money. The customer would buy property with his note through the banking system, and the bank would charge a fee for this, maybe a percentage of the note. The fee would be limited by law to less than the value of the note. Instead, the bank receives the value of the note at no cost plus two or three times the value of the note in interest and if you don’t pay, the bank gets the property as well.

Here is how the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago explains the process:

Two Faces of Debt
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
P. O. Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111

Page 19, Paragraphs 3-5:

"For an individual institution, they arise typically when a depositor brings in currency or checks drawn on other institutions. The depositor's balance rises, but the currency he or she holds or the deposits someone else holds are reduced a corresponding amount. The public's total money supply is not changed.

But a depositor's balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit-either by granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositor's account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total of currency and checkable deposits-the money supply-is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit. Such newly created funds are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations as intermediaries between savers and users of savings.

But individual depository institutions cannot expand credit and create deposits without limit. Furthermore, most of the deposits they create are soon transferred to other institutions. A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer's deposit of checks or currency in a bank."

The typical “mortgagor” (bank customer) pays the bank (mortgagee) three times the value of the note (deposit). Two-thirds of that money comes from interest and one-third is what the bank calls the principal, the amount the bank claims was loaned. Because the bank cannot prove that it loaned the principal, we must conclude that the principal originated from the customer, the other party to the note and mortgage agreements. This is a well-known fact in the industry as you can see by the above quoted publication. Bank employees do not understand this but we have found that bank officers usually have an understanding or will refuse to discuss it.

This process is identical for credit cards, signature loans, even guaranteed student loans along with any other “bank loan” made by any depository institution operating under the rules of the Federal Reserve System. The same rules apply equally to assignees of depository institutions such as mortgage companies. I have not seen any case law affirming these banking practices but from my experience and research, I can say that the reason is because the banks never allow disputes raising these issues to be published on the record of any court. They either settle or withdraw.

An approved application for credit is entered as a deposit in the same manner and using the same accounting principles as in the deposit of a promissory note. The approved application for credit is the promise to pay and the value of the highest credit limit is the deposit. Interest is charged against the dollar amount claimed to be owed to the depository institution. Instead of a mortgage, the customer receives monthly billing statements.

Mysteriously, you will not find these types of terms disclosed on any agreement with a bank; however, because of basic accounting principles, the true agreement can be created from the accounting. It can then be verified against the written instrument or agreement. The ledger will show the note as being deposited and no money debited from a bank asset or from another depositor’s account. Banks are not permitted to loan other depositor’s money or their own assets, but it is the accounting that proves this. We can then use this verifying technique to expose the truth and the fact that the written agreement did not disclose all legal obligations of the parties. These terms were not fully disclosed because the bank’s attorneys wrote the agreement and the bank receives an incredible benefit from not disclosing it. The bank receives many times the value of your deposit (note or credit application) without risking one single dollar worth of assets. In fact, the bank sometimes takes your property when you don’t pay according to the terms of the “written” agreement, not the true agreement.

It is my opinion that if the banks were to conduct their businesses honestly, they would directly admit, in each “loan” transaction, that the customer’s note or credit application provides the funds for the account and that the fee the bank is charging for this service is the value of the deposit plus fees and interest. The banks could admit that the basis for the fee is that the Federal Reserve System has been allowed to monopolize our economy and has been licensed to create money by the United States.

Consumers could then be free to decide if this was equitable. It might lead to banks charging a flat fee per transaction instead of getting the value of the deposit plus two or three times the value of the customer’s money for free. Imagine a world where you could take your note into a depository institution and pay twenty five percent of the value of the note, over a period of months or years, just to use the service? Instead of paying $300,000 to use $100,000 of your money, you would only pay $25,000 over the same period of time. The banks would still make a profit and other factors could reduce the amount of money created each year. I do not think this is a solution, but it may suffice until we can restore a precious metal backed currency.




http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200504\POL20050414b.html

House Passes Bankruptcy Reform Bill

By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
April 14, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - In a vote of 302 to 126, the U.S. House Thursday passed a bankruptcy reform bill requiring people with incomes above their state's median income to pay their debts through a court-ordered bankruptcy plan.

