Al Duncan
“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws,” Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild



Meet The Author


About The Book




Author's  Articles

Purchase with Paypal
 or Credit Card

Select Book delivery Location
 Includes shipping


Select DVD delivery Location
Includes Shipping








So here’s a federal judge that took an oath to uphold the US Constitution which gives we, the people , the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit  of happiness, cannot determine that the government does not have the right to secretly murder us.  Therefore, we no longer have the constitutional right to life, so the Constitution is dead, null and void, passé.  It’s the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and them alone, that holds all of our freedoms.  If our government and our legal system will not uphold their oath and enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we have NO freedoms and we have NO rights.

And we, the people, continue to trust this same government that murders us, to govern our lives and handle our affairs.  And, we, the people also allow this, at the most, treasonous, and at the least, incompetent federal judge to remain on the bench and continue to hand down these treasonous decisions.

Have we gone absolutely insane?!

New York Times

Secrecy of Memo on Drone Killing Is Upheld

Published: January 2, 2013

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Manhattan refused on Wednesday to require the Justice Department to disclose a memorandum providing the legal justification for the targeted killing of a United States citizen, (And his 11 year old son) Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

National Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

The ruling, by Judge Colleen McMahon, was marked by skepticism about the antiterrorist program that targeted him, and frustration with her own role in keeping the legal rationale for it secret.

“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.

“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” Judge McMahon wrote, adding that she was operating in a legal environment that amounted to “a veritable Catch-22.”

A lawsuit for the memorandum and related materials was filed under the Freedom of Information Act by The New York Times and two of its reporters, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane. Wednesday’s decision also rejected a broader request under the act from the American Civil Liberties Union.

David E. McCraw, a lawyer for The Times, said the paper would appeal.

“We began this litigation because we believed our readers deserved to know more about the U.S. government’s legal position on the use of targeted killings against persons having ties to terrorism, including U.S. citizens,” Mr. McCraw said. “Judge McMahon’s decision speaks eloquently and at length to the serious legal questions raised by the targeted-killing program and to why in a democracy the government should be addressing those questions openly and fully.”

Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U., said his group also planned to appeal. “This ruling,” he said, “denies the public access to crucial information about the government’s extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens and also effectively greenlights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures.”

A Justice Department spokesman said only that lawyers there were reviewing the decision.

Judge McMahon’s opinion included an overview of what she called “an extensive public relations campaign” by various government officials about the American role in the killing of Mr. Awlaki and the circumstances under which the government considers targeted killings, including of its citizens, to be lawful. The Times and the A.C.L.U. argued that the government had waived the right to withhold its legal rationale by discussing the program extensively in public.

(Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who lived at times on Long Island and in North Carolina, was also killed in the strike, on Sept. 30, 2011. Another strike two weeks later killed a group of people including Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.)

President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta both acknowledged that the United States played a role in the elder Mr. Awlaki’s death, Judge McMahon wrote. But she focused in particular on a March speech by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at Northwestern University.

When United States citizens are targeted for killing, Mr. Holder said, the Constitution’s due process protections apply. But due process does not require “judicial process,” he added.

On the one hand, Judge McMahon wrote, “the speech constitutes a sort of road map of the decision-making process that the government goes through before deciding to ‘exterminate’ someone ‘with extreme prejudice.’ ” On the other hand, the speech was “a far cry from a legal research memorandum.”

The government’s public comments were as a whole “cryptic and imprecise,” Judge McMahon said, and were thus insufficient to overcome exemptions in the freedom of information law for classified materials and internal government deliberations.

“It lies beyond the power of this court to conclude that a document has been improperly classified,” she wrote, rejecting the argument that legal analysis may not be classified.

Judge McMahon said she had not reviewed the withheld documents, including the one at the heart of the case, which was prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. She said the memorandum must contain more detailed legal analysis than the broad statements in Mr. Holder’s speech “unless standards at O.L.C. have slipped dramatically.”

The Times published an account of the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum in October 2011, citing people who had read it.

Even as she ruled against the plaintiffs, the judge wrote that the public should be allowed to judge whether the administration’s analysis holds water.

“More fulsome disclosure of the legal reasoning on which the administration relies to justify the targeted killing of individuals, including United States citizens, far from any recognizable ‘hot’ field of battle, would allow for intelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it) remains hotly debated,” she wrote.


