When we speak about mental illness, the first thing that comes to mind is a crazy lunatic, or someone that is incoherent, in a catonic state, confined to an institution, or subtley psychotic.. Well, the list probally doesn't end there, but the point being that what we define as mental illness,.. is when a persons psychological state is not in the realm of what is considered by society to be "normal". The ones who determine the boundaries of what is normal then, have defined for us what mental illness is. We mentioned in this web-site, on several occassions that a persons analysis of another persons mental state is entirely subjective.. That means that it is "their opinion" that the person has such and such a condition, or is normal. At the Nuremberg trials, many of the leading Nazi officers who stood up to testify, had psychiatric evaluations beforehand, and afterward..amazingly, many were considered "normal" and sane. That leaves an awful lot of room in the arena of mental illness for the average individual.   In todays world, there is some pretty scary legislation that has been instituted, and more waiting in the wings ready to be implemented, and made into law. These new rules and laws will affect every individual in the US, and after the rest of the world, as it is happenning already. Basically, all children from the cradle to the grave, as well as all parents and other adults will be "compelled" to have a psychiatric evaluation to determine the state of their mental/psychological state. These evaluations will be done by allegedly sane "normal" people, who have already been evaluated as such by the heavenly fathers of the mental health care profession. So we have over 500,000 health care workers that will evaluate the mental condition of 280 million people (theoretically), and each one of these has a subjective opinion on someone else's mental health.. This leaves alot of room for error, personal opinion, bias, prejudice,nepotism, and other forms of favoritism, bribes, and graft, and a host of other crimes. To the average person, in essence, their entire future can be determined by one "idiot" that has the objectivity and wisdom of a gad-fly. A persons employment, education, social status,..their entire life essentially is now in the hands of a subjective opinion. This is a nightmare for most of the "little people" out there who now have to depend on someone that they dont even know, or can trust, to give them fair and impartial treatment. It now in another very important arena puts most of us in a very precarious position where-by we are all at the mercy of the government, and the rules that must be enforced by individuals who are given authority to do so, by having "passed" their own psychological evaluations, and have now been declared sane and normal. These same individuals will now evaluate you/us, using the same concepts and guidelines by which they were "normalized"..and now basically accepted as such, and now have the backing of the State to compell you and your offspring to conform to those laws.. It is for your best interests after all. This is one of the ways they tell us that we can "catch early" those individuals that show the early warning signs of trouble to come. These early warning signs can be as simple as daring to dissagree with the new rules..Surely you can see the need to conform...??   In this new world are built in spy networks that will ensure that you will not escape from the "net", but will be forced to conform with or without your will or consent, as the hive wants only those insects that will work as a team to ensure the overall well being of the hive.. Rouge insects are not welcome, and will be rooted out. Your either for us or against us..!! See the below articles on the coming nightmare that has already to begun to infect our school systems and workplace..  Mental Health and World Citizenship Dr. Dennis Cuddy | August 11 2004 In a recent article, I related that the Bush administration’s Secretary of Education Rod Paige last October 3 declared that the U.S. is pleased to rejoin UNESCO where we could develop common strategies to prepare our children to become “citizens of the world.” Then on June 21 WorldNetDaily published “Life With Big Brother: Bush to screen population for mental illness” describing President Bush’s “New Freedom Initiative” that would have every citizen receive a mental health screening. What one needs to guard against is the use of mental health to pursue world government. The theme of the administration of President Woodrow Wilson was “The New Freedom” and it pursued the ideals of PHILIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR, written in 1912 by President Wilson’s chief adviser, Col. Edward M. House, who wrote of “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” Education would be a primary vehicle for achieving the objective, and John Dewey, the father of progressive education, promoted socialism. He said the society or group is most important, and that independent individualists have a form of “insanity.” By the late 1940s, Dewey’s progressive education was becoming dominant in American public schools. And in 1948 an International Congress on Mental Health was held in London with publication of a document “Mental Health and World Citizenship,” declaring that “world citizenship can be widely extended among all peoples through the application of the principles of mental health.” The Congress promoted the U.N. as the vehicle for promoting this objective, and UNESCO’s director-general Sir Julian Huxley the same year wrote in UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY that “political unification in some sort of world government will be required.” The 1950s and 1960s saw the growing strength of Dewey’s progressive educational philosophy and mental health advocacy, and in 1965 the Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children was established. In 1969, the Commission released its report, which stated: “As the home and church decline in influence...schools must begin to provide adequately for the emotional and moral development of children....The school...must assume a direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to children’s homes, recreation facilities, and schools. They should assume full responsibility for all education, including pre-primary education.” In the 1970s, a