Democrats criticized the bill, saying the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act would hurt low-income workers, single mothers, minorities, and senior citizens and eliminate a safety net for laid-off workers and those facing overwhelming medical bills.

Republicans, like House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who signed the legislation and sent it to the president's desk for signing, called it the "path towards greater responsibility."

"It goes from being the abuse system for those hiding from debt to its original intention: a program that helps those in real financial straits manage their bills," said Hastert.

"This action, which we expect will soon be signed into law by President Bush, restores integrity in the system. It makes it harder for those who want to use bankruptcy as a scapegoat to avoid debts," he said.

"We must stop abuse. Those who abuse the system make getting credit more expensive for everyone. Bankruptcy is for those who need help, not those who want to shift costs to other hard-working Americans," Hastert added.

Before the vote, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said in debate on the House floor that the bill only "protects the credit industry at the expense of the consumer."

"It will drive more Americans deeper into financial crisis and weaken the nation's economy and social structure," said Hastings.

But Hastert said the bill will "go a long way towards improving our economy and protecting jobs." Only those who "truly need" to file bankruptcy will be able to do so, he said. "Debtors filing for bankruptcy should know there are severe consequences for trying to cheat the system and ultimately, cheat us all," Hastert added.

"Let me share just a few of the provisions that safeguard abuse while still helping consumers. A screening mechanism will identify debtors with the financial means to pay their financial obligations. Once these debtors are identified they'll be forced to pay all pending debts," the house speaker said.

"All debtors planning to file bankruptcy must first attend a credit counseling session. After filing, the debtor must complete an approved instructional course on personal financial management," Hastert explained.

The bankruptcy reform bill "is long overdue," Hastert said. "It strikes a balance to help those who are truly struggling to clear their debts and get back on their feet without making bankruptcy an easy out."

Hastert concluded by saying the bill's passage sends a message to "those looking to game the system - the federal bankruptcy system will no longer be a shelter for abuse."

Reform The Tax Code Already!!!

I still believe that along with immigration reform and border patrol, one of the single most important goals for the Bush administration over the next four years, NEEDS to be…REFORM OF THE CURRENT TAX CODE.

What a mess!!!

For more information and my suggestion for a solution…please see my former post (Stop Socialism...Reform the Tax Code!!!) at the following link:

http://visionsfromthehorizon.blogspot.com/2005/03/stop-socialismreform-tax-code.html

Not that Social Security reform isn't important…but I have been giving some thought to it recently and I think I may oppose the private accounts that President Bush is proposing. Social Security is a socialist program plain and simple…there's no denying that. I have no room to accept socialism in this country in any way, shape or form. I DO believe that private accounts could save social security. Problem is…I don't want Social Security to be saved. I want the entire program scrapped immediately. If that won't happen…I will grin and bear it and pay my SS tax until the program fails and we can all join in a grand day of celebration!!!

Social Security is being abused by the government (using the funds to cover our deficit instead of saving it to be used on what we were promised) AND it is being abused by American citizens who use the program to fund their retirement. It was not supposed to be a social retirement program, but rather a safety net for those most in need. I say scrap the program and instead use a portion of our sales tax to pay for (only the bare essentials) to those MOST in need. Give the American taxpayers their money back and let them fund their own retirements, which is one of the principles of any good non-socialist society!

Speaking of scrapping programs…next up…The I.R.S.!!!



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050415/D89FSDDG0.html

Americans Spend 6.6 Billion Hours on Taxes

Apr 15, 9:50 AM (ET)
By MARY DALRYMPLE

WASHINGTON (AP) - People scurrying to meet tonight's tax deadline might consider this: It's taking you and your fellow Americans 6.6 billion hours to do all that paperwork. The basic tax return - the Form 1040 filed by most people every year - accounts for 1.6 billion hours.

