Gun Control and the Plot for a Fascist Police State in America by David Hammer On January

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Gun Control and the Plot for a Fascist Police State in America by David Hammer On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy, a 25-year-old with a seven-year law enforcement history of weapons violations, drug abuse, and sexual crimes, entered a school yard in Stockton, California carrying an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle. Within minutes, he had slaughtered five children and wounded twenty-nine more. Within days, the term ``assault rifle'' had entered the lexicon of all major U.S. news media. Within weeks, the most intense push for gun control since the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed in the wake of the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, was underway. By this spring, California had passed the most sweeping gun control law ever seen in the United States, banning outright some forty types of ``assault rifles.'' In 22 other states, similar legislation was enacted or proposed. At the federal level, lifetime National Rifle Association member George Bush enacted a ban on the importation of forty-three types of semi-automatic rifles. By mid-summer, Bush's Justice Department had released a set of draconian ``options'' for gun control, including such heretofore unthinkable measures as universal indentification cards with fingerprints and other data electronically imprinted. This card was to be {for everyone}, not just those owning guns. Also proposed was a national registration of all gun-owners and their guns. Led by the {Washington Post}, the liberal news media clamored incessantly for gun control, and launched attack after attack on the National Rifle Association, perhaps the single most powerful grassroots lobby in the country. California Congressman Fortney Stark charged that the NRA's fundraising practices were illegal and were aimed to ``exploit the vulnerable senior citizens of this nation,'' and instigated an investigation by the U.S. Postal Service. Various state governments tried to get their hands on NRA membership lists, and there were even whispers that the dreaded RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act might be applied. All of these unprecedented developments were presumably the fruit of natural outrage over the Stockton massacre. Or were they? Assault on the Republic Although the news media would have us believe that there are countless ``lone nuts'' out there in the population who might one day pick up a rifle and start blowing away America's political leaders or their fellow citizens, investigations into the Stockton and other massacres, as well as into the cry for ``gun control'' which has followed in their wake, have established the following: 1) All of the celebrated mass murderers or assassins of recent years, the John Hinckleys and David Berkowitzes, were controlled and deployed by either a) networks of ``brave new world'' psychiatrists like the ``Nazi doctors'' involved in the CIA's infamous MK-Ultra project, or b) Satanic killer cults. Mass murderers and assassins so deployed are no more ``lone assassins,'' than were those earlier ``lone assassins':' Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or James Earl Ray, charged with the murder of President John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, respectively. The mere fact of a cover-up of essential evidence, as obviously happened in the JFK assassination or in the Stockton or Son of Sam mass murders, {proves} that these and similar cases do not merely involve ``lone nuts.'' Therefore, the chief rationale for gun control is fraudulent at the outset. 2) Gun control is part of a plot to eliminate the constitutional republican form of government in the United States. The founders and sponsors of the gun control movement are in the thick of organizing other changes in law and administration, aimed at transforming the United States into a police state. In fact, they are most vociferous in their public calls for ``restricting democracy,'' and ``revising'' or even scrapping the U.S. Constitution. Handgun Control, Inc., the leading gun control lobby, demonstrates the case; it was incorporated in 1974 and has been sponsored ever since by the powerful Washington, D.C. law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering. The firm's senior partner, Lloyd Cutler, through Project 1987 and the Committee for the Constitutional System, has worked ceaselessly for scrapping the U.S. Constitution, in favor of a British-style parliamentary system. Cutler is also a senior figure in the infamous Trilateral Commission, one of the most important subcommittees of the Eastern Establishment, which has openly called for ``restricting democracy.'' 3) The gun control movement has been massively aided and abetted by the FBI and the CIA, in a way that exposes the proclivities of these institutions to protect the interests of the political and banking Establishment, far more than those of the nation. This aid has been in part indirect, through covering up the true causes of the assassinations and mass murders which lend legitimacy to calls for gun control. But there is direct intelligence community involvement, as well: Handgun Control, Inc. was founded by a 25-year veteran of the covert operations division of the Central Intelligence Agency. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech; the Second Amendment protects the right of the citizenry to bear arms. These two Amendments were indissolubly linked in the minds of the Founding Fathers, who had just concluded a revolution against tyranny. Today, these two pillars of republicanism are under ferocious attack by those who would eliminate our constitutional republic. The Trilateral Agenda The plans to implement a police state in the United States have been openly recorded in the policy papers of the supranational Trilateral Commission, which, since its founding in 1973, has been one of the most important bodies dictating policy to successive U.S. governments. Composed of leading bankers, politicians, and businessmen from the U.S.A., Western Europe, and Japan (thus its name, ``trilateral''), the Trilateral Commission was bankrolled by David Rockefeller and his liberal Eastern Establishment friends. Its first executive director was a then-obscure professor from Columbia University in New York, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 1979 drafted a plan for a one-world government under such rubrics as ``global strategies for international cooperation,'' and ``a truly global world system.'' Brzezinski said the creation of this ``global community'' would ``require two broad and overlapping phases. The first of these would involve the forging of community links among the United States, Western Europe, and Japan.... The second phase would include the extension of these links to the communist countries.'' When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, an astounding thirteen members of his administration were Trilateralists, out of a total U.S. Trilateral membership of only 65. Brzezinski was named Carter's National Security Adviser. The Trilaterals proposed a sweeping series of political and financial changes to usher in their desired ``global order,'' many of which were contained in a series of policy papers issued in the mid-1970s, titled {1980s Project}. One of these, ``Crisis of Democracy'' by French sociologist Michel Crozier and Harvard academic Samuel Huntington, argued that, ``Democracy is only one way of constituting authority, and it is not necessarily a universally applicable one. In many situations, the claims of expertise, seniority, experience, and special talents may override the claims of democracy as a way of constituting authority.'' The authors' crucial point was that the coming economic collapse of the 1980s and 1990s would necessitate restrictions on freedoms, and new forms of tyranny, to enforce cuts in the standard of living. Since a collapsing economy would inevitably produce political upheavals, the old style of ``constituency politics'' was untenable and must be scrapped: ``We have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.... A government which lacks authority ... will have little ability... to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary.'' Trilateral Commission member Lloyd Cutler, of the law firm Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering, became Jimmy Carter's White House counsel. Cutler had been chairman of the D.C. Commission on the Administration of Justice Under Emergency Conditions in 1968, and also in 1968-69, executive director of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, also known as the Eisenhower Commission. Established in the wake of the Kennedy and King assassinations in 1968, the commission called for radical restrictions on the right to bear arms. Its executive director was Jim Campbell, handpicked by commission chairman Lloyd Cutler from his own law firm. Campbell later incorporated the organization that has become the driving force behind gun control in the United States, Handgun Control Inc. Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering has guided HCI every step of the way to becoming a powerful national lobby. The firm has argued, for free, HCI legal cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. Campbell now sits on the board of the HCI's associated tax-exempt foundation, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. His partner Cutler, a ``consistent supporter over the years,'' will soon join the distinguished advisory board of the center. (Cutler otherwise has busied himself as volunteer lawyer for the environmentalist Soviet espionage front, Greenpeace, in its lawsuit against the French government, over the 1985 sinking of the Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior.) Gun Control Lobby: Made in the CIA According to the official history of Handgun Control Inc., their organization began when a young man named Mark Borinsky, who had been mugged as a student in Chicago, came to Washington, D.C. and founded the National Council to Control Handguns. Later that year, the history continues, Borinsky was joined by a former DuPont executive, Pete Shields, whose son had been killed in the Zebra racial murders in San Francisco, and the organization just took off from there. There is only one problem with this official history, as expressed in the HCI's promotional pamphlet--it is a lie. On the board of directors of HCI, as vice chairman, sits Edward C. Wells of Washington, D.C. Contrary to the fairy tale told in HCI handouts, it was Edward Wells who recruited Pete Shields, now HCI's president and public spokesman; it was Edward Wells who led the tongue-tied Mark Borinsky around official Washington, to get the organization off the ground; it was Edward Wells who guided all the crucial early phases of HCI. Edward Wells also was a board member and early mover of the nation's other