representative of HEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) approached North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. about developing a model for child health care around the nation. The N.C. Plan was called “Child Health Plan for Raising a New Generation,” and included establishing a “health care home” for every child, stating “responsibilities belonging to child and family are required.” The plan was released in 1979, the same year the N.C. State Health Plan was adopted, linking in two places religion with mental illness and mental retardation. In the same year (1979), Bill Clinton (supported by Hillary Clinton) began Arkansas’ Governor’s School for the Gifted and Talented, modeled after the first Governor’s School in the nation which was established in 1963 in N.C., was funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation, and was attended by the writer of this article. We were given various psychological tests which, I believe, looked at us as guinea pigs to be remoulded for the Brave New World of the future. When Hillary Clinton became First Lady of the U.S. in 1993, she was in charge of a health care task force, about half the members of whom were connected with the Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation. On the NBC “Today Show” (January 23, 1990), Dr. Michael Lewis of the New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School had claimed: “Lying is an important part of social life, and children who are unable to do it are children who may have developmental problems.” What Hillary Clinton’s task force was proposing was basically socialized medicine. Hillary’s friend, former N.C. Gov. Hunt, became director of RWJ’s Mental Health Services for Youth program. And regarding a January 4-5, 1996 symposium in Frankfurt, KY, attended by attorney Kent Masterson Brown, the attorney said: “He (former Gov. Hunt) came to Governor Wallace Wilkinson in Kentucky and told him that RWJ would like Kentucky to become part of this mental health program for youth, and said we’ll give you $100,000 to plan a program....That’s what they do. I mean, you think that’s just buying legislation. Well, it is.” The next year, early in 1997, former Gov. Hunt was chairman of the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) and promoted the Early Childhood Public Engagement Campaign that actor Rob Reiner and others were starting, with the Carnegie Corporation once again playing a critical role (the Carnegie Institution in 1904 had financed the establishment of a biological experiment station related to eugenics at Cold Spring Harbor, NY). The NEGP indicated a desire for the creation of a nationalized system of child care from age zero based upon the principles of brain research (mental health). Roy Roemer, Governor of Colorado at the time, stated: “The ideal system would be...in every community or county you have an organizational structure that is responsible for the zero to 6, zero to 3 age level for the child....And then finally put in a hooker and say, ‘Hey, you don’t get any payments from state on their highways until you do this job.’” It may be this same type of coercive tactic that is used to facilitate the current New Freedom Initiative. Mental health screenings may be attached to the current vaccines most children are required to receive to attend public schools. And for older people, they may be asked by insurance companies to “voluntarily” accept the screenings if they don’t want their premiums to increase. In 2001, President George W. Bush worked with U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy to pass the federal “No Child Left Behind” legislation, which includes provisions for expanding school-based mental health programs. This fits with the report of The New Freedom in Mental Health Commission, which stressed that “schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children.” Where is all this leading? In the third volume of Arthur Calhoun’s A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, published in 1919 and widely used as a social service textbook, one reads: “The new view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen, served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme....As soon as the new family, consisting of only the parents and the children, stood forth, society saw how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize the need of community care....As familism weakens, society has to assume a larger parenthood. The school begins to assume responsibility for the functions thrust upon it....The kindergarten grows downward toward the cradle and there arises talk of neighborhood nurseries....Social centers replace the old time home chimney....The chlld passes more and more into the custody of community experts....In the new social order, extreme emphasis is sure to be placed upon eugenic procreation....It seems clear that at least in its early stages, socialism will mean an increased amount of social control....We may expect in the socialist commonwealth a system of public educational agencies that will begin with the nursery and follow the individual through life....Those persons that experience alarm at the thought of intrinsic changes in family institutions should remember that in the light of social evolution, nothing is right or valuable in itself.” Relevant to this, Clinton administration official Mary Jo Bane said almost 30 years ago that “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” (TULSA SUNDAY WORLD, August 21, 1977) And about that same time, HEW Executive Assistant Eddie Bernice Johnson (who would later become a Congresswoman from Texas) advocated the licensing of parents before they would be permitted to have children. Licensing of parents has also been proposed by Prof. Gene Stephens (THE FUTURIST, April 1981) and Dr. Jack Westman (LICENSING PARENTS, 1994). Under the American socialism planned for our future, government will increasingly control our lives via mental health screening and education, among other means. Only if the American people resist these efforts as soon as possible will we be successful in thwarting the plans of the power elite. Bush to screen population for mental illness           Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs Posted: June 21, 2004 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration. The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report , seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing “services in the community, rather than institutions,” the British Medical Journal reported. Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public. The initiative began with Bush’s launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a “comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system.” The panel found that “despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed” and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children. The commission said, “Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders.” Schools, the panel concluded, are in a “key position” to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools. The commission recommended that the screening be linked with “treatment and supports,” including “state-of-the-art treatments” using “specific medications for specific conditions.” The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a “model” medication treatment plan that “illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes.” The TMAP—started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas—also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan. But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it. Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the “political/pharmaceutical alliance” that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were “poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab.” Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush’s election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly’s board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council. Of Lilly’s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party. Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of “Mad in America,” told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening “may seem defensible,” it could also be seen as “fishing for customers.” Exorbitant spending on new drugs “robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program,” he said. However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening. “There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory.” Mandatory mental health screening program would dose pregnant women with prescription drugs that cause birth defects News Target | December 2, 2004 Bureaucrats in Chicago are currently discussing a proposal to require the mental health screening of all pregnant women and children up to the age of 18 years old. The purported mission of the program is to protect the health of the public by diagnosing mental disorders before they become full blown problems—but in reality, as we’ve seen from similar programs in the past, the real mission is to diagnose people with fictitious brain diseases and behavioral disorders, then dose them with highly toxic prescription drugs that not only generate profits for pharmaceutical companies, but also for the psychiatrists who prescribe them. What’s especially frightening about this program is that it may include the dosing of pregnant women with prescription drugs that we now know increase the risk of birth defects. We also know from clinical trials and experiments involving mice that children who grow up on antidepressant drugs have a much higher risk of being depressed as adults whether or not they continue taking those drugs. In other words, it’s not enough that as a nation we misdiagnose childhood hyperactivity caused by sugar consumption as being a brain chemistry imbalance and then dose all those children with Ritalin, it seems that we also want to start dosing pregnant women as well. Who’s next? Are we going to dose all men under the age of 30? Are we going to require the mental health screening of all elderly people, and start dosing everyone over the age of 65 with brain altering drugs too? There seems to be no limit to how far the highly corrupt psychiatry community and prescription drug companies will carry this to exert control over the population and generate obscene profits. And the truth is that anyone can be diagnosed with a mental disorder given sufficient creativity on the part of the psychiatrists. If a person is too creative and excited, they have Attention Deficit Disorder. If they’re not creative enough, they have a reading disorder. And if they get nervous while being observed by the psychiatrist, they obviously have a social anxiety disorder. See? It doesn’t take much to invent behavioral disorders and then come up with fraudulently marketed drugs that claim to mask symptoms of those disorders. Welcome to Insane USA, where the mission of the pharmaceutical industry seems to be: let’s put as many people as possible on as many brain altering drugs as possible. And, if you’ve noticed, the whole idea of diagnosing disease has shifted over the last ten years from diseases that had measurable symptoms (such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure or cancer tumors) to diseases that are largely subjective and have no objective definition. There is no definition of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that can be confirmed by a lab test. It is a completely fictitious disease that has literally no verifiable biochemistry or physiology. It’s simply a matter of one psychiatrist walking in, pointing at a child and saying “Oh, he has a disorder—let’s put him on drugs!” And ignorant parents tend to go right along with it because they haven’t done the math on drugs, and they’re not aware of the dangerous side effects of these toxic prescriptions. What we really need in this country are laws that ban dosing children with mind-altering drugs. If anything, our children need to be set free from the chemical prisons erected by psychiatrists, over-zealous school administrators and, of course, pharmaceutical companies Two Out of Three Foster Children in Texas on Psychotropic Medication WOAI | November 11, 2004 Why would a child as young as 3 ever be on mind-altering drugs? For the past eight months, the News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters have poured through reams of state documents and discovered thousands of foster kids appear to be on powerful psychotropic drugs. Many of these children are barely in kindergarten. Some are mere toddlers. “We didn’t even know he was in the hospital until he called us from Laurel Ridge himself,” a woman we’ll refer to as “Magdalana” tells us. We’re disguising her name in order to protect the identity of her six year old grandson she’s referring to. She says he was confined to a psychiatric hospital following a temper tantrum when he called his grandmother for help. “I mean he was like,” Magdalana describes, “maybe you could say he looked more like a zombie.” News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooter Tanji Patton asks, “How could you tell by looking at him that he was on medication?” Magdalana answers, “His attitude, his eyes, his way of speech. All that.” Magdalana says a nurse confirmed her fears. Her grandchild was on 2 different psychotropic or mind-altering drugs, plus benadryl to help him sleep. As it turns out, Magdalana’s grandchild isn’t alone. A sampling of state records released by the State Comptroller’s office shows two out of three foster kids in texas appear to be on psychotropic meds. The Medicaid prescription records are from November of last year and show that many kids are taking two or more of these drugs. At the risk of losing her job, a Child Protective Services worker spoke to the Trouble Shooters following a hearing by State Rep. Carlos Uresti last month. She talked about one child on 17 different medications. That’s right. Seventeen! “I think he had three to four psychotropic medications in addition to the Depakote, in addition to Zoloft, in addition to Trazadone to help him sleep.” Some of these drugs the FDA states are not even safe for kids. “He did need medications,” she continues, “But I had concerns about how could this child require 17 different medications.” What’s perhaps even more alarming, child advocates say, are the ages of the kids. The Trouble Shooters obtained a never before released study that tracks the ages of the foster kids on these drugs during a one month period of time. At least 300 of these children are under the age of 7. Tanji Patton recently asked the President and CEO of the Children’s Shelter in San Antonio, Jack Downey, “How big a problem do you think this is?” Downey says, “I think it’s far larger than you or I or anyone else suspects.” This longtime advocate for children says his heart aches when he talks about the cases. He shared the story of one family he remembers in particular. “We had a wonderful family of 5 boys,” Downey recalls, “If they walked in right now you’d love them to death.” The oldest was ten. The youngest was 3. “We were directed by the state to take the boys to a psychiatrist,” Downey says. “We did and they all came back on three meds...those boys no more needed meds than I did.” Patton asks, “Every child?” Downey replies, “Every child.” So, why would a three year old need to be on psychotropic medications? “I have no idea. He was just the jolliest little kid,” Downey tells us. Who is prescribing these meds? You would think psychiatrists, right? Well, after pouring through thousands of documents, the News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters found that’s not always the case. Many are family practitioners. State records show one of the biggest prescribers in San Antonio is a radiologist. Sure it’s legal, but what does a radiologist know about a child’s mental health? The Trouble Shooters also found some of these doctors have documented drug problems of their own. One case is Dr. Charles Sargent, a San Antonio psychiatrist. He’s listed as one of the state’s top prescribers of antidepressants to kids on Medicaid. The records we obtained show he also prescribes stimulants and powerful antipsychotics. The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners put Dr. Sargent on probation in recent months because state records show he was busted for prescribing narcotics to himself, his girlfriend and her son. As part of his probation, he must submit to random drug testing. He declined our request for an on-camera interview, but told me by phone the anti-depressant he prescribes is one that does have FDA approval for kids. He did not return our call questioning his suspension with the state medical board. Another doctor who shows up as a frequent prescriber on state records is Dr. Benny Fernandez, the medical director at Laurel Ridge Psychiatric Hospital. Dr. Fernandez says his practice is primarily treating foster kids. He says psychotropics are necessary for a lot of these kids. “I think the way we are moving now is using them as a last resort if we can,” Dr. Fernandez tells Tanji Patton. Patton asks, “When you see more than 60% in one month period, that was looked at on medications, do you think it’s being used as a last resort?” Dr. Fernandez replies, “Well, those numbers seem a little bit high.” When asked if he thought too many kids have been put on these medications, he says, “I wish those numbers would go down and that’s what we need to focus our energy and efforts in making sure that the medications, when they are used, are used appropriately and there’s a careful diagnostic evaluation.” That’s not what many of the former foster kids i spoke to say happened to them. Chris Brown says “I was on a number of different medications.” Marie Garcia even recalls some of the pills she took, “Zoloft, Paxil, Wellbutrin, Depakote.” Ken Coleman goes as far as to say, “I was on 7 different medications at once.” While Texas is just beginning to deal with this controversy, we headed to a state that began tackling the issue years ago. Child advocates in Florida have been trying to get laws passed to protect children from being over medicated. So far, they haven’t been successful. They blame the doctors and pharmaceutical companies who’ve lobbied against them. “We don’t deal with the problems these kids have. We give them a pill,” says Dr. Tony Appel, a neuropsychologist or brain specialist who was one of the expert child advocates in Florida we went to for help. We showed her the records we uncovered here in Texas. Tanji Patton asks, “Does it look like the kids are being treated for behavior control or mental illness?” Dr. Tony Appel replies, “I don’t think they’re treating mental illness. Not in these kids.” Tanji says, “Psychiatrists and people on the other side will say ‘these are sick kids. I mean these are kids who’ve been sexually abused.. they need medication.’” Dr. Tony Appel explains, “Being sexually abused makes you a victim. It doesn’t make you sick.” So, what does she think these drugs are doing to these kids? “We’re taking away their future. We’re taking away their ability to relate to people; trust, love caring, ability to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and see how they see you. We take all that away from these children. We blunt their emotion.” Most experts we talked to agree that some children absolutely need medication, but all say Child Protective Service, doctors and caregivers need to be more careful when deciding whether to use those medications. Comptroller Carroll Keeton Strayhorn first brought this issue to the attention of state authorities this spring. We asked to speak to Governor Perry about the controversy but a spokesman declined, saying the state is investigating CPS as a whole and cannot comment until the investigation is completed. A New Law in Illinois Ok, here are the basics of the proposed law: Signed into law, the bill passed the Illinois General Assembly last spring.. The legislation passed the house with a 107 to a 5 vote, and the senate unanimously.. The program “created’ will require all pregnant women and children through the age of 18 to be tested for mental health needs.. “ It was commented that, we are moving towards social training over academic training with this program...since physchiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades, evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, its subjective.. (but they are doing it anyway) It was commented that..”what if they find a student that has a “math disorder”, does that mean he has a mental disorder, and will be treated with drugs for a condition they may or not have...?  Also, all pregnant women will be treated for depression and thereafter as followups for 1 year after the birth of the child, and up to 18 years of age for the child.. Apparently, childrens mental health will be assessed along with their academic standards in the new propossed testing..The State Board of Education has been given the “responsibility” to develop the tests... they said..!! I wonder if the Board of Education will also enforce the rules and guidelines and compell, or otherwise force the parents to comply...willingly of course, against their will in most cases undoubably, but for their own good of course.. As a commentary ( By Laura Dawn Davis) on the original article, under the heading Why you Need to Be Concerned she said..Quote....”If you haven’t noticed yet, the majority of new laws and policies being implemented, are sold on fear, through the necessity of good intentions, as a way to protect you, allowing your government to take care of you..(we have your best interests at heart).. As if the government is a better steward of your body, soul and mind..Each is euphemized to seem harmless and necessary.. Everytime a law is passed, you have given up a portion of your freedom..This is a fact... Some laws are necessary to allow society to function toward a common good.. ( we are not disputing those)..She continues..” Since September 11th, 2001, our governments, state, local, and federal, continue to push through legislation, and ideas directly in contradiction to the rules we’ve already established for America, set forth in our Constitution.. In effect, each of these chips at our civil liberties, is forcing us farther way from our values and principles.. This law in Illinois represents only one such example.. “without a doubt” (quotations mine), the women pushing it through created it with the best of intentions, however, anytime something becomes mandatory, intentions become abuses......... I beleive the citizens of Illinois, and the rest of us in the United States, must object to this legislation..If we allow it to pass in one state without confronting it...others will follow... (without a doubt this is true)...Her reasons for oppossing this law are as follows... It is profiling... segmenting society based on subjective ideals, potentially creating a caste in society based on “alledged” mental health...... It is compulsory...this means you do not have a choice to agree with it or not..but you have to accept it anyway, and willingly submitt to the law, or be compelled too..she continues, once in the state records, you are open to all forms of abuses used to screen you for employment, drivers license, college, retirement, health care, etc etc.. The state dtermines whether you are mentally healthy or not, and can compell you to take medication for your disorder whether you need it or not, including your children, all based on subjective evidence..which we should know consciously without anyone telling you is NOT scientific fact... It is also an invasion of your privacy, it is specifically un-constitutional..Allowing this to go ahead will set precedents that will only be used to condone any and all actions deemed “righteous”... She continues by saying..Last year  43, 220 people died in traffic accidents across the entire US... In addittion 195,000 deaths occurred due to hospital or doctor error...Do we wage a war on prescription mix ups, unsafe driving, or medical mis-diagnosis, which is a real threat to Americans...Up until 911, how many people were killed in the US due to foreign terrorism...? but these figures on our hospitals and roads are every year...!!.. In return for our safety, we lay our rights down,.... and trample them over with fear of what might happen, but probally wont.. The treacherous RFID tagging is next...In fact your local Wal-mart store is very instrumental in ensuring that this technology is implemented... How long will it be till all citizens are required to have one of these devices attached or implanted in their bodies...Do you think it will be Volluntary..?? Considering that its already used on merchandise, food packaging, prisoners, animals etc etc, and trials are now being used on some human populations in Europe and Mexico.. .Do you think we are looking for a conspiracy under every rock...??? Or is it possible that there are several to chose from laying on the ground in plain view for all to see... You don't need special 3D Mormon goggles to see the hidden truths before you...They are really in plain view...You also willingly chose not to see them...See, its still your choice...right...? ( The article in its entirety can be found at www. couplescompany.com ) if your interested in doing your own research...!!!