Depression Drug Illegally Marketed to Kids, Kickbacks Paid, FDA Approved Anyway

Written by Derek Markham
VIA EcoChildsPlay
March 22, 2009

A five year probe of Forest Laboratories by the U.S. Justice Department into illegal marketing of Lexapro to children has an ironic twist to it: The FDA just approved the use of Lexapro for depression in children.

“Federal health care programs have paid thousands of false and fraudulent claims for Celexa and Lexapro prescriptions that were not covered for off-label pediatric use and/or were ineligible for payment as a result of illegal kickbacks paid by Forest.”

On February 25, the Justice Department accused Forest of bribing pediatricians to prescribe Celexa and Lexapro with things like spa visits, sports tickets, Broadway shows, and fishing trips. On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration gave the go-ahead to use Lexapro to treat depression in adolescents aged 12 to 17.

Federal prosecutors say Celexa is not any more effective for children or teenagers than taking a placebo, and more patients taking Celexa attempted suicide or reported suicidal thoughts.

The Justice Department prosecutors also claim that both Lexapro and Celexa, another of Forest’s antidepressants, have been improperly used for treating depression in children for a long time. One study showed that Celexa was not effective for use in children, and even Forest admits that the effectiveness was not shown in two different studies, a Lexapro trial with patients aged 7 to 17 and another study of Celexa in adolescents.

Even weirder, Forest Laboratories said that Lexapro’s ability to maintain control of symptoms in adolescents had not been demonstrated, but the FDA concluded that maintenance efficacy can be “extrapolated” from adult data. How’s that for federal intervention – the FDA contradicts the maker of the drug. Makes me wish we had a “WTF?” category for this blog, ’cause “Health” is kinda misleading…

Forest Labs claims that 2 million adolescents in the United States are affected by depression, and Lexapro is only the second approved drug for that age group.

Not surprising, Lexapro is Forest Laboratories’ highest selling product, bringing in over $2 billion a year, and the fifteenth top seller of all prescription drugs in the US.

So who’s getting paid off here?

There’s never any mention made in studies of depression in children about diet or lifestyle, yet many experts have made the connection between the foods we eat and the way we feel. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our practice of prescribing drugs to children was a last resort and not driven by a heavily marketed, payola-based scheme?

British MP George Galloway is banned from Canada

Mr Galloway’s comments on Iraq led to his expulsion from the Labour Party.

Via GlobalResearch.ca

George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, has been banned from Canada on security grounds, the country’s immigration service has confirmed.

Mr Galloway, a Respect Party MP, said the ban was “idiotic” and he would look at legal action to try to overturn it.

British media reported the decision was due to his views on Afghanistan and the presence of Canadian troops there.

The anti-war MP was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 because of his outspoken comments on the Iraq war.

Mr Galloway said he was not prepared to accept what he described as an “inexplicable decision” and indicated he would challenge it with all means at his disposal.

“This has further vindicated the anti-war movement’s contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are,” he said.

“All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me or not, will oppose this outrageous decision.”

‘Mock trial’

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada confirmed the MP would not be allowed into the country on national security grounds.

He said the decision had been taken by border security officials “based on a number of factors” in accordance with the country’s immigration act.

Mr Galloway had been due to speak at a public forum, Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, in Toronto on 30 March.

In 2006 he was detained “on grounds of national security” at Cairo airport after heading to Egypt to attend a “mock trial” of then PM Tony Blair and then US President George Bush.

Mr Galloway became the figurehead for the anti-war Respect party after being expelled from Labour.

His expulsion followed comments on the Iraq war which Labour chairman Ian McCartney said “incited foreign forces to rise up against British troops”.

The party acted following a number of TV interviews, including one in which Mr Galloway accused Tony Blair and President Bush of acting “like wolves” in invading Iraq.

Mr Galloway said it had been a “politically motivated kangaroo court”.

Missouri Governor Stands Behind MIAC Smear Report

There should be a donation pool specifically to fund a slander/libel suit and pay for security for those involved.

Campaign for Liberty donation page:

https://www.campaignforliberty.com/donate.php

Nixon defends document that equates Ron Paul supporters & people who display bumper stickers with terrorists, says feds will continue to issue similar reports

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, March 20, 2009

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has defended a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that smears Ron Paul supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists.