major gun control lobby, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. As his friend Jim Campbell of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering understated the matter, ``Ed was present at the creation.'' Wells had a great deal of experience in getting things quietly organized. Before his retirement to take a job in ``public service''--the gun control project--Wells was a 25-year veteran of the Directorate of Plans of the Central Intelligence Agency, the ``Company's'' covert operations arm. As the Iran-Contra hearings made clear, this side of the CIA specializes in, among other things, setting up front groups. Those hearings also showed, via the case of veteran CIA operative Walter Raymond, who ``retired'' to become Oliver North's de facto controller at the National Security Council, that CIA ``retirements'' are often arranged to put some political distance between the ``retiree'' and the ``Company.'' Ed Wells himself recently described the early days of HCI to a New York journalist: ``I was the first unpaid volunteer, however you wish to put it, Executive Director. Now Mark [Borinsky, the ostensible founder of HCI] was at that time unable to give this job his full time, because he was holding down a relatively low level job in Washington. And as I say, he was quite a shy person. I was able to get enough people to join the board, with him of course because I always took him along and so forth, to make the organization look reasonably credible. ... So Mark stayed around Washington and was frequently around with his ideas and was participating, I don't want to give that impression [that he wasn't doing anything]. He was very interested in fundraising and had some good ideas, no question about that. But not a public speaker nor the kind of person who could really get out in front of an audience or easily meet others involved. I don't mean a shrinking violet ... but in any event he is a rather reticent person and lacks self-confidence, I guess is the best way of putting it.'' Though everything Wells said made it clear that there would have been no HCI without him, including the recruitment of his old Hotchkiss prep school mate and fellow Yale graduate ``Pete'' Shields, Wells was most careful to play down his name and role. And while most of those involved in HCI had compelling personal motives (Borinsky was mugged, Sara Brady's husband Jim was nearly assassinated, Pete Shields' son was murdered, etc.), Wells offers a thin- sounding motivation for his shift into this highly emotional fight: ``It was more of a question of wanting to do something in the public service area. Having sort of a determination not to seek a nine-to-five job when I got out of the Agency, and a desire to stay around Washington, really probably not much more than that.'' Wells was not the only CIA-linked man involved in creating the gun control lobby. Former CIA chief William Colby, who decimated the CIA's counterintelligence capability with his 1975 sacking of James Jesus Angleton and many of his staff, threw open his house for gun control fundraising parties and today serves on the board of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. (More recently, Colby has been openly hobnobbing with the KGB in joint CIA-KGB meetings in California to discuss ``joint strategies'' to fight terrorism.) Colby was hardly impelled into the gun control movement by some longstanding commitment to curb violence. He had been, after all, the chief overseer of the bloody Operation Phoenix program which assassinated over 50,000 Vietnamese. Later, (after ``retirement,'' of course), he would be the lawyer for the infamous Australia-based gun-and-drug running Nugan Hand Bank. Nor does the list of CIA supporters of gun control end with Wells and Colby. HCI spokesman Greg Risch recently laughed a bit nervously when asked if the ``spooks'' (CIA agents) were supporting HCI, then said, ``Sure there are a lot of CIA people in it,'' adding that there are quite a few ``ex-CIA who donate to us.'' Handgun Control, Inc. In November 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. The Warren Commission, ostensibly set up to investigate that murder, was in fact responsible--with the help of prominent commission member and former CIA head Allen Dulles--for covering it up. This marked a turning point in American life, and set the precedent for the political assassinations to follow. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated, Kennedy because he threatened to become President himself, and would not rest until he discovered his brother's assassins, and King because he led a mass movement for civil rights and economic development. While the FBI and CIA handled the cover-up of the details of the assassinations themselves, Lloyd Cutler led the Eisenhower Commission that studied the ``causes'' of the Kennedy and King murders and resultant violence in American cities. Cutler's response to these murders, which had been covered up, if not perpetrated, by his friends in the Establishment, was a further step on the road to a police state--the recommendations for gun control. The CIA's Ed Wells explained how his founding of Handgun Control Inc. built on the earlier efforts of Cutler, et al.: ``It didn't take us long to get caught up with Jim Campbell, who was the assistant to Lloyd Cutler, because Lloyd was the head of the committee which Johnson put together after the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. That's very important, that we were able to get the talents of