The Internal Revenue Service furnished those statistics to the White House budget office, which keeps tabs on the government's bureaucratic demands. The budget office notes that tax work "towers over the entire paperwork burden for the rest of the federal government" and accounts for some 80 percent.

"If anything, those numbers are probably understated," said David Keating, president of the National Taxpayers Union, which reports annually on the increasing complexity and demands of tax returns.

"A lot more of the cost is just planning to do the tax-smart thing. That can actually take a lot more time than reporting what you've done," he said.

Tax returns must be postmarked by midnight tonight.

Sensitive to the demands that tax laws put on weary taxpayers, the IRS has seven people working full time to reduce the anguish for filers. The IRS Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction looks for requirements that can be streamlined, reduced or eliminated under the law.
"We're trying to reduce unnecessary burden," said Michael Chesman, the office director.

Some of the burden cannot be avoided because it is a requirement of the tax laws. By attacking unnecessary burden, the office has shaved more than 200 million hours from tax paperwork since the office was created in 2001.

Chesman said the office plans next year to simplify the process for requesting an extension. The idea is to replace the current four-month, and subsequent two-month, deadline extensions with one simpler and automatic six-month extension.

Small changes can make a big difference. Letting more people use the simpler 1040 forms trimmed 5 million hours off the paperwork, for example. But the improvements are often swamped by the burdens associated with new tax laws. President Bush has enacted tax changes every year he has been in office.

For individuals wondering how long they will spend on tax forms, the taxpayers' group said it takes an estimated 26 hours and 48 minutes to prepare the Form 1040 and its most common supporting schedules. That includes keeping records, learning the law, preparing forms, copying and mailing.

That actually is less than last year, when taxpayers could have expected to spend 28 hours and 30 minutes on the same forms.

Tax preparation software has made the task more manageable for many. Where the IRS estimates it takes 13 hours to fill out the Form 1040 by hand, Julie Miller, spokeswoman for Intuit, said its TurboTax software can do the same work in two hours to four hours.

Kathy Burlison, director of tax implementation at H&R Block, said software makes individuals and paid preparers more confident they have not missed something. It also makes mistakes much easier to fix.

Nevertheless, the forms are not just a drain on people's free time, but on the productivity of the country, Keating said.

"That's a huge, dead weight burden, trying to discern the tax code, what it rewards most," he said. "If we turn the nation into a paper-shuffling, law-figuring-out country, no one actually gets anything done."
---
On the Net:
Internal Revenue Service: http://www.irs.gov/
National Taxpayers Union: http://www.ntu.org/main/

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

The Roe Effect


“Missing Voters--through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s, encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height of its power--altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could not have imagined.”

“Examining these results through a partisan political lens, the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in electoral politics, one that grows with each election. Moreover, it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion were declared illegal today, and every single person complied with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the voting lifetime of most Americans living today.”

“Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers, voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

THE ROE EFFECT

The Empty Cradle Will Rock

How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.

BY LARRY L. EASTLAND
Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

More than 40 million legal abortions have been performed and documented in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion legal. The debate remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political consequences of 40 million abortions.

Consider:

• There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of 205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because of abortions from 1973-82.

• In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.

• In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.

These numbers will not change. They are based on individual choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago. Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?

The number of abortions accumulate in size and political impact as the years roll along. Like an avalanche that picks up speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of politics. The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed, but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as what does.

Let's begin with the obvious: Children born in any given year arrive at voting age in 18 years; conversely, children not born in a given year are "Missing Voters" 18 years later. Permanently so, unless someone discovers a way to give birth to a teenager in a nine-month gestation period.

