Maybe Michigan Should Lend California a Helping Hand

Lake Drought

Today I read an alarmist article about how the drought in California is so bad that they only have 1 year’s worth of fresh water left in their reservoir system.  To put it in perspective right out of the gate, the article explained that the amount of water lost in California reservoirs amounts to twice the total volume of Lake Mead – which happens to be America’s LARGEST reservoir.

Sounds pretty scary, right?

Let’s talk about Lake Mead for a moment.  This body of water, located in Nevada, is man-made being the result of water from the Colorado River backing up behind the Hoover Dam.  Here’s some pictures for perspective:

Some quick wiki research reveals that Lake Mead has a volume of about 32 cubic kilometers of water.  That’s a lot of water.

Or is it?

Enter Lake Superior.

This, the largest of the Great Lakes, is comprised of truly super-massive proportions of fresh water.  It is the largest lake in the world by surface area and the third largest freshwater lake for total volume of water.  It’s so large in fact, that all of the other great lakes could fit inside of it.  Have a look.

Lke Size Comparison

How much water you ask?

Nearly 12,000 cubic kilometers of water.  Lake Mead represents less than 3/10 of 1% of the amount of water that is in Lake Superior.

You know about all that ruckus about stopping the Keystone Pipeline?  I wonder if there would be as much backlash if we Michiganders decided to lend our California brethren a helping hand with a pipeline of our own.

I mean, seriously.  We could throw 2x the volume of water that’s in Lake Mead their way and it wouldn’t even be noticeable over here.  More water probably evaporates off the face of Lake Superior in a hot summer than that.

And that would be a one-time thing.  Build the pipeline, give them water, close pipeline.  In 10 years, when there’s another drought…we open the pipeline again.  Seems simple to me.

Of course, we’d let those rich people in Cali pick up the bill for it.

Can the Red Cross See What I’m Thinking?

The Red Cross just raised their game to a whole ‘nother level. Recently I’ve been thinking that the organization is a For Profit company masking itself as a non-profit. After all, they hire professional nurses and have a very well organized telemarketing thing going in order to get me coming back in to donate blood on a consistent basis. It’s clear that the hospitals are paying them money to for the blood that they get from the organization and they’re probably paying BIG too.

My guess is that the pint of blood that I donate for free sells to a hospital for $250 to $500 when all is said an done. Probably closer to the $500 mark. Maybe more. It would have to in order to keep the buildings open, the nurses employed, paying for all that tubing that they use to get the blood OUT of me, all the testing that goes on in the background to ensure my blood isn’t tainted with AIDS, and all the rest. It’s expensive and I’ve gotta believe that people are NOT throwing truckloads of cash at the Red Cross.

Susan G. Coleman has the race for the cure to raise money all over the place…but where do you hear about the Red Cross doing consistent organized fund raising? Where’s their version of the Walk for the Cure? Me thinks that it doesn’t exist because they don’t NEED it. They have a constant flow of people coming in to donate at centers all over the nation and they convert those pint-sized bags of blood into cash on demand.

They’re always call up saying that there’s a severe shortage of blood. How can that be? They have the most organized and consistent follow up program in the world? Count out 7 weeks from my last donation and they call again to set up that next appointment. I’m busy so I send those calls to voicemail all the time. No problem. They call back. Different days. Different times of the day so they can catch me when I’m more available. If I cancel an appointment, give it a week and they’re calling again to reschedule. If they’re doing this with MILLIONS of people, then I gotta believe that there is no shortage of blood. The only way that can be true is if by “shortage” they mean that there’s not enough bags of blood in the Red Cross refrigerators – because they sold it all and need to get some more if they want to be able to get some more cash anytime soon.

Anyway, that’s the long way of saying that while I try to be consistent about donating blood, I feel a little bit weird about it. Like I said before, it feels like the Red Cross is a bit of a for profit company that is masquerading as a non-profit. I don’t even want to Google up how much their CEO gets paid each year for fear I’ll never commit to donating again.

But check out what they just sent me in my email today!