The facts, nothing but the fact.  Click the link, scroll down and watch the video.

VIDEO: Obama Planned Gun Control Long Before Using Sandy Hook Tragedy

Aaron Dykes
January 2, 2012

“You never want to a serious crisis go to waste.”                                                            

When we recall those famous words uttered by Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first Chief of Staff, or see President Obama shed fake tears for the Sandy Hook victims and see the predatory pleasure on the faces of gun grabbers lining up to restrict the Second Amendment on the backs of dead children, we should wonder if there isn’t much more to the story we’ve all been told.

Nothing government has done or will do will ever bring back those killed by crazed individuals. Period. Yet, their ambitious gun control agenda will disarm millions more potential victims, leaving criminals in government and general society free to pursue their evil intentions without restraint, or crucially, the checks and balances the founders tried to place in the hands of the population to discourage tyrannical government.

As I pointed out in the original (and longer) version of this article, and in the video below, the Obama Administration has been actively — sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly — pursuing attacks on the Second Amendment from the very beginning, and have readily exploited any and all tragedies that fit their agenda at every turn.


Here’s a round-up of the Top Ten activities by the Obama Administration to further its gun control agenda during his first term in office, in approximate chronological order to demonstrate a timeline, all building up to the crescendo we are now witnessing:

1. Rahm Emanuel tells Attorney General Eric Holder to STFU on gun control in January 2009, at the start of Obama’s first term.

Very early on in Obama’s first term, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly announced that the administration would pursue a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton Administration, but which expired in 2004. ABC News’ Jake Tapper reported that in February 2009, then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel became furious at Holder’s public statements, which had riled up the pro-gun lobby. For example, Sen. Max Baucus issued a press release in response, entitled: ‘Senators to Attorney General: Stay Away from Our Guns.’ According to Tapper:

“Emanuel was furious. He slammed his desk and cursed the attorney general. Holder was only repeating a position Obama had expressed during the campaign, but that was before the White House needed the backing of pro-gun Democrats from red states for their domestic agenda. The chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to ‘shut the fuck up’ on guns…”

Clearly, the plan was to remain ‘under the radar’ on gun legislation.

2. Covert Fast and Furious Program Begins to Demonize Assault Weapons, Second Amendment

Revelations about Fast and Furious have become part of an ongoing saga all of its own, but it is abundantly clear that the ATF, the Department of Justice and other agencies willingly “walked” thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels early on in the Obama Administration in order to later blame the horrendous effects of the illegal flow of weapons south of the border, and build support for gun restrictions.

Investigations in the House have made clear that Attorney General Eric Holder has been less than forthcoming about what and when he knew about the program. During testimony on May 3, 2011, Holder told the Judiciary Committee he had “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” CBS News, among others, have produced documents proving Holder was briefed as early as July 2010. Rep. Issa threatened to find Holder in contempt, though no meaningful action has yet taken place.

3. New ATF regulations demand southern border states succumb to greater reporting requirements; purchases of more than two semi-auto weapons more heavily regulated

On January 6, 2011, Reuters reported that the White House was lamenting over delays in new regulations for border states (curiously two days before the tragic Tuscon shooting). Reuters wrote: “A planned Obama administration clampdown on Mexico border gun dealers which would require them to report multiple assault rifle sales has been delayed by the White House amid stiff opposition from the powerful gun lobby.”

By July of 2011, those new restrictions went into place via policies and regulations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). At least one gun store in Albuquerque tried to challenge the new federal requirement that more than 8,000 dealers in Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico must report on the sale of multiple semi-automatic weapons.

Undoubtedly, the pretext was based upon the government-staged Fast and Furious flow of weapons southbound, but aided by the hysteria over the mass shootings in Tuscon, located in one of the affected border states.

4. Exploiting the Tragic Shooting by Jared Lee Loughner and Attempted Assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

The tragic January 8, 2011 shooting in Tuscon, Arizona undoubtedly shocked the nation. Jared Lee Loughner was accused of shooting nineteen people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, while killing six.

The day after the shooting, USA Today published an article entitled, ‘Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting’ stating in part: “Gun laws have to be examined,” Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. He said that “doesn’t mean denying guns” but reviewing how they become accessible.