those people, Campbell particularly. He had been the staff director for the commission which Cutler was the chairman of. Cutler was the overall chairman and so he got one of the bright young men in his law firm to be the director of it.... It [the commission] was on handgun violence I believe.... And then a series of recommendations came out of it, part of which were embodied in the 1968 Gun Act. That's very important, I think. It wasn't just Mark Borinsky getting beat up in Chicago at the point of a gun. This is something which did have prior history, but in effect we came in and piggy-backed on that.'' Campbell volunteered his own reflections on the prior history: ``I was one of the incorporators of what is now Handgun Control Inc.; We created that in the early 1970s. A fellow [Borinsky] came into our office. He had been held up.... After he had been held up he went to the library and began to read about this and found our violence commission report and said, `Gee, I have a little bit of money here and uh, I would like to create some sort of organization to do a little something.' There was really no organized lobby or political center for gun control and he thought he ought to create it. And he created it on a shoestring. We created it on a shoestring. Ed Wells was one of the first people who sort of kept it going, he was the head of it for awhile, and kept it going in its shoestring days.'' The shoestring days are over. Big corporations such as Corning Glass and Johnson Wax, and major foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller, are pouring in money, to the tune of millions per year, both to the HCI and into its tax- exempt spinoff, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, which churns out propaganda for gun control. One of the center's most recent activities was the production of an 18- minute videotape on the Second Amendment, featuring Jimmy Carter's former press spokesman, Hodding Carter. Wells noted, ``We hope to raise enough money to get that video cassette into every school in the country, K [kindergarten] through 12. We have gotten it in over half now. We have raised about $250,000 now if I am not mistaken. It has been very well reviewed, and I think it will be used in most schools, year after year.'' The Second Amendment, which specifies the right to bear arms, is of course the crux of the whole gun control issue. If it can be redefined for a generation or so of children, long-term victory for the gun-controllers is almost assured. The film was done in conjunction with the Bicentennial of the Constitution, one of Cutler's favorite avenues for smuggling in changes to the U.S. Constitution. A chief adviser for the film was Cutler's law partner, Jim Campbell. Said Wells, ``I think he is acknowledged as one of the better informed individuals in the country on the whole question, both from a legal and a legislative point of view. A very thoughtful individual and a sort of a tiger. He knows the laws inside out.'' The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in its entirety, ``A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' Some sophists have claimed that, because of the mention of the militia, the right to bear arms is only a conditional right, in the context of a formal armed force. Yet the intent of the Founding Fathers--who considered that the militia was the entirety of the citizenry, armed and ready to respond to a call to mobilize--as this intent is expressed in the {Federalist Papers} and other locations, was precisely that this armed citizenry be a bulwark against tyranny, either directed from a foreign power, or, with their recent experience as subjects of Britain's George III in mind, from their own rulers. This function of the right to bear arms as the ultimate check to tyranny was emphasized by the National Rifle Association in a series of full-page ads in major newspapers in late June. Under the title ``The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,'' one ad showed a bloodied Chinese student at Tiananmen Square, surrounded by soldiers. Like the Chinese people, the ad emphasized, people in Soviet Georgia have no right to bear arms. The citizens of Georgia had had guns, but they were registered, as the U.S. Justice Department has mooted for all guns in America. On April 9, 1989, the Soviet government that had confiscated all private arms in Georgia, using the registration information, met a peaceful demonstration with force. Members of the unarmed crowd, old women and young girls, were slaughtered by Soviet troops with poison gas and sharpened spades. The NRA ad clearly implied that gun control is a step toward a police state, and is not something that can happen only in China or the Soviet Union, but could happen in the U.S.A. as well. The merest hint that a police state might emerge here drove Establishment media outlets wild. ``The NRA has surpassed its own record for world-class lunacy in its latest advertising message,'' ranted one {Washington Post} editorial. Yet the evidence of the U.S.A.'s slide into a police state is overwhelming. The most dramatic confirmation of such tendencies came with the frame-up and jailing on January 27, 1989 of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and six associates on spurious charges of mail fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy. The judge allowed the LaRouche Seven no defense, and the jury was packed with government agents directly tied to the ``Get LaRouche'' task force which has been functioning