Red Cross Email

You see that? This was the SMARTEST thing that they could ever do. I have always wondered where my blood goes once I donate it. As they have 40 different bar codes on all the various elements of the donation “stuff” in order to track it through the screening process and such, it’s clear that they could look it up and tell me where the blood went.

But now they’re doing it!

This was pure genius! With millions of donors on their email list, telling them where the blood actually went goes a long way toward giving the donors a reinforced vision that their consistent pattern of donating really DOES go to help real people in need. After reading an article about America’s Worst Charities I was a bit freaked about going to the Red Cross. What if they were just a giant money pit too?

This short email shored up my doubts. I’ve always wondered where my own blood was going and it appears that the Red Cross was able to see my thoughts because they pushed that very real hot button.

Even if the Red Cross really IS getting paid truckloads of money for every pint of my blood that they sell to a hospital, ultimately that blood is going into the veins of a real person who really does need it. I think I might just use their handy little app to lock in my next donation appointment.

The Mind, the Person, and the Twilight Zone

So I was doing my quite time this morning and at the end my thoughts were wandering and I was thinking about “the I”.

As in, it’s weird that materialists (atheists who believe that everything that exists actually exists because of a series of guided accidents ) think that simply connecting a bunch of wires together can create a self-aware person. That’s what they believe. That if you connect enough neurological electrical connections together that mass of connections can become a self-aware person.

They’d never say that if you connected a bunch of extension cords together randomly and plugged the mess in that it would create self-awareness….but they believe that all that “we” are is just electrical connections firing off in some way that we think that we are something more than a giant twisting of electrons….when we’re not. We’re just playing a trick on ourselves in order to pass our genes on to the next generation more reliably and when we die, that “I” illusion ceases to exist and so do we.

Say they.

Of course I don’t believe that. I would point out that we can connect two neurons together in a petri dish and make them fire off manually and of course the materialist would say that, no, that’s not a “person”. I’d say we could string 2, 3, or 300 neurons together and the materialist would say that’s not a person. So when DOES the connects become a person? Why believe that the connection are both the hardware AND the software of the mental computer?

Why do we not instead see it as the electrical connections form nothing more than the hardware component and maybe a small system bios while the “I” – the person – is a software component that cannot be identified? That it’s origin may not be able to be seen or discovered through the instruments of science? It certainly exists – we have ample evidence for that – but what if “personhood” is cloaked from view forever because it extends from the Divine? From God? And because we can’t “see” God with science we can’t see the part of us that is made in his image? The person. The “I”. The “we”.

That was where my thoughts ended and I stood up.

I came into my home office, turned on my email and saw THIS waiting for me from a motivational speaker that I follow. Can you say TWILIGHT ZONE?


The Secret to High Self Esteem

I never saw this connection before Neil Schwartz pointed it out in this video.  The idea is really revolutionary and it makes perfect sense.  It can be applies to all areas of life…not just if you’re involved in real estate.

If you’re breathing air then you owe it to yourself to watch this video, take what it says to heart, and see how you can apply it in your own life.


Comments Worth Considering #1 – Contrasting Transgender People and White People

Aniston Thinking About It

I’m guessing that I’m like a lot of you in that I read a lot of news articles online. Just like major news outlets pumped through television, it’s pretty clear that certain online news portals like to focus on “their thing”. So Fox News is conservative and wants to promote the Tea Party agenda. CNN wants to push a more liberal agenda while at the same time trying their best to disguise that and appear truly balanced. Yahoo News seems want to go down in history as the media site which single-handedly launched the gay marriage and LGBT-rights causes while wrapping it in “other stuff” to try and seem like that’s not the only thing that they care about.

Over time I’ve discovered that often, the most interesting aspect of news stories can be found in the comments. Some individuals will post a thought related to the article that is so clear and invoking that it turns the message of the article on its head and you just go, “Why did I think of that?” It’s so often the case that I’ve decided to start up a new series here on my personal blog entitled “Comments Worth Considering”.