Gun control advocates demanded that Obama use the tragedy to push for new firearms legislation, but the calculating Obama Administration knew it was not the right time for overt moves. President Obama did use a memorial service as a stump speech for re-election and a handy bounce in the polls, but resisted the urge to advocate changes on the 2nd Amendment.

5. Obama Tells the Brady Center He’ll Attack 2nd Amendment “Under the Radar”

During a March 30, 2011 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady of the Brady Center and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, President Obama reportedly told the Brady’s “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

This was interpreted at the time to reflect the use of Fast and Furious to steer the gun control debate, but clearly encompasses the coordinated, deliberate exploitation of numerous shooting tragedies, as we have all seen.

6. ATF Tried To Ban Importation of Most Shotguns

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to ban the importation of all shotguns that didn’t meet a “sporting purpose.” In doing so, it attempted to block shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds.

According to the Greeley Gazette:

The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined “Sporting Purpose” test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be “military” by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban.

However, the NRA reported in November of 2011 that this attempt had been blocked in Congress via an appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012. Ammoland and other Second Amendment advocates point out that the attempt to block the importation of certain shotguns only solidifies the already clear anti-gun agenda of the Obama Administration.

7. Attacking Self-Defense Laws Via the Trayvon Martin Shooting

The February 26, 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin sparked a huge controversy over the rights of self defense. The debate technically centered around Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, but clearly always had national dimensions. The case sparked fresh debate over gun control, with major outlets like the Christian Science Monitor asking if it was “a turning point in gun rights debate?” while observing that “so far, Trayvon’s death is having the biggest impact on the national gun policy debate.”

President Obama shamelessly exploited the Trayvon Martin shooting, famously stating that ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’, further drawing the identity politics of race into the situation.

8. Exploitation of the Batman shooting massacre

The response to the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere of the Batman film ‘The Dark Knight Rises,’ clearly marked the dawn of Obama’s all out rush for playing public sympathy to achieve his ambitious and unconstitutional agenda.

TIME magazine slammed Obama for ‘missing an opportunity’ by not using the Batman massacre to push for gun control while New York mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded action from the presidential candidates on firearms:

“I mean, there’s so many murders with guns every day,” Bloomberg continued. “It’s just gotta stop. And instead of these two people, President [Barack] Obama and Governor [Mitt] Romney talking in broad things about, they want to make the world a better place. OK, tell us how. And this is a problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns?

The media undoubtedly greased the skids for new gun control in the wake of the horrific Batman massacre, giving President Obama the opportunity to refuse action again — as Caesar refused the crown of emperor three times in Shakespeare’s play — before repeated injury gave him no other choice but to take action.

9. Obama unabashedly admits his intention to reintroduce assault weapons ban during debate with Mitt Romney

President Obama had already been outed as an anti-gun president, after all, he had already been cynically dubbed ‘gun salesman of the year’ after sparking waves of record firearm sales based on fears that he would restrict the Second Amendment during his second term.

But his performance during the second televised debate with Mitt Romney left no doubt. Obama openly declared his intention to reinstate an assault weapons ban during his second term, while further blaming handgun violence in Chicago.

Meanwhile, Senator Dianne Feinstein was meeting privately with the ATF prior to the election to discuss the possibilities for new gun control legislation. To enact it, these gun grabbers needed only await the perfect crisis – at the right time to exploit it and gain ground for their unconstitutional policies.

10. Bob Costas Called for Gun Control After NFL Player’s Murder-Suicide

Our memory as a society is so short under the current frenzy surrounding the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings that many have already forgotten about NBC sports reporter Bob Costas’ very public cries for gun control, quoting from sportswriter Jason Whitlock, and supporting his bogus claim that the tragedy would not have happened had Javon Belcher not had a gun.

Bob Costas went on in the days to follow to defend his position, claiming that ‘young men can’t own guns without something bad happening.’


Obviously this list is not comprehensive. There have been many other significant actions to restrict the Second Amendment by stealth, including Sen. Schumer’s attempt to legislatively prevent veterans (and others) diagnosed with PTSD or other mental illnesses from owning guns. (New definitions of mental disorders are quite sweeping, and threaten to cast a wide net that will indeed infringe upon rights meant to be guaranteed.)

There is also the significant moves towards supporting the United Nation’s controversial Small Arms Treaty that many fear will be used to restrict the Second Amendment, particularly in the areas of import & export. Though negotiations last summer failed, the treaty will be revived for negotiations and is anything but dead.

But the point is sufficiently made — government could not respond to tragedy so quickly with legislative “solutions” if they weren’t already preparing them. And no president could garner support for such unconstitutional measures without first priming the population with heavy media propaganda saturated with the sadness of tragedy, with dead children and innocent victims and the cries from others demanding that President Obama ‘finally’ take action and ‘do something.’

Similar/Related Articles


  1. Top 10 Events that Prove Obama Planned Gun Control Long Before Newtown Tragedy
  2. NRA Running Scared After Sandy Hook Shooting
  3. Obama’s Nixon Moment
  4. Expert: Violence on TV and Video Games Cause of Sandy Hook Massacre
  5. Video Evidence: Obama Knew About Fast & Furious
  6. NRA’s Wrongheaded Response to Sandy Hook Violence
  7. Senator Proposes Military Occupation of Schools in Wake of Sandy Hook Shooting
  8. Holder Making Congress Furious Fast
  9. Obama Exercises Executive Privilege over Fast and Furious Documents
  10. CONFIRMED: Section of Gotham Renamed “Sandy Hook” in Latest ‘Dark Knight’ Release
  11. Father of Sandy Hook Victim Asks ‘Read the Card?’ Seconds Before Tear-jerking Press Conference
  12. Obama Denies Knowledge Of Operation Smuggling U.S. Weapons To Mexico


New study: Infants receiving most vaccines are most likely to be hospitalized and die

Neil Z. Miller
December 24, 2012

A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.

Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.

The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.

Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.

In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.

The CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:

While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit – even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.

Although the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule a) requires infants to receive up to 8 vaccines simultaneously, b) affects millions of infants annually, and c) was never scientifically tested for safety, the CDC had prior knowledge that combining chemical substances, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, “can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.”[2]

Administering 6, 7, or 8 vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit may certainly be more convenient for parents — rather than making additional trips to the doctor’s office — but evidence of a positive association between infant adverse reactions and the number of vaccine doses administered confirms that vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.

The findings in this study show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). (The VAERS database is an important postmarketing safety surveillance tool that is periodically analyzed by the CDC, FDA, and other vaccine researchers to discover potentially adverse vaccination trends.) In addition, younger infants were significantly more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. These trends not only have a biological plausibility but are supported by evidence from case reports, case series, and other studies using entirely different methodologies and unique population cohorts. For example, in 2011, Miller and Goldman collaborated on another study showing that among developed nations infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.[3]

Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.

You may download the complete study here: Goldman-Miller Vaccine Study (PDF) or here: Goldman-Miller Vaccine Study

Funding Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 for open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers). NVIC is dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.


1. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol October 2012; 31(10): 1012-1021.

2. Mixed exposures research agenda: a report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); DHHS (NIOSH) 2004. December 2005. p.106: vi.

3. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol September 2011; 30(9): 1420-1428. [Read this study here: Miller-Goldman Vaccine Study (PubMed)]

About the author:
Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. He has devoted the last 25 years to educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines, encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws. He is the author of several books on vaccines, including
Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners; Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child (with Dr. Mayer Eisenstein); and Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?Past organizations that he has lectured for include the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, the International College of Integrative Medicine, Autism One/Generation Rescue, the Hahnemann Academy of North America, and Dr. Gabriel Cousens’ Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center. Mr. Miller is a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows, has a degree in psychology, and is a member of Mensa.

Learn more:

Similar/Related Articles


  1. New Study Finds Direct Link Between Vaccines and Infant Mortality
  2. CDC says fluoride has no evidence of benefit for infants
  3. Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys develop autism symptoms after obtaining doses of popular vaccines
  4. Baxter, same company that unleashed tainted avian flu vaccines, recalls 300,000 flu vaccines
  5. Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots
  6. Jabs for babies: Pig virus-contaminated vaccine for stomach virus to be administered to small infants in UK
  7. Thimerosal Accumulates in Rat Brains, Study Reveals
  8. Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day
  9. Water Fluoridation Persists Despite Being Unhealthy for Infants
  10. FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!
  11. FDA Approved H1N1 Vaccines Contain Ingredients Known to Cause Cancer and Death
  12. Canada Decides To Approve Unlicensed Adjuvanted Vaccines

Page 1    Page 2    Page3    Page4






Other Articles




Quote of the Day


Radio Interviews




Gun Control