Tancredo Shares Blame for Fundraising Shortfall

Tancredo poses with a gun he hasn’t advocated “restricting.” (Tancredo for Governor – Facebook photo)

“Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo is ending his bid for the Republican nomination for Colorado governor on Tuesday because he hasn’t raised the money he believes would be necessary to win an expensive election,” Colorado Politics reports.

“I do not want to win a primary and lose a general, and I fear that was where we were going,” Tancredo admitted. “Even though I’m the front-runner — you make it through a primary, and then all hell breaks loose, you have millions upon millions of dollars spent attacking you, and you can’t respond, you don’t have the resources to respond.”

Part of that reason is because Colorado has moved leftward. Even though “red” counties outnumber “blue” counties, urban areas are dominated by Democrats. And between an influx of “progressives” who fouled their own nests in places like California and the changing demographics of “immigration,” look for collectivist politics to spread.

But wasn’t that one of Tancredo’s strengths? Hasn’t he been a champion of “America first” and “conservative” values?

Yes and no.

He’s been pretty good on “immigration,” to the point where domestic Marxist media tars him as a “xenophobe.”

But he’s got some unreconciled past sins on guns to atone for that he never genuinely has.

But wait a minute – doesn’t “On the Issues” show him to be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms?

That summary completely misses a key betrayal – and there’s really no other word for it. You just can’t expect enthusiastic support after that, and campaigns need believers with fire in their bellies to win. Tancredo doused such fires in serious politically-involved gun owners who have memories going back (less than) 20 years.

“Tancredo stood out as the only representative from Colorado to vote for the final gun-control bill, which allowed just 24 hours for background checks at gun shows but also placed some restrictions on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips [sic],” The New York Times reported in 1999, explaining why, following the events at Columbine, the congressman bucked his largest campaign contributor, the National Rifle Association, and sided with the gun-grabbers.

“Sometimes, I stop and think, ‘Boy, have I changed since Columbine,’” The Times report quoted Tancredo. “Guns are an issue. They did take children’s lives.”

In other words, he turned his back on us in our time of need. So a fair question for gun owners now is “Has Tancredo changed again since he changed last, and does he still think ‘guns are an issue’?”

His track record of abandoning people who previously helped him gain power should surely factor into supporter perceptions. That’s because rather than maintain allegiance with them — and with his oath to the Constitution — he chose to let anti-gun fervor prevail over rights.

Why wouldn’t gun owners suspect that the next “gun free zone” exploitation with horrible results would prompt him to once more take it out on them? The old saying “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” would seem to more than apply here.

Before Tancredo can credibly ask gun owners to trust him again, he owes them an apology along with a sincere request for forgiveness. And before that apology can credibly be perceived as genuine, he needs to not only say that he was wrong, but explain why he was wrong, what he has done since to make amends, and what he will do in the future. And he needs to do it in no uncertain terms.

After all, it was Tancredo’s infidelity that violated trust and burned bridges. Once faith is so utterly broken, it takes years and plenty of commitment and work to restore it — if it ever truly can be. As with cheating partners, a mere “I love you and I’ll never do it again” coming from someone who willingly broke vows proclaimed before God and man should hardly be enough, especially when the person saying so has much to gain.

Only a willing cuckold in desperate denial would argue otherwise, and even they wouldn’t really believe it deep down unless they are fools. Mr. Tancredo has much repair work to do before gun owners who don’t tolerate cheatin’ hearts should be ready to give him another chance.

The oath is supposed to be for life.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Tancredo Shares Blame for Fundraising Shortfall appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Harvard Trained Psychiatrist Says Medication Could Have Caused Vegas Shooter’s Madness

Dr. Peter R. Breggin, psychiatrist and leading expert in the field of anti-depressant induced mass murders said, “It’s premature, really at this point,” to determine if psychiatric medicines such as anti-depressants were being taken by Stephen Paddock.

Author of more than 20 books and publications including Medication Madness: The role of Psychiatric drugs in cases of Violence, Suicide, and Murder, Breggin said just because we know the mass murderer was taking benzodiazepines, “doesn’t tell us a lot yet,” the doctor stated but later explained it should be a starting point in the search for explanations.

In a Free Thought Project exclusive, Dr. Breggin acknowledged that sedatives such as Diazepam are often given in conjunction with anti-depressants. He said doctors do so;

Often because the anti-depressant tends to be stimulating and doctors have learned that, and they often give a sedating drug  (such as Diazepam) along with them (anti-depressants).

Anti-depressants have often been blamed by families of those accused of homicide and mass murder, and even by the murderers themselves. David Crespi, a Matthews, NC banker is one such person. In 2006, Crespi was at one minute playing with his daughters, and the next minute he was stabbing his two twin daughters to death. According to WSOC TV9,

Advertisment

he and his family appeared in a Danish documentary in 2013, in which he insisted, as he has for years, that his decision to chase his young daughters through the house before stabbing them a total of 32 times was the result of a psychotic episode brought on by prescription medication he was taking to treat depression.

If Americans are in shock with Paddock’s actions they only need to be reminded of another mass murderer who killed nearly three times as many people as Paddock. Andreas Lubitz, pilot of Germanwings flight 9525, killed all 150 of the passengers aboard his plane when he flew it into a mountain in the French Alps. According to reports, Lubitz was taking several anti-depressants including Celexa, at the time he flew his passenger plane under controlled flight into terrain. According to Forbes, along with Lorazepam, Lubitz was taking:

• Mirtazapine–the generic name for Remeron, an atypical antidepressant that affects norepinephrine and serotonin neurotransmission but is not a reuptake inhibitor for either transmitter.


• Escitalopram–the active stereoisomer of citalopram (Celexa) and generic name for Lexapro. Escitalopram is a serotonin-selective reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is conditionally permitted for pilot use by the U.S. FAA.


• Zolpidem–the generic name for the nonbenzodiazepine sleeping pill sold as Ambien.


• Zopiclone–the active stereoisomer of zolpidem (Ambien) and generic name for Lunesta.


• Dominal forte–the German brand name for prothipendyl hydrochloride, a mixed antipsychotic and insomnia drug not available in the U.S. Prothipendyl belongs to the phenothiazines, a class of early antipsychotic drugs that includes chlorpromazine (Thorazine).

READ MORE:  One Dead, One Injured After Police Shoot Men Dressed As Women After Collision At NSA

As Americans search for an answer to the question ‘why’ Paddock did what he did, some people believe investigators need to look further into his own medicine cabinet for a pharmaceutical drug which can take an ordinary person and transform them into a killer. Some experts believe that serotonin-syndrome is what can make an ordinary person suddenly become homicidal. Many believe serotonin-syndrome can be caused by something as simple as starting to take, ceasing, or re-starting anti-depressants.

While much speculation surrounds the motivations behind Paddock’s murderous rampage with legally obtained weapons, the expert on anti-depressant side effects has spent years unraveling the Columbine high school shooting and he believes anti-depressants bear the weight of the burden.

“I’ve been involved in several cases as an expert witness,” Breggin stated to TFTP in a telephone interview. In the Columbine shooting, specifically with, “Eric Harris. I was able to confirm that Harris was taking Luvox right up until the time of the shooting. He had a ‘therapeutic level’ right up to the time of the shooting according to the coroner’s report and in Solvay’s report to the FDA.” (Solvay is the maker of the drug Luvox).

The doctor continued, “I’ve seen both of those reports. Harris had some recent increase in the drug, which is common before things get worse and worse. We know that when he was put on the Luvox there was no evidence that he was violent at that time. But we know that the violence grows over time,” he added.

Dr. Breggin, the world’s foremost expert on anti-depressant induced homicides and suicides also commented on James Holmes’ use of anti-depressants. Holmes is infamously known as the Aurora, Colorado mass murderer. On July, 20, 2012, he killed 12 people, wounding dozens more. Dr. Breggin reflected on Holmes and revealed the inside story behind his murderous rampage.

READ MORE:  BREAKING: Polling Stations on Lockdown After Mass Shooter Kills 1, Injures 3

“When he went to the doctor telling her he had homicidal thoughts and feelings, she put him on Zoloft. It was after he goes on Zoloft that he developed those manic-like psychotic life plans. These drugs (SSRI’s – selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, AKA anti-depressants) can produce psychotic behavior,” the doctor maintained.

“We know that he stopped on June 30th and that he was in his full blown state of psychosis and twenty days later he goes on to conduct the violence.” Stopping short of blaming anti-depressants directly, especially without first confirming Paddock was taking them, Dr. Breggin would go so far as to say, “It appears that drugs are involved in many and many of these cases.”

As detectives, members of the media, and the public, all try and sort out the reasons behind the mayhem, mangling, and murder, Dr. Breggin’s final comments attempted to put it all in perspective. “All I can say is it should be one of the first things we look for.”

One doesn’t have to look far. There’s evidence Paddock was already taking Valium. Dr. Breggin acknowledged as much when he said, “Lo and behold we have some evidence reported from the local press and that it was reported officially in the state’s PMP (Prescription Monitoring Program).” Paddock was taking downers, quite possibly to counter-act the upper affect prescription anti-depressants were having on his mind.

Before it’s all said and done, Paddock’s name may be written alongside Crespi, Lubitz, Harris, and Holmes as murderers, adversely affected by prescription anti-depressants, already known to cause suicidal actions, homicidal ideations, and violent behaviors.

READ MORE:  The Last Words Freddie Gray Ever Read? Baltimore Cops Leave Sadistic Messages Inside Police Vans

Chicago ‘Anti-Violence’ Advocate’s Reason for Gun Ownership Sounds More Aggressive than Defensive

With Bloomberg’s Demanding Moms at anti-gun rally (Camiella D. Williams / Facebook)

“Camiella Williams is an anti-violence advocate, who works hard to teach people other ways of dealing with problems, but she’s lost more than two dozen friends and family members to Chicago’s gun violence in recent years,” NPR virtue oozes.

That’s a lot. Outside of people who served in the military, I don’t know anyone’s whose life has been “lost” that way, and I’ve been around guns and “gun people” for decades.  Would it be unforgivably judgmental and “privileged” to ask if any of that reflects on poor individual choices more than on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

With Congressional gun-grab sit-in “leader” Rep. John Lewis (Camiella D. Williams / Facebook)

Williams seems to have made her share of such choices – from gang affiliations, to acts of violence, to her own “first” gun possession at age 12. Fantasizing about guilt of others with no evidence or about vengeful acts of lethal retaliation and chalking it up to self-diagnosed “collective trauma” don’t exactly speak to emotional stability. So who better to embrace the contradiction of being an anti-gun activist and a concealed carry permit bearer?

She brings to mind some others who have shared the cognitive dissonance, like:

• Nikole Ardeno and Emanuel Velez, “two ‘Stop the Violence’ organizers [who] allegedly beat one of their colleagues so severely that he vomited blood and was left unconscious in critical condition.”


• Jermalle Brown and Douglas Bufford, the latter accidentally killed by the former in a home invasion robbery in an apparent attempt to supplement their income handing out antiviolence pamphlets for the State of Illinois.


• Dwayne Ferguson, an “anti-violence activist” who illegally carried a gun onto school grounds and did not reveal to police he was the cause of the lockdown until three hours in and a second search.


• Hector “Big Weasel” Marroquin,  founder of the city-funded group “No Guns,” and who was popped for trying to “sell an assault rifle, a machine gun, two pistols and two silencers” to an undercover federal agent, making it his second weapons arrest in as many years.


• Richard Hernandez, a CeaseFire “interrupter” who faced “36 counts of sexually assaulting and kidnapping a teenage girl while he worked for the program.” And who was “among at least nine employees of the anti-violence program to face serious criminal charges in recent years.”


• Joe Mammana, a “gun buyback” sponsor sentenced to eight years on felon-with-a-gun and tax charges.


• And there are plenty more “common sense gun safety” advocates whose own conduct resulted in the very “gun violence” they decry, including two straw purchasers for the Columbine killers, a Million Mom March sponsor who shot and paralyzed the wrong guy in an attempt to avenger her dead son, the president of a Million Moms chapter hiding drugs and a gun with a filed-off serial number from police executing a search warrant in a drive-by shooting investigation, and “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher, who shot her “lover’s” wife in the face and thinks you can’t be trusted with semi-autos and should join the military if you want one.

What “anti-violence” purpose does it serve showcasing this in her Facebook photos? (Camiella D. William / Facebook)

Might a common factor be projection because these people know they can’t be trusted with guns?

In Ms. Williams case, let’s hope she continues her progress toward escaping her life conditions through education and achievement. And let’s further hope someone helps her understand that the reasons for owning a personal protection firearm are just that, and that she can continue to keep her darker speculations at bay.

And as long as wishes are being made, let’s hope she comes to understand the evils of supporting citizen disarmament and the politicians who betray their oaths to enact it. Listening to her, that does not seem likely, and it’s a cinch all those news outlets spreading her story and making her famous won’t help her with that.

Sorry, but you have no right to force that on others and peaceable gun owners have never reacted that way to such provocation. And talk about projection. While drivers would be justifiably angry, sane people support resolution in accordance with “the supreme Law of the Land.” (Camiella D. Williams / Facebook)

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”