As we revealed in our exclusive report last week, a leaked secret report distributed by the federal Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists.

The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.

Police are educated in the document that people are are anti-abortion, own gold, display an assortment of U.S. flags, or even those that talk about the film Zeitgeist, view the police as their “enemy” and conflates them with domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph and other domestic militia groups who have been charged with plotting terrorist attacks.

Governor Nixon defended the report yesterday, stating, “Getting information, especially public information, out of our fusion center out to local law enforcement agencies is we do every day and we’re going to continue to do,” said Nixon. “Any way they take that information and can analyze what the threat levels are is important to make sure the public stays safe.”

Both Governor Nixon and the Missouri Information Analysis Center may have acted foolishly in refusing to denounce the report for what it is – a completely inaccurate smear which if anything makes America less safe from terrorists because it identifies as terrorists some of the most patriotic groups one can imagine.

The fact that the document clearly constitutes libel and defamation has not gone unnoticed by Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Bob Barr, who have agreed to pursue legal action if the report is not withdrawn.

The three former presidential candidates have sent a letter to Missouri officials protesting the MIAC report. Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Baldwin said that he and his fellow letter signatories will consider legal action if the letter does not result in a repudiation of the MIAC report and its absurd allegations.

House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

Legislation intensifies fears about Obama’s civilian national security force

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009

The House passed a bill yesterday which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs as fears about President Barack Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” intensify.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, was passed yesterday by a 321-105 margin and now goes to the Senate.

Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.

The Senate is also considering a similar piece of legislation known as the “Serve America Act,” which also includes language about “Youth Engagement Zones”.

Fears about Obama’s plans to create involuntary servitude were first stoked in July 2008, when Obama told a rally in Colorado Springs, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Despite denials that Obama plans to institute a mandatory program of national service, his original change.gov website stated that Americans would be “required” to complete “50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year”. The text was only later changed to state that Americans would be “encouraged” to undertake such programs.

In addition, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, publicly stated his intention to help create “universal civil defense training” in 2006.

“The bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service,” reports Fox.

“We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn’t emulate and probably can’t imagine,” said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. “The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative.”

Lee Cary of the conservative American Thinker warns that Obama’s agenda is to, “tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda.”

CFR luminary Gary Hart hit back at critics, claiming in a Huffington Post piece that, “Resistance to expanded public service programs can be expected from the ideologically sclerotic, those who occupy the negative ground between government as the problem and government as our enemy.”

The frightening prospect of Obama’s mandatory government servitude is covered in-depth in Alex Jones’ new documentary blockbuster, The Obama Deception. Subscribe to prison planet.tv now to watch the film in high-quality, watch it for free here or buy the DVD, make copies and spread the word.

Preposterous CO law claims ownership of rainwater that falls on private property. Citizens rightfully defy law by collecting it.

Environmentalists and others like to gather it in containers for use in drier times. But state law says it belongs to those who bought the rights to waterways.

“If you try to collect rainwater, well, that water really belongs to someone else,” said Doug Kemper, executive director of the Colorado Water Congress. “We get into a very detailed accounting on every little drop.”

Frank Jaeger of the Parker Water and Sanitation District, on the arid foothills south of Denver, sees water harvesting as an insidious attempt to take water from entities that have paid dearly for the resource.

“Every drop of water that comes down keeps the ground wet and helps the flow of the river,” Jaeger said. He scoffs at arguments that harvesters like Holstrom only take a few drops from rivers. “Everything always starts with one little bite at a time.”

Increasingly, however, states are trying to make the practice more welcome. Bills in Colorado and Utah, two states that have limited harvesting over the years, would adjust their laws to allow it in certain scenarios, over the protest of people like Jaeger.

Organic farmers and urban dreamers aren’t the only people pushing to legalize water harvesting. Developer Harold Smethills wants to build more than 10,000 homes southwest of Denver that would be supplied by giant cisterns that capture the rain that falls on the 3,200-acre subdivision. He supports the change in Colorado law.

“We believe there is something to rainwater harvesting,” Smethills said. “We believe it makes economic sense.”