This table gives the number of Missing Voters from abortion and election years affected:

Table 1: Abortions in the U.S., 1973-90

Years Abortions Aggregated Election AffectedAbortions
1973-74 1,643,200 1,643,200 1992
1975-78 4,939,800 6,583,000 1996
1979-82 6,202,800 12,785,800 2000
1983-86 6,314,800 19,100,600 2004
1987-90 6,325,400 25,426,000 2008

The question arises: Who would these Missing Voters have been if they had reached voting age? What would their values have been? How would they have voted? What impact would they have had on the great debates in America, including the abortion debate? Here's what we know from several generations of social science research about children:

• They tend to absorb the values of their parents.

• They tend to have the same political views as their family (parents, siblings, immediate relatives) and share common views on political causes.

• They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family.

I remember the guy at my 30th high school class reunion who looked over the people there and remarked, "I can't believe I came in person, while everyone else sent their parents!"

With these factors in mind, the internationally respected survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask 2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents' circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends.

Of the 2,000 respondents, 636 responded "yes." The various socio-demographic characteristics of these respondents were then imposed on the abortion statistics (Table 1, above), with a special emphasis on the 2000 and 2004 general elections to see what impact they likely would have made had the Missing Voters been present to vote in those two elections.

There were 105,405,100 votes cast for president in the 2000 general election, representing 51.2% of the Voting Age Population. The Missing Voters would have been 6,033,097 based on that portion of the 51.2% represented by (at their lower voting level) 18-24 year olds. This means that Missing Voters would have been 4.48% of all actual voters in 2000.

Given the extremely close result in 2000, these voters could have been a crucial factor in the outcome. This is borne out when viewed by political party as defined in the Wirthlin survey.

There is a significant difference between Republicans with someone close to them who have had an abortion, and Democrats with someone close to them who have had an abortion:

Table 2: Missing Republicans vs. Missing Democrats

Party % of total % of party Party as % Party loss/gain
abortions w/abortions of electorate

Republican 35% 28% 39% +4
Independent 16% 30% 17%
Democrat 49% 36% 44% -5


This tells us:

• Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).

• The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.

This isn't particularly surprising given the core constituencies of both political parties. But translating percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real. It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite another to look at actual human beings.

For example:

• There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million).

• There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million).

• By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters than the Republicans have.

These Missing Americans--and particularly the millions of Missing Voters--when compounded over time are of enormous political consequence:

Table 3: Missing voters by political party, 2000 general election

Republican 2,096,406
Independent 958,086
Democrat 2,978,605
Total 6,033,097

Let's look at the 2000 election to see what those 6,033,097 Missing Voters meant to its outcome. What would these Missing Voters have meant to the election in Florida?

Table 4: Florida 2000, with and without Missing Voters

Candidate Vote Missing voters Combined vote
Bush 2,912,790 107,799 3,020,589
Gore 2,912,253 153,163 3,065,416

In the actual popular vote for president in the 2000 general election in Florida, George W. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes. But if the 260,962 Missing Voters of Florida had been present to vote, Al Gore would have won by 45,366 votes. Missing Voters--through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s, encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height of its power--altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could not have imagined.

Examining these results through a partisan political lens, the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in electoral politics, one that grows with each election. Moreover, it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion were declared illegal today, and every single person complied with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the voting lifetime of most Americans living today.

The next question is: What do these numbers tell us about the 2004 election? If we use the seven closest states from the 2000 election as our guide, we can see what these Missing Voters would do to the vote in each state. This is important because most analysts today believe that the 2004 election is likely to be a replay of the 2000 election, except with an incumbent Republican president this time. Given the usual advantages of incumbency, the swing of marginal states from 2000--shoring up Republican victories and tipping the scales from Democrat to Republican in Democratic states--may very well determine the popular and electoral outcome in 2004.

The popular vote in these seven states, with 63 electoral votes in 2000, was less than 1% apart between the two candidates. By adding the votes of the Missing Voters, Democrats could have picked up Florida, and solidified their vote in the other six states (where election challenges could certainly have been seriously considered). The Democrats could have increased their popular and electoral count beyond the scrutiny of the courts and "the court of public opinion."