for over 15 years. To this may be added the assault and breaking of limbs of the anti-abortion Operation Rescue activists in demonstrations around the country, as well as the use of the RICO statutes (designed for use against racketeers) against them; the orchestrated scandals and prosecutions of prominent TV preachers; the government assault on the trade union movement, as in the virtual government takeover of the Teamsters union; the frame-up of U.S. Congressmen through Abscam and Brilab and the hounding from office on the thinnest of pretexts of House Speaker Jim Wright and Majority Whip Tony Coelho; and the federal government takeover of the savings and loan industry, claiming that ``fraud,'' not years of double digit interest rates, had destroyed that industry. As the S&L industry is destroyed, so are the prospects of affordable new housing for American families. The Maryland Laws Overt police state tactics, on top of the propaganda around the Stockton, Ca. massacre, were applied to achieve the most dramatic advance in gun control in recent years, the November 1988 defeat of an NRA-backed referendum in Maryland. This referendum would have overturned a gun control law, HB 1131, on so-called Saturday Night Specials, which had been jammed through the state legislature in the closing minutes of one session. Co-sponsored by a member of ex-CIA chief William Colby's National Coalition to Ban Handguns, the law ostensibly was to restrict cheap, poorly made handguns. But it was so broadly worded, that it in fact could ban the sale of any handgun made after 1984. It also set up a nine-member board to decide what exceptions could be made to that law. Maryland's Governor William Donald Schaefer wanted to see the referendum defeated and the bill stand, so he deployed his state police to make sure the referendum failed at all costs. The evening before the election, the police conducted a warrantless search of the referendum headquarters, which stopped the election-eve phone bank, terrorized workers, and generally disrupted the referendum's get-out-the-vote effort. On election day, armed and uniformed police stationed at many polls passed out sample ballots urging defeat of the referendum, and harassed, injured, and even arrested pro-referendum poll workers on bogus charges. And although uniformed police were encouraged to speak out against the referendum during the campaign, Superintendent of State Police Elmer Tippett (scheduled to be chairman of the handgun review board) issued a formal order preventing any policeman in uniform from appearing on behalf of the referendum, or even identifying themselves as policemen when not in uniform. Meanwhile, Tippett appeared, in uniform, on TV shows to campaign against the referendum. Due to various intimidation tactics, only half the NRA and other pro- referendum pollwatchers scheduled for Baltimore, the major population center, showed up. There were reports of voting machines with levers that could not be pulled down for the referendum, a classic tactic of vote fraud. The harassment was so blatant that even the {Baltimore Sun} blasted police behavior in the raid, and demanded a grand jury investigation, noting that ``police with political assignments are more dangerous than Saturday Night Specials.'' Though the police with pro-gun control assignments were highly visible in the weeks before the election, the {Sun} strangely had waited until the day after it was all over, and gun control confirmed, to comment on the fact. What Are `Assault Rifles'? These police state tactics have been accompanied by a great deal of Goebbels-style lying, to brainwash people that guns must be ``controlled.'' While the gun-control issue was formerly focused on handguns (as the names of the two gun control organizations indicate) because these were ostensibly the ``weapons of choice'' of criminals, it seems that now the ``weapons of choice'' have shifted--just in the last year, mind you--to so-called ``assault rifles.'' These ``assault rifles'' are alleged to be the drug dealers' ``weapons of choice.'' But the figures published by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which has more to do with drug dealers than any other law enforcement body, show that out of 66 shooting incidents against DEA agents in 1988, only one involved an assault rifle, and that was overseas. There is good reason for that. In early February 1989, Lt. James Moran, commander of the Ballistic Unit of the New York City Police Department, told the {New York Times}, ``A rifle is not what usually is used by the criminals. They'll have handguns or sawed-off shotguns. You have more firepower with a 9- millimeter handgun than you do with an AK-47.... The rifle is big.... These drug dealers are more inclined to use the 9-millimeter pistol than go to a cumbersome AK-47 rifle.'' Furthermore, according to the 1987 Uniform Crime Report, rifles were used in only 4 percent of all homicides, while cutting weapons of all sorts were used in 20 percent. If the gun control lobby wants to stop homicides, perhaps they should begin by banning carving knives. An ``assault rifle,'' by definition, is a weapon capable of firing on either automatic (as long as the trigger is depressed, the gun continues firing) or on semi-automatic (where the trigger must be pulled for each shot). In other words, the chief characteristic of an ``assault rifle'' is that it functions like a machine gun. Machine guns are now virtually outlawed in the U.S.A., and no machine gun has been used in any of