Collected rainwater is generally considered “gray water,” or water that is not reliably pure enough to drink but can be used to water yards, flush toilets and power heaters. In some states, developers try to include a network of cisterns and catchment pools in every subdivision, but in others, those who catch the rain tend to do so covertly.

In Colorado, rights to bodies of water are held by entities who get preference based on the dates of their claims. Like many other Western states, Colorado has more claims than available water, and even those who hold rights dating back to the late 19th century sometimes find they do not get all of the water they should.

“If I decide to [take rainwater] in 2009, somewhere, maybe 100 miles downstream, there’s a water right that outdates me by 100 years” that’s losing water, said Kevin Rein, assistant state engineer.

State Sen. Chris Romer found out about this facet of state water policy when he built his ecological dream house in Denver, entirely powered by solar energy. He wanted to install a system to catch rainwater, but the state said it couldn’t be permitted.

“It was stunning to me that this common-sense thing couldn’t be done,” said Romer, a Democrat. He sponsored a bill last year to allow water harvesting, but it did not pass.

“Welcome to water politics in Colorado,” Romer said. “You don’t touch my gun, you don’t touch my whiskey, and you don’t touch my water.”

Romer and Republican state Rep. Marsha Looper introduced bills this year to allow harvesting in certain circumstances. Armed with a study that shows that 97% of rainwater that falls on the soil never makes it to streams, they propose to allow harvesting in 11 pilot projects in urban areas, and for rural users like Kris Holstrom whose wells are depleted by drought.

In contrast to the high-stakes maneuvering in the capital, Holstrom looks upon the state’s regulation of rainwater with exasperated amusement.

Holstrom, director of sustainability for Telluride, and her husband, John, have lived on their farm since 1988. During the severe drought at the start of this decade, their well began drying up. Placing rain barrels under the gutters was the natural thing to do, said Holstrom, 51.

“Rain out here comes occasionally, and can come really hard,” she said. “To be able to store it for when you need it is really great.”

Holstrom had a vague awareness of state regulations. She decided to test it last summer when she was teaching a class on water harvesting. She called the state water department, which told her it was technically illegal, though it was unlikely that she would be cited.

Holstrom is known in southwestern Colorado for a lifestyle and causes that many deem quixotic. The land she and her husband own holds a yurt and tepees to house “interns” who help on their organic farm in the summers. It boasts a greenhouse, which even on a recent snowy day held an oasis of rosemary, artichokes, salad greens and a fig tree.

She plucked a bit of greens from one plant and munched on it as goldfish swam in a small, algae-filled pond that helps heat the enclosure. “This has been my passion for a long time — trying to live the best way I know how,” she said.

nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com

L.A. Times Op-Ed: Anti-Zionism Is Hate Crime

UCLA professor conflates Judaism and political doctrine of Zionism in an attempt to argue criticism of Israel is racist

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A prominent L.A. Times editorial confuses the political movement of Zionism with semites as a race in an attempt to argue that anti-Zionism is worse than anti-Semitism and should be treated as a hate crime.

The op-ed, written by Judea Pearl, the father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, asks in its headline, Is anti-Zionism Hate? The question is answered by the sub headline, “Yes. It is more dangerous than anti-Semitism, threatening lives and peace in the Middle East.”

Pearl is a professor at UCLA and the president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which includes amongst its honorary members Bill Clinton, the Queen of Jordan and writer Eliezer Wiesel, who has attracted controversy for his support of Jewish terrorist group Irgun and his indifference to historical massacres of Palestinians.

Noam Chomsky criticized Wiesel for once stating, “I support Israel—period. I identify with Israel—period. I never attack, never criticize Israel when I am not in Israel.”

The L.A. Times article essentially tries to argue that everyone, particularly academia, should adhere to Wiesel’s mantra and refrain from criticizing the government of Israel and its policies. It does so by deliberately and underhandedly conflating Jews, Israel and ZIonism into one single entity.

Pearl states that criticism of Zionism is “discriminatory,” “immoral,” and “dangerous,” because it “rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation — a collective bonded by a common history — and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace.”

Jews are a nation? That’s news to me – last time I checked Judaism was not a race or a nation, it was a religion.

Very early in the article, Jews, Zionism and Israel have lost all definition and are conflated as one and the same.