Table 5: The seven closest states from 2000, with Missing Voters added

State/EVs Bush 2000 Gore 2000 Missing voters 2000/revised 2004 totals
Florida 2,912,790 2,912,253 R: 107,799 '00: R by 537
25 (27) D: 153,163 '04: D by 45,366
Iowa 634,373 638,517 R: 23,556 '00: D by 4,144
7 D: 33,469 '04: D by 14,057
Nevada 301,575 279,978 R: 10,762 '00: R by 21,597
4 (5) D: 15,291 '04: R by 17,068
New Hamp. 273,559 266,348 R: 9,992 '00: R by 7,211
4 D: 14,196 '04: R by 3,006
New Mexico 286,417 286,783 R: 10,608 '00: D by 366
5 D: 15,072 '04: D by 4,830
Oregon 713,577 720,342 R: 26,536 '00: D by 6,765
7 D: 37,703 '04: D by 17,932
Wisconsin 1,237,279 1,242,987 R: 45,900 '00: D by 5,708
11 (10) D: 65,216 '04: D by 25,023

* This table shows the actual vote from 2000, then shows what the change would be in 2004 with all else remaining the same, except that the Missing Voters were added. Numbers in parentheses are 2004 electoral votes.



This table shows the actual vote from 2000, then shows what the change would be in 2004 with all else remaining the same, except that the Missing Voters were added. Numbers in parentheses are 2004 electoral votes.

A similar scenario can be constructed for the U.S. Senate races this fall. The Republican advantages are real: more Democrats (19) are up than Republicans (15), more Democrats are retiring than Republicans (and from advantageous states for Republicans), and Republicans usually do better in a presidential election year. Generally accepted "givens" are:

• Incumbents typically win. In fact, 96% of incumbent U. S. Senators win re-election. The McCain-Feingold legislation will not change this. No legislation passed in the name of reform--including the 1974 post-Watergate campaign finance reform legislation--has ever increased the challenger advantage or lessened the incumbent advantage, no matter what the intended goal.

* In open-seat contests, the party vacating the position cannot "hand over" the seat to the new party nominee. Traditional factors are far more important, such as a strong candidate, solid organization, appealing issues and sound finance. Still, long-term party allegiance is a major factor.

Consequently, the impact of Missing Voters could be considerable in states where the electorate is evenly divided between the two parties over a period of elections. Consider the open seats whose incumbents have chosen not to run for re-election. The following figures represent all votes cast in those states in 1996 and 2000 in the last two presidential year general elections for candidates to Congress--a traditional bellwether for predicting base federal candidate vote.

Table 6: Open Senate seats, 2004

State Incumbent Party GOP adv/disadv
Colorado Ben Nighthorse Campbell R (R) 1.122
Florida Bob Graham D (D) 1.202
Georgia Zell Miller D (R) 0.970
Illinois Peter Fitzgerald R (D) 0.941
Louisiana John Breaux D (D) 0.981
North Carolina John Edwards D (R) 1.050
Oklahoma Don Nickles R (R) 1.151
South Carolina Fritz Hollings D (R) 1.096

*The party of the retiring senator is listed first; the party of the state's other senator is in parentheses.

The party of the retiring senator is listed first; the party of the state's other senator is in parentheses.

If voting patterns in the past two presidential elections (combined) hold true for 2004, then five of these states should be an advantage for the GOP: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Conversely, three states would lean Democratic: Georgia, Illinois and Louisiana.

What do the Missing Voters take away from the Democrats in each state?

Table 7: Missing Voters (net) in 2004 open Senate races

Colorado 12,013
Florida 37,783
Georgia 17,783
Illinois 78,845
Louisiana 15,520
North Carolina 48,980
Oklahoma 20,983
South Carolina 22,005

Most major reporting and analyzing institutions would rate each of the open seats, with the possible exception of Illinois, as "too close to call" at this stage of the campaign. When election time comes, these Missing Voters will be missed. The most expensive campaign a candidate will ever run, the adage goes, is the one he or she loses. For half of these candidates, this will be that most expensive campaign.

Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so. Imagine the number of followers that their abortion policies eliminate who, over the next several decades, would have emerged as the new liberal thinkers, voters, adherents, fund-raisers and workers for their cause.

Table 8: Missing by ideology

Ideology % of pop % of total % of group having
abortions abortions
Liberal 37% 47% 41%

Moderate 5% 5% 31%
Conservative 59% 48% 26%


Look at the results:

• Six out of 10 Americans call themselves conservatives. Only a quarter of them are having abortions.

• A little more than one-third of Americans call themselves liberals. More than four in 10 are having abortions.

• This means that liberals are having one third more abortions than conservatives.

By combining party and ideology, an even sharper contrast comes into focus:

Table 9: Liberal Democrats vs. conservative Republicans

Ideology/party % of pop % of total % of group having
abortions abortions
Liberal/Democrat 40% 48% 38%
Moderate/Independent 11% 10% 30%
Conservative/Republican 49% 41% 27%


Liberal Democrats are having both more abortions--and more abortions as a percentage of their ideological and political group--than either of the other groupings.

As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

Mr. Eastland is managing director of LEA Management Group LLC, a public policy research organization. This article appears in the June issue of The American Spectator.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Why Risk Murder?

If you aren't 100% certain…why take the risk of being wrong and committing murder? The following evidence of uncertainty in the Terri Schiavo case is shocking!!!

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200504\SPE20050412a.html

Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 12, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo to confirm that his wife Terri was in a persistent vegetative state said he was "105 percent sure" of that diagnosis, but Dr. Ronald Cranford expressed similar certainty about a patient he examined in 1980 who later regained both consciousness and the ability to communicate.

Three days before Terri Schiavo's death, Cranford appeared on the MSNBC talk program, "Scarborough Country," to discuss her condition. Cranford was interviewed by reporter Lisa Daniels.

DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?

CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.

DANIELS: Why are you so sure, doctor?

CRANFORD: Because I examined her ...

Cranford - who is assistant chief in neurology at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, Minn., professor of neurology at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a faculty associate at the university's Center for Bioethics - went on to call another neurologist who disagreed with his diagnosis "a charlatan" and accused Daniels of being "stupid."

Host and former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough interrupted to defend Daniels, touching off a clash with Cranford, which included the doctor admonishing Scarborough with: "You've got to get your facts straight."

Cranford also certain, but wrong about 1980 diagnosis

Cranford expressed similar certainty about another patient he declared to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) in 1980, former Minneapolis Police Sgt. David Mack.

''Sergeant Mack will never regain cognitive, sapient functioning,'' Cranford said six months after Mack was shot while serving a search warrant on Dec. 13, 1979. ''He will never be aware of his condition nor resume any degree of meaningful voluntary conscious interaction with his family or friends.''

Based on Cranford's unequivocal diagnosis of Mack, the officer's relatives removed him from a respirator in August 1980 "because his family felt he should be allowed to die rather than exist in such a state," according to published reports.

But Mack did not die.

On Oct. 22, 1981, 18 months after Cranford declared Mack's case hopeless, doctors at the advanced care facility where Mack was being treated noticed that he was awake. The Associated Press described Mack's recovery.

"A policeman considered 'vegetative' after being shot in the head in 1979 has come out of his coma and, although doctors caution he may never recover fully, he is spelling out some of his desires: 'TALK. WALK. SKI. DOG,'" the news report stated, explaining that someone would point to letters displayed in alphabetical order on a board while Mack nodded "yes" or "no" until the correct letter was reached.

Asked how he felt about his recovery, Mack smiled and spelled out "SPEECHLESS!"

"Doctors say Mack has recovered about 95 percent of his intellectual capabilities," the news account continued, "and can understand everything said to him."

Mack's wife, Marlies, said her husband could initially respond only by taking a deep breath in response to a doctor's request.

"Then his eyes started following hand movements," she continued. "He got better and better, but it was slow."