the celebrated mass murders, like the Stockton case. But what the gun control lobby is trying to outlaw are the tens of millions of regular rifles--which in the main are semi-automatics--that are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, by branding most or all of them as ``assault rifles.'' A semi-automatic rifle fires one shot at a time, period. The semi- automatic action, as opposed to the old bolt action which required manual loading after each shot, has been in common use for most of the twentieth century. Whether a semi-automatic {looks} like a military weapon (``assault rifle'') or not, is irrelevant to the function of the weapon. And it takes a skilled gunsmith to convert a semi-automatic to an automatic. The gun controllers are trying to classify semi-automatics as to whether they are used (or could be, or should be) mainly for ``sporting purposes.'' But where in the Second Amendment is there any reference to ``sporting purposes''? There is a powerful argument for the right to bear arms, particularly these days, for self-defense. An estimated 2,000 felons are killed annually and another 15,000 wounded by civilians, in circumstances classified as ``excusable self-defense.'' But the true reason for defending this right is that it is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, put there by the Founding Fathers who could foresee future dangers to our nation. For such eventualities, they said, the citizens had better have arms. The poet of freedom, ardent republican Friedrich Schiller, expressed the same principle in his play, ``Wilhelm Tell,'' regarding the revolt of the Swiss cantons against tyrannical Hapsburg power. Schiller opens the ``Ruetli oath'' scene with the words, ``No, there is a limit to the tyrant's power,'' and continues, ``As a last resort, when not another means is of avail, the sword is given him, The highest of all goods we may defend from violence.'' The Satanic Threat After the Kennedy and King assassinations, and the 1981 attempt on President Reagan, the next most dramatic shootings used to justify gun control were the massacre of schoolchildren by Patrick Purdy in January 1989 in Stockton, California, and the 1976-77 New York City murders known as the ``Son of Sam'' killings, for which David Berkowitz was convicted. The NRA has often contended, ``Guns don't kill people. People do.'' Today, this should probably be amended to, ``Guns don't kill people. Satanists do.'' The crucial feature of both the Purdy and Berkowitz killings was the link to Satanism, initially covered up in both cases. Satanists, aside from taking sadistic pleasure in doing evil for evil's sake, believe that human and animal blood contain ``energy,'' and that the more blood that is spilled and the more pain and suffering that is inflicted upon their victims, the more ``energy'' will be released to the control of the Satanists. Therefore, the first thing to look for, in any of the mass murders in the United States in the past two decades, is evidence of Satanic beliefs. From there, the investigation must proceed into the Satanic underground which harbors such mass killers. The Satanic literature in Purdy's room and the Satanic markings on his clothes, meant that Satanism was not an ``aberration'' of the case, but the first thing to be investigated. This was precisely what gun-control advocate, California Attorney General John Van de Kamp ruled out, in his finding that ``racial hatred'' motivated Purdy. The initially successful coverup of the Satanic elements in the Berkowitz case came unraveled in part due to the work of investigator-author Maury Terry, as Terry recounts in his book, {The Ultimate Evil}. While Queens District Attorney Eugene Gold and others insisted that Berkowitz was a lone killer, Terry catalogues the evidence those officials suppressed, that more than one killer participated in each crime, and that Berkowitz himself acted as a member of a Satanic cult. Just before the first murder, Berkowitz wrote a warning to the police, suppressed by them for years: ``This is a warning to all police agencies in the tri-state area: For your information, a Satanic cult (devil worshippers and practitioners of witchcraft [sic]) ... has been instructed by their high command (Satan) to begin to systematicaly kill and slaughter young girls or people of good health and clean blood. They plan to kill at least 100 young wemon [sic] and men, but mostly wemon [sic] as part of a satanic ritual which involves shedding of the victims innocent blood.... I, David Berkowitz, have been chosen since birth, to be one of the executioners for the cult.'' Psychiatrists of the Brave New World On March 30 1981, the mentally disturbed John Hinckley opened fire on President Ronald Reagan as Reagan and his entourage stepped out of the Hilton Hotel in Washington. Within seconds, Reagan fell with a bullet lodged an inch from his heart; his press secretary, James Brady, fell with a bullet in his brain. In the tragedy's aftermath, Brady's wife Sara took up the gun control cause, and became the leading spokesperson for HCI. The episode gave a major boost to gun control efforts, predicated on the assertion that any nut, just like Hinckley, could just go get a Saturday Night Special and blow away the President. Yet, in the weeks after the shootings, an investigation by {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine demonstrated that Hinckley had been prepared for his deed through systematic ``behavior modification'' techniques applied by psychiatrists