Our first post in this series will center around a piece found on Yahoo News praising a local public school for supporting a transgender man who wants to become a non-man by sending out a voice broadcast to the school parents alerting them to the fact. You can read the piece here: School Tries to Support Transgender Man With Voice Broadcast

The comments were, of course, wide and varied – and often nasty. The one nugget of gold found in the mire though was put up by John Matthews who said:

If I’m born a white man and tell people I’m black because I always felt black and should be eligible for black scholarships I’d be considered crazy. If I’m born a man and tell people I’m a woman because I always felt like a woman and should be allowed to play womens’ lacrosse nobody blinks an eye? What’s the difference? Biology chooses your race, your gender, your species, etc. We don’t get to pick and choose.

I thought that this was really insightful. It points out clearly how society will just “decide” that a particular cause needs to be supported and another is completely irrational. As far as I can tell, there’s no real “reason” for this. Oh people will come up with reasons, but those reasons could have been brought up before and they would not have been accepted as valid by the public and in 50 years, if social sentiments change, the reasonings of today could be decried as without merit.

Let me put it another way to make it a bit more clear.

If you could jump in a time machine and zoom back 50+ years and sit down in the lunch room of a Ford plant, an engineering firm, or a fabric store and tell the workers who were munching down their bologna sandwiches that in the not-so-distant-future you’d have a hue and cry pushing for gay marriage and both passively and actively shunning and shamming those who would speak against it – you’d either be called a nutcase or laughed out of the room.

If you told these same group of workers that the news media would be positioning a school as heroic and forward-thinking for sending voice broadcast messages out to the families that a man wanted to mutilate himself in an effort to try and mimic the physical characteristics of a woman as closesly as possible and that they would not only believe that there would NOT be some type of backlash from the families, but that the families would be EXPECTED to fall-in-line and embrace such a situation as “normal” and “progressive” and something to be championed by all…again, you would receive a sharp and harsh negative reaction.

Time passes though and opinions change. That’s the weird part about it. Those same young workers in the lunchrooms of our thought experiment are now “older and wiser” and are some of the most vocal supporters of this new wave of change. They would adamantly deny that they would ever have been the ones who would have spoken out again homosexuals back-in-the-day and would most likely position themselves as the ones who would have been “neutral” on the subject at that time.

The fact that there is no rhyme or reason to the thinking of the public is what we’re focusing on here and is the theme of Mr. John Matthew’s comment. It has to make us wonder, if the public can do a 180 on this whole gay marriage / LGBT rights issue…

What Else Will They Flip Flop On?


Let’s just imagine that the current trend of embracing “alternative lifestyles” has the unintended consequences of destroying the family matrix of the nation and sending it down the gutter with people starving and chaos reigning in the streets. Blood and destruction is everywhere and in a time of crisis a charismatic leader arises. You know – a Hitler type. He points out that it’s the fault of the gays and the public’s failure 50 years prior by embracing them that has brought the nation to such a desperate place and that the “scourge must be purged” in order to restore peace and normalcy to the country.

Everybody signs up, including the most vocal gay-marriage supporters of the Millennial generation (now in their 60’s and 70’s), and there’s a new holocaust perpetrated against homosexuals.

Think it can’t happen? Well the people in the lunch room didn’t think that what you’re seeing today could happen either.

Another Reason to Give Blood

Click to Enlarge

I went to the Red Cross yesterday to donate blood.  One of the things I like about it is that you essentially are scheduled to check your blood pressure a few times per year without having to pay to see a physician.  You can then try to take measures to address heart-health issues because you’re not young and foolish pretending that nothing could possible start to go wrong in your mid-30’s.

They tell me that the “bottom number” is the important one where blood pressure is concerned.  Anything over 90 is “high” with “really healthy” being in the 60’s.  Low 60’s and high 50’s are pretty much reserved for long distance runners and triathletes.  Scoring 56 or below is in the danger zone and indicates that there is an issue that needs to be addressed FAST.

Back in September when I donated my “bottom number” was 90 exactly.  I happened to have drank an entire coffee on the way IN to donate that day though, so I thought the super-dose of caffeinne might be to blame.  (Caffeinne raises blood pressure when present in the blood)  Fast-forward five months to February of this year when I donated again and it had only dropped 2 points to 88 and I had NOT consumed coffee on the way in.  Not a good sign.