Cranford insisted at the time that his initial diagnosis was correct.

"There is no doubt in the world that he was in the persistent vegetative state," Cranford said of Mack in a 1981 interview. "He had no interaction with the environment."

In an interview last week with Cybercast News Service, Cranford acknowledged a "mistake," but maintained that his original assessment of Mack was accurate.

"At the time I said that, he was in a vegetative state," Cranford said. "But, I did make that misstatement about Sgt. Mack and I was wrong and I did make a mistake in that case."

Cranford argued that Mack's case is different from Terri Schiavo's because a CAT scan of Mack's brain showed no atrophy, while Schiavo's CAT scan showed severe deterioration.

"We learned something very valuable," Cranford said. "If you have a CAT scan on a patient that you think is in a vegetative state and it does not show progressive atrophy within six to 12 months, then you might want to reconsider the diagnosis."

Making absolute diagnosis 'not totally responsible'

Dr. David Stevens is a physician and medical ethicist who serves as executive director of the Christian Medical Association. He believes there is a different and more important lesson to be learned -- that "being an absolutist" when making a medical diagnosis based only on observation and opinion "is not totally responsible.

"Unfortunately, oftentimes, medical opinions can be 'flavored' with the individual's own worldview and preconceptions," Stevens said. "And, in Dr. Cranford's situation, I think, though he accuses others of that, he is guilty of the same thing.

"He is a 'right-to-die' proponent. He believes there are people who have lives not worthy to be lived, and those lives should be ended," Stevens continued, "and that colors him and his medical opinions. And examples of that are overstating the case to assure that people's feeding tubes are removed."

Cranford said that he has "never been a member of any organization that's primary purpose was to advocate active euthanasia because I'm not that supportive of active euthanasia."

However, he joined the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, an organization created when the Society for the Right to Die and Concern for Dying merged in 1991. Research by Cybercast News Service shows that both of those groups had previously changed their names to remove the word "euthanasia" in response to negative publicity.

Cranford also told reporters in 1991 that he wanted to be known as "Doctor Humane Death." He has since publicly claimed to have facilitated the deaths of between 25 and 50 disabled patients by removing the feeding tubes that provided their nutrition and hydration.

PVS diagnosis 'based on probabilities, not absolutes'

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) defines a "persistent vegetative state" as a condition that appears within one month after a brain injury and in which the patient shows:

-No evidence of awareness of self or environment and an inability to interact with others;
-No evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli;
-No evidence of language comprehension or _expression;
-Intermittent wakefulness manifested by the presence of sleep-wake cycles;
-Sufficiently preserved hypothalamic and brainstem autonomic functions to permit survival with medical and nursing care;
-Bowel and bladder incontinence; and
-Variably preserved cranial nerve (pupillary, oculocephalic, corneal, vestibulo-ocular, gag) and spinal reflexes.

The academy also states that "recovery of consciousness from post-traumatic PVS after 12 months in adults and children is unlikely. Recovery from non-traumatic PVS after 3 months is exceedingly rare." AAN guidelines finally explain that the diagnosis of a "permanent vegetative state" is, "as with all clinical diagnoses in medicine, based on probabilities, not absolutes."

Stevens said that last criterion is the main problem with the types of absolute statements made by doctors like Cranford when giving a PVS diagnosis.

"With persistent vegetative state, that diagnosis is based upon an observation and an opinion," Stevens said. "The diagnosis itself carries with it a prognosis -- in other words, that people are not going to recover, that this is permanent and that, therefore, you can do things like were done with Terri Schiavo, where her feeding tube was removed.

"A number of cases have shown this not to be the case," Stevens said. "The one that [Cranford] was involved in is a good example of that, but there are other cases as well, where patients thought to be in a persistent vegetative state have then recovered, some of them quite significantly."

Cybercast News Service found more than two dozen cases where published news reports document patients diagnosed as being in a persistent or permanent vegetative state, or coma "waking up," including:

Recovery after three years - Marcello Manunza suffered a brain injury during a car crash in November 1987. In July 1990, relatives noticed that he was following them around the room with his eyes and appeared to be trying to read encouraging signs that had been placed in his nursing home room. Within days he was able to eat, control the movement of his limbs and speak;

Recovery after seven years - Hawaii resident Peter Sana lapsed into a coma after contracting meningitis, an inflammation of the membrane that encloses the brain and spinal cord. He was in a Honolulu nursing home in September 2001 when he began responding to commands from nurses. Sana's father visited him every day during the seven years. His caregivers credit visits by family members with giving Sana the will to wake up;

Recovery after eight years - The first thing Conley Holbrook said after rousing from a PVS in 1991 was "Momma." He then identified the two men who had beaten him unconscious with a log on Nov. 27, 1982. Holbrook awoke while he was hospitalized for pneumonia; and

Recovery after 18 years - In 1983, Patti White Bull of South Dakota was diagnosed as being in a coma or PVS due to complications from a Caesarean section. Two months later, her husband and other family members removed her from life support. On Christmas Day 1999, White Bull woke up and asked to see her children. A day later, she was walking around her nursing home room with assistance.

A 1996 study published in the British Medical Journal found that 43 percent of patients in the United Kingdom thought to be in a PVS had been misdiagnosed. Of the 40 patients whose cases were reviewed, 17 were later found to be "alert, aware and often able to express a simple wish."

A 1993 study of 49 patients found that 18 of them, or 37 percent, "were diagnosed inaccurately.

"Errors in diagnosis may result from confusion in terminology, lack of\super \nosupersub extended observation of patients, and lack of skill or training in the assessment of neurologically devastated patients," according to the study, published in "Neurology," the journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

Stevens said this is all the evidence that should be needed to call for a higher standard when it comes to diagnosing a patient as being in a persistent or permanent vegetative state.

"Unfortunately, right now, it's a circular diagnosis," Stevens explained. "Doctors who are advocates for it are willing to state absolutely that a patient is in PVS and then, when the patient comes out of PVS, then they use circular reasoning and say, 'Well, then they weren't in it at all.'"

Cranford admitted that a positron emission tomography, or PET scan, could have been conducted to confirm or disprove the diagnosis in the Schiavo case. The test measures the metabolism of the cerebral cortex and patients in a verifiable PVS typically have less than 50 percent of the PET scan activity of a healthy brain.

"The only reliable PET scan in the country that could do this would be in New York City. And had I known this case would have gone to this point, I would have advocated that (PET scan) three years ago during the evidentiary hearing," Cranford said. "But we never knew Congress would get involved."

Cranford said he also did not recommend the test because he believed that neither Terri's husband, nor her parents would want her moved to New York City. That explanation troubled Stevens.

"If you cannot make a firm and absolute diagnosis, you shouldn't make a firm and absolute decision about what you're going to do with those patients based on that diagnosis," Stevens said.

The Christian bio-ethicist also believes that the circumstances under which a patient, like Terri Schiavo, can be denied nutrition and hydration should be much more limited.

"We must have clear, compelling and written evidence that that is the patient's desire before that is removed," Stevens argued, adding that allowing such decisions to be made based on hearsay testimony creates the potential for conflicts of interest, especially when those testifying stand to gain financially from the death of the disabled individual.

Even when such a written directive not to use a feeding tube to keep a patient alive exists, Stevens argued that the physician's ethical responsibility continues.

"The critical issue is that, if you do not put a feeding tube in, you must, you must offer food and water by mouth," Stevens said. "If you don't do that, it's not the disease that kills the patient. It's you that kills the patient.

"That was the big ethical issue, the most foundational issue in the Terri Schiavo case," Stevens said. "That is like not only taking someone off a respirator because it's futile, but also, at the same time, removing all of the oxygen from the room.

"Your intent is not to remove a burdensome therapy," Stevens concluded. "Your intent is to remove a burdensome patient."