“Anti-Semitism rejects Jews as equal members of the human race; anti-Zionism rejects Israel as an equal member in the family of nations,” writes Pearl, further conflating Zionism with some kind of biblical legacy by claiming that, “Jews are a nation first and religion second….the unshaken conviction in their eventual repatriation to the birthplace of their history has been the engine behind Jewish endurance and hopes throughout their turbulent journey that started with the Roman expulsion in AD 70.”

Again, Pearl’s agenda is to veil Zionism with the camouflage of Judaism and the country of Israel. Zionism is not a country and it does not have a biblical history to ally it with Judaism as Pearl attempts to argue. According to the dictionary definition, Zionism is a “movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.” It has no connection whatsoever with “the birthplace of their history” or “the Roman expulsion in AD 70″ as Pearl claims.

Additionally, labeling Jews as a race is completely asinine. One can make the case that semites are a race, but even in this case such a definition would include “any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia,” according to Wikipedia.

In attempting to make the case that Zionism wholly represents Jews as a race of people and Israel as a country, Pearl tries to scoff at and downplay the massive number of Jews who oppose the Zionist political doctrine.

Groups such as Jews Not Zionists, True Torah Jews Against Zionism, and Neturei Karta – Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism, represent a significant number of Jews who make the case that “The ideology of Zionism is in total opposition to the teachings of traditional Judaism”.

“There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called “State of Israel” is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called “State of Israel” is illegitimate,” according to the JewsNotZionists organization.

As we have vehemently argued, Zionists are attempting to equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism as a means of silencing opposition to their brutal political agenda. This has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people against racism and everything to do with shutting down criticism of the Israeli government and its warmongering policies which, with the support of the U.S. elite, have made life a living hell for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East for centuries.

unClick Google

We can force Google to stop their privacy violations while ridding the internet of advertising… by clicking ads.

On March 11, Google revealed its latest plan to violate your privacy: they will now record the types of websites you visit in order to gather a behavioral profile of your interests purportedly so that they can send you targeted advertising. This policy is in addition to their current policy of keeping a record of every single web search you have ever made along with as much other personally identifying information as they can gather. Of course, these behavioral profiles and detailed search histories will also be made available to law enforcement personnel upon request. The disregard for user privacy is a long standing tradition at Google and one that should be challenged. Just as Facebook was recently forced to cave after protests, Google too can be made to backtrack from their creeping violations of our privacy. Every company has their weak point, for Facebook it is the fear that users will stop using the site, and for Google it is the necessity of increasing their advertising revenue. I propose that we collectively embark on a civil disobedience campaign of intentional, automated “click fraud” in order to undermine Google’s advertising program with the goal of forcing Google to adopt a pro-privacy corporate policy.

As every internet user knows, the web is inundated with advertising. Many of these ads are generated automatically by Google. Unlike advertisements in newspapers or on billboards which are priced per impression (the more people that see an ad the more expensive it is), Google’s ads are priced per click. Therefore, every time you click on a Google AdSense advertisement, some advertiser must pay Google. If the ad you clicked on was displayed on a website other than Google’s then Google must also pay that website. As you can see, if ads are being clicked on automatically then the whole house of cards upon which the AdSense system is built on crumbles. Advertisers will refuse to pay Google and Google will refuse to pay websites.

Because Google ads are targeted, certain advertisers are willing to pay top dollar for clicks. Some keywords such as insurance, refinance and “IRS problem” are rumored to be worth more than $10 per click. Click fraud can very quickly do major damage to Google and its advertisers but the fact is there is nothing Google can do to stop it, if we work together.

The system I propose is quite simple and is accomplished in three steps: 1) Install Firefox and restart Firefox 2) Install GreaseMonkey (a useful plug-in for Firefox) 3) Install the Blackspot Google GreaseMonkey script or if you are on a slow network install the Blackspot Google Randomly script which will only click on one ad randomly.

Now, whenever you use Google your computer will automatically click on all the AdSense advertisements sending a message to Google to stop their privacy violations.

Note: If you are a techie and want to get involved with this campaign, we need a version of this script that will both remove the ads from our sight and click them automatically. The best would be integration of this script into Adblock Plus. Unfortunately, this script does not work with Adblock Plus so if you want to use Adblock Plus (you should!) then you must disable it on google.com in order to automatically click their ads. If you are a programmer, post your upgraded version of this script below. (Update: One person has already posted an updated version, but I haven’t tested it yet.)

Special thanks to Alf at Hublog for designing the prototype of this script four years ago which I upgraded to work today.

Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters Magazine and an independent activist. He can be reached at www.micahmwhite.com or micah[at]adbusters.org

Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 12, 2009

Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.

Click here to download a PDF of the report

Click on above thumbnails to see larger images.

The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.

“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”

MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country. “As of February 2009, there were 58 fusion centers around the country. The Department has deployed 31 officers as of December 2008 and plans to have 70 professionals deployed by the end of 2009. The Department has provided more than $254 million from FY 2004-2007 to state and local governments to support the centers,” explains the Department of Homeland Security on its website. Missouri is mentioned as a participant in this federal “intelligence” effort.

Last month, the ACLU issued a news release highlighting the activity of a fusion center in Texas as the “latest example of inappropriate police intelligence operations targeting political, religious and social activists for investigation,” in particular “Muslim civil rights organizations and anti-war protest groups.”

The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order. The MIAC document is a classic guilt by association effort designed to demonize legitimate political activity that stands in opposition to the New World Order and its newly enshrined front man, Barack Obama.

In September of 2008, Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors organized truth squads to intimidate people opposed to Obama and threatened to arrest and prosecute anybody who ran “misleading television ads.” Missouri governor Matt Blunt eventually denounced the use of “police state tactics” on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign.

MIAC claims members of a “rightwing” militia movement organized in the 1990s — generally in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and the events at Waco — “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created” and supposedly exploited by “constitutionalists” and “white supremacists,” the latter an oft-employed canard used to demonize activists as dangerous and potentially violent lunatics.

MIAC notes many of the political issues cited by the so-called patriot movement — the Ammunition Accountability Act, the impending economic collapse of the government, the possibility of a constitutional convention, the North American Union, Obama’s “Universal Service Program,” and the implementation of RFID, issues that are not limited to the patriot movement but are shared by a wide array of political activists.

The MIAC document includes a map of the North American Union not dissimilar from one released by NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition (see the NASCO map here).

The MIAC report is similar to one created by the Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Joint Terrorism Task Force during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The FBI document explicitly designates “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” The MIAC report expands significantly on the earlier document.

In order to artificially heighten the perceived threat threshold, MIAC rolls in Christian Identity, white nationalism, “militant” anti-abortion activists, opposition to illegal immigration, and income tax resistance. MIAC deceptively blurs the lines between these disparate political ideologies and underscores the possibility for violence in a summary of the organizational structure of the militia movement and a section describing how members strive to train in “combat readiness.”

The MIAC effort to characterize Libertarians and Constitutionalists as racists is reminiscent of an attempt by the corporate media in early 2008 to portray Ron Paul as a racist by attempting to link him to a series of vaguely racist newsletters produced in the 1980s. Paul did not exercise editorial control over the newsletters and went so far as to apologize for them, but this did not prevent the corporate media from characterizing him as a racist.

According to MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a threat to the police. “The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps,” the document claims in a section entitled “You are the Enemy.”

In regard to supposed militia movement literature and media, the MIAC report mentions Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism and William Luther Pierce’s The Turner Diaries — the latter was penned by the former leader of the white nationalist organization National Alliance and the former by a Libertarian filmmaker. In order to underscore the absurdity of the MIAC attempt to link Pierce’s novel and Russo’s anti-tax documentary, it should be noted that the late Aaron Russo was Jewish and The Turner Dairies posits a Zionist government in America (or ZOG, the Zionist Occupation Government) run by Jews.

The award-winning film Zeitgeist, featuring Alex Jones, is also mentioned as terrorist material.

The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists.

MIAC is attempting to radicalize the police against political activity guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If Missouri police indoctrinated by MIAC propaganda overreact to political activists and supporters of Ron Paul in their state and injure or kill people involved in entirely legal and legitimate political activity, MIAC, the governor of Missouri (his name appears on the MIAC document), and the DHS and federal government should be held directly responsible and prosecuted the fullest extent of the law.