Since the weather has been warmed up though, I’ve been getting up early and taking long, brisk walks for about 45 to 50 minutes.  I’ve heard from multiple sources that consistently walking at least 6 days a week is THE best thing that you can do for your health over the course of a lifetime.  Perhaps “they” are right because, as you can see from the picture, my diastolic figure has dropped 10 points to 78.

I’m starting to fall into the “healthy” range again.  Woo hoo!  My best that I have a handy record of is 124/74 in December of 2008.

In addition to the walking, I’ve also been taking fish oil supplements and between 3 and 5 grams of Vitamin C per day.  That might have something to do with it too.


More Propoganda to Lead Us to Believe That We’re Not Unique

More info spilling out from the scientific oligarchy regarding the Kepler space-based, planet-seeking telescope.  The verdict?  They found a planet that is so similar to earth that it can be considered a “cousin” planet.

Or so they would have us believe.

If you read the article, you can see how hard “they” are continuing to push to convince the public that our planet is not unique in the universe.  It even comes with pretty pictures depicting a place that looks very much like our own home.  After all, if Kepler found a bunch of planets in the “Goldilocks Zone” and they’ve only surveyed a fraction of the billions and billions of galaxies in the universe, then even if the planet in question does NOT support life, it just goes to show that given enough planets situated similarly in their own galaxies, then surely one of them must support life, right?  If life sprung up from rock dust all by itself here then it must have done it elsewhere too – or so goes the line of thought.

The general public, who DO regard the scientific community in the same way as past societies viewed their own shamans, are not really looking deeply into this entire “other earth” idea.  There’s a LOT more that goes into why our planet is UNIQUELY able to support life than size and distance from a host star.  I’ll just touch on two below.  Oh yeah, let’s remember that the same scientists readily admit that these factors MUST be in place to find life as we know it to exist.

  1. Magnetic Iron Core – the earth has a gigantic iron core which works to create a gigantic magnetic field that surrounds the entire planet.  At any given moment, this field is protecting the earth from uncountable billions of megawatts of harmful energy radiated from the sun.  Without this magnetic filed, life on earth would not be possible.  Any planet that lacks a magnetic core similar to ours then, would also not likely be able to support life.  Interesting how only ONE planet in our own solar system has one uniquely tweaked to maintain life.
  2. Water – go ahead and google “Where did earth’s water come from?” or something like that.  You’ll find recent pieces which go into detail on the theories of how the water arrived here.  Those theories are pretty crazy.  They pretty much center around the concept that the umpteen billions of gallons of water that are found in earth’s oceans, rivers, lakes, streams, polar ice caps, and glaciers hitched ride here over time by meteor impacts.  Apparently all this water-attraction happened BEFORE life somehow spontaneously arose from non-life – as this new “life” would need the water to be present already in order to survive.

    Everyone should check out the true-to-scale map of the solar system which shows how small each of the few planets in our solar system really are in comparison to size of the solar system itself.  Go ahead and scroll through that baby and make sure you get all the way out to Pluto.  It will give you some perspective on how small everything really is.  The idea of asteroids hitting our planet with enough water to fill the ocean basins becomes an obvious-to-the-eye joke.  If you were to fill up even ONE typically-sized asteroid with water and try to shoot it at the earth it would be like trying to shoot a pin-head with a rifle from 5 miles away by aiming up into the sky’s horizon and hoping that it arched down and connected with the pin at the end.  It’s statistically impossible.

    Now the idea that not only did this happen, but it happened a LOT is outright ridiculous.  The idea that it happened TWICE on another planet somewhere else should show how willing the scientific community is to grasp at straws in regards to our planet not being unique in the universe.  And we all know what the motivation behind THAT type of behavior is, don’t we?

Just those two should do it for now.  If both of the above are true (and they are) then we all should be wondering why we’re spending billions of dollars on the space program just so that we can help scientists try to build up “proofs” that everything has come about by accident as a result of stuff just smashing into each other over time after the big bang.  I tend to think that it requires more faith to lean that way instead of admitting that everything has been organized by an all-powerful creator who knew exactly what he was doing when he carved out a special place in the universe that he wanted to focus on – at least for a time.

It’s Things Like This That Make You Wonder if the Federal Government Knows What It’s Doing

Department of Treasury Check

So apparently the Department of Veterans Affairs overpaid me when they were distributing my Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to the University of Michigan.  That being the case they had the Department of Treasury contact me to setup a payment plan where I’d pay $50 p/month for 5 months this year to square up.

That’s fine with me.  So I sent the check in last month and yesterday I scratched out another payment and went to put in in the mailbox.  The postman had already been by for the day so I pulled out our new mail, slipped in the payment, and put up the little red flag.

I started shuffling through the mail while walking back toward my home and, wouldn’t you know it, there was an official envelope from the Department of Treasury.  My first thought was that it was going to be some notice saying that I needed to pay even more so I didn’t even open it until a while later.

When I did open it though, it was a check!  From the Department of Treasury.  The memo line said it was for my Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Benefits!?!?!?

So I’m sending them payments and they’re sending me payments.  It’s things like this that make me wonder if the Federal Government even knows what it’s doing.

Perhaps We SHOULD Amend the Second Amendment After All

We Want You To Support the Second Amendment

Recently, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made a statement decrying how, in his absence, the Supreme Court has chosen to affirm the individual’s right to keep and bear arms for their own protection and safety.  He even proposed that it would be best that we amended the Second Amendment to specify that the only rights people have to keep and bear arms would be while serving in the Militia.


The general thought from there would be that a conglomeration of Federal and State regulations would be used to control people’s ability to purchase firearms – and it is assumed that such regulations would do so in a much more stringent manner than we see today.

A recent article in Yahoo News examined Justice Stevens’ remarks and pretty much complained that the political state of affairs that we see in congress today would preclude ever seeing a proposal for such a change appearing for a vote in front of Congress.  The author then goes on to say that we could use the “alternative” method of amending the Constitution which is first initiated by the states.  He goes on again to whine that there is probably little hope that enough states would call for a convention and that even if they did, what might come out of such a meeting might backfire on those who would love nothing more than to see more gun control in our nation.

The entire article was a liberal sulk-fest.  There was obvious confusion on the part of the author.  He can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that a powerful majority of Americans want MORE access to guns, not less.  They want to be able to carry them EVERYWHERE they are lawfully able to go.  They do not want to find themselves saddled with a hodgepodge of regulations that require them to get out of their car and subsequently unload and case their pistol when driving through a certain area (be it a city, national park, or school zone) and then stop and re-arm themselves after passing beyond the opposite border of said area.

Anti-gunners actually believe that more people in America identify with their own feelings on this issue than don’t.  They believe that it’s captain obvious to everyone (even the pro-gun crowd) that we need to see guns completely removed from public possession and that “common sense” (read “harsh”) gun control regulation should be viewed as a steep compromise.  In their minds, those who stand in the way of “progress” and deep-down know that it’s only a matter of time before guns are relegated to the dustbin of history.  Yet, enamored with our guns and Bibles, we fight against progress.  Say they.

In fact, though, we pro-gun types don’t believe in the gun-free utopia where guns only exist in the hands of law enforcement officers and the military.  Deep down we really do believe that taking guns from the people is the first step to a totolatarian federal government that is hell-bend on the oppression of (even the elimination of) those who do not get on board with their “progressive” (i.e. liberal) ideology.

Original Assault RifleTruth-be-told, I wouldn’t mind seeing a change to the Second Amendment myself.  The ability of the people to resist tyrannical overstepping of federal power (as seen in the Nevada cattle ranch standoff) only exists if they have the arms to make a revolutionary final stand a reality.  If the Militia is representative of an ad-hoc group consisting of all men able to take up arms should the states need to throw off a government that has overstepped its bounds, then the militia should be able to be armed in the same manner as any standard company of infantry regulars would be.  After all, if the shooting started, it would be infantry regulars that would be ordered to fire upon the American people, correct?

Let’s consider some of the weapons assigned to infantry units while I myself was serving as an infantry rifleman in the Marine Corps.

  • Automatic M-16 – this rifle was equipped with a 3-round burst shooting mode which lands it in the “full auto” category according to the BATF.  Access to fully automatic assault rifles goes without saying if the Militia is to stand their ground and fight a guerrilla war against a federal government run amok.
  • Light Machine Guns – the M-249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) was hands-down my favorite gun that I was assigned to carry as a Marine.  This belt-fed weapon has a nice rate of fire and is light enough to be handled by infantry soldiers going house-to-house on foot.
  • Heavy Machine Guns – Marines MOS-assigned to machine gun teams specifically got to fire the M-240G.  This is a crew served weapon that traditionally requires more than one person to properly employ.  The 50-caliber BMG (Browning Machine Gun) also falls into this category.  A good number of Americans should have these in their possession at all times in case they need to be mustered to stand and fight against oppression.
  • Grenade Launchers – these come in different flavors.  The most common is seen in the hands of a squad-leader affixed to the bottom of his M-16 rifle but fully automatic versions which are attached to vehicles should be easily accessed by law-abiding citizens as well.  After all, if it’s issued to the infantry, it’s fair game for the Militia.
  • Shoulder Fired Rockets – these come in single-use packaging.  Pop up the sighting system, disengage the safety, aim at target, ensure nobody is behind you, and fire.  Might need a few of these if the Feds send in armored vehicles against the people of the United States of America should a Second Revolution be necessary.
  • One-Man Missile Systems – in the Marine Corps they used both the Predator, TOW, and Javelin missile systems.  These were expensive smart weapons to be primarily used against tanks and enemy soldiers holed up in fortified positions.  They were issued to Infantry Marines so they belong in the militia.  Portable S.A.M. weapons are also issued to infantry regulars and would be needed by a new generation of American freedom fighters.

Now that I think about it, maybe the states calling for a convention to amend the Constitution wouldn’t be so bad.  The anti’s can propose Justice Stevens’ verbiage and the pro-gun camp will offer up their own change which could read as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and of consisting of all able-bodied men who are both 18-years and older and free of past felony convictions, the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms including but not limited to those commonly assigned to infantry regulars, shall not be infringed.”

If the current string of victories is any indication where the people of America stand where gun legislation is concerned, I’m thinking that there is more chance that the above version come out of a Constitutional Convention than the one Justice Stevens would see us shackled with.  So maybe amending the Second Amendment isn’t such a bad idea after all.

The Fort Hood Shooter’s Motive

Fort Hood Shooter Motive

This second shooting episode is undoubtedly going to have people all over America asking, “What was the Fort Hood Shooter’s Motive?”

The news coming out of the Texas Army base seems to indicate that Ivan Lopez was actually a pretty good soldier that did not have a history of violence or discipline issues.  So why did he go on a shooting spree that killed 3 other people and injured 16 others?

It’s important that we try to peer through the lines here because everyone who has something to lose (or gain) in regards to this highly-publicized event are going to try to conceal anything that might undermine whatever cause they have spent years fighting for.

Currently, we are hearing the term PTSD thrown around a lot.  The key phrases that the media keep repeating over and over again is “self-diagnosed” with PTSD or “being evaluated for” PTSD.  That means that at some point the guy told someone somewhere that he thought he might have PTSD and perhaps that he had initiated the process for getting officially diagnosed.

PTSD being the contributing cause of this tragedy seems unlikely to me.  PTSD requires one to present with very specific conditions in order for a positive diagnosis.  One of these is that the person must have been involved in a rather socking (traumatic) event. While Ivan Lopez does seem to have spent time on active duty in Iraq, he was assigned to a Motorized Transportation unit and, at least from what we known currently, was never placed in harms way while serving.

To say that this man may have done what he did because of PTSD is really disrespectful to those who HAVE been in traumatic events.  We’re talking about being shot or seeing friends shot.  Walking away from a roadside bomb blast with or without injuries.  Being in a supposedly safe place like ones Forward Operating Base (FOB) in close proximity to explosions from unexpected mortar fire detonate just a dozen meters from where one was standing.  These types of things.

The rush to “support the troops” had created a weird cultural phenomenon where any soldier/sailor/Marine who has said that he thinks he might be suffering from PTSD…well if he says he has it, then he has it.  After all, who are you to question?  You weren’t over there.

Such thinking is both silly and unproductive.  You don’t get to say that you suffered “trauma” which triggered PTSD just by BEING in Iraq.  Anyone who believes that such a low standard of “trauma” could induce PTSD better plan on eliminating the boot camps experience from the Marine Corps completely.  I assure you that my experience on Paris Island was more “traumatic” than driving a truck around in the middle of the most secure bases in Iraq.  Oh, and don’t question me.  You weren’t ON the Island.

The really important implications in this event are related to the fact that being quick to point the finger at PTSD and then be done with it takes the focus off of what we REALLY need to be investigating.

We need to be looking at Anti-Depressants.

You see, while the media keeps saying that this Lopez fellows was “self reported” as having PTSD, they ALSO keep saying that he was “being treated for depression”.  This is really quite huge.

Having recently completed  my studies in Psychology at the University of Michigan Dearborn, I can confidently say that it’s common knowledge in the mental health community that antidepressants can lead to suicidal thoughts and tendencies – especially in adolescents.  This is why psychologists will often hold off on prescribing SSRI drugs like Paxil and Prozac.

Here’s the connection that nobody seems to be making.  Or rather, it’s the connection that THEY (the pharmaceutical oligarchy and those who support them) don’t want the public to make.

Doesn’t it make sense that if a drug can cause a normal person to all-of-a-sudden have thoughts of suicide (killing someone else) that it’s entirely plausible that they would also be likely to have thoughts of killing someone ELSE? (homocide)

Of course, there’s no science on this, right?  And why would there be?  You think that some drug company is going to sponsor a study that comes to the conclusion that taking antidepressants might remove the natural restraints which keep from people from killing each other?  Do you think that so-called “impartial” universities are going to conduct such a study when they receive so much funding from the pharmaceutical sector?

Think about this from a public perception standpoint.  A university comes up with research that shows conclusively that antidepressants cause some troubled teens to kill themselves.  Everyone shakes their head and feel a bit bad but do they require the drug be banned?  No.  After all, it’s not THEIR kid which is killing themselves and the kid is only a threat to themselves – not to others.

Of course, if we flip that around and all of a sudden we find out that the troubled teens who take antidepressants are not just a threat to themselves, but ANYONE of ANY AGE are at risk.  And not just at risk for killing themselves but risk for killing any number of OTHER PEOPLE!

THAT, my friends, is something to raise a hue and cry about.  It’s not just your kid at risk when they take Paxil but it’s my kid too?  It’s not just your husband at risk when he takes Prozac but MY husband too?

Such revelations would cause a public panic which would end up in new regulations on these drugs.  It would upend our trust that these SSRI drugs are the “holy grail” for millions of depression sufferers.  Such broad usage as we see today would come to and end which would also cut into the profit margins of Big Pharma – heavily.

Now consider what we’ve seen with Ivan Lopez.  The guy killed HIMSELF didn’t he?  Isn’t suicidal ideation and tendencies something we know to be associated with drug treatment for depression?  Why would we not think that his killing of OTHERS was part and parcel to the same series of side effects emanating from the taking of antidepressants?

Mark my words – within 50 years everyone will “know” that SSRI antidepressants can cause people not only to kill themselves, but to kill others as well.  We’ll recognize that we will never find the Fort Hood Shooter’s motive because Ivan Lopez didn’t have one.  The drugs he was taking for depression simultaneously removed his internal restraints against killing himself and killing others.  With those out of the way even the slightest irritation could have enticed him to pursue the unfortunate course of events that we saw two days ago at Fort Hood, Texas.