whom Hinckley regularly visited, in the towns of Evergreen and Lakewood, Colorado. Investigations also revealed that Hinckley had been for years a member of an organization heavily penetrated by the FBI, the National Socialist Party of America. In October 1980, he had been caught with several weapons in his possession, stalking President Carter, and presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. Hinckley was given a $62 fine and let go. Though the Nashville police provided his name and circumstances to the FBI, Hinckley's name was never added to the 25,000 person list of possible presidential assassins maintained by the Secret Service--an unthinkable oversight, particularly since he had been kicked out of the FBI-monitored National Socialist Party for recommending bombings and assassinations. Hinckley had been passed from one psychiatrist to another, his intentions and actions monitored at every point, but he was not the only one. The week after his attempt on President Reagan, one Edward Richardson was arrested en route to Washington, D.C. with a .32 pistol. With a background which law enforcement specialists said ``eerily paralleled'' Hinckley's, Richardson had sworn in a handwritten note, ``I will finish what Hinckley started. Ronald Reagan must die.'' Several other Hinckley clones emerged at the same time, with the same intention. The reality that those who deploy the assassins are some of the key sponsors of the gun control movement is most obvious in the case of Dr. Park Eliot Dietz, the FBI's top forensic psychiatry specialist. Dietz runs the Threat Assessment Group in Newport Beach, California, which maintains extensive computerized files on those judged likely to be mass murderers. Dietz, who is running operations against the LaRouche political movement, certified John Hinckley as a ``lone assassin,'' which he, as a skilled psychiatrist, clearly knew to be a lie. A fanatical gun control advocate, Dietz has for the past two years been studying the NRA and related organizations in the ``gun lobby.'' According to the 1987 Annual Report of the Institute of Law and Public Policy (ILP) at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, with which Dietz has been associated, ``Dr. Dietz is now studying various factions among American gun owners, from paranoid subcultures and organized criminal groups to the larger numbers of conventional Americans who maintain firearms for personal defense and sporting purposes.'' Dietz's thesis is that owners of firearms constitute the single most important element of an incipient ``mass fascist movement'' in the United States; thus, their right to bear arms must be greatly restricted. One of Dietz's associates at the ILP is Kenneth Lanning, who, as the FBI's chief spokesman on occult crimes, maintains that there is no such thing as ritual Satanic murder in the U.S. today, and in any case, ``Far more crimes have been committed ... in the name of God and Jesus than in the name of Satan.'' Registration: It's Been Done Before Given the enormous grassroots base of the NRA, and the great passion which that base feels towards its constitutional right to bear arms, the Eastern Establishment has apparently been somewhat loath to use the same sort of obvious frame-up or judicial murder against the NRA it has employed against many other groups. They no doubt reason that they can exploit Purdy-style zombies or ``lone assassins'' like Hinckley to achieve the erosion of the Second Amendment, as such incidents will bring a new legislative surge toward gun control. And their progress has been dramatic. As Jim Campbell of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering put it, ``I must say there was a long period of time there where I thought nothing would happen in my lifetime.... But in the last few years, in a period of time politically when you would think this wouldn't happen, remarkably, it has begun to happen. Quite something.'' Campbell elaborated on what still needs to be done: ``We need to get to the point where a gun is treated as seriously as a car. You know, you have a motor vehicle registration number on cars, and when you transfer, the state knows about it. This is not a bad model for guns.... In the more near term, we want to ban assault weapons.'' At present, there is no such universal registration of guns. A record is kept of the sale at the local gunshop where it is sold, but that is it. It is clear why Campbell has the ``vision'' of universal registration. That was already put into place once, in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The son of a parent who fled Hitler, recently described what his parents had told him: ``First of all, all the guns were registered, and the government knew exactly who had them. Then one day, the Gestapo came around and said, `We know you have such and such guns at this address. Give them to us.' And if you tried to say, `No, I no longer have them,' or something like that, they just said, `Okay, you come with us' and you went to jail. The same thing happened in Poland. All the guns were registered there, and when the Nazis came in, they simply took the registration lists around and collected them all.'' The same thing happened in the Soviet Union. Registration requirements introduced in 1926 paved the way for confiscation of all civilian-owned rifles not long after, particularly in Ukraine. Then, Stalin's police were free to starve and butcher 10 million Ukrainians in the 1930s.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank