My last post regarding the Davis County Clipper’s misquoting me in an attempt to portray me as some sort of kook that doesn’t believe in being a law-abiding citizen brought to mind memories from over a decade ago when the Clipper advocated strongly for water fluoridation. In Davis County, I led the effort to defeat water fluoridation in the elections of 2002 and 2004. My small group gathered thousands of signatures to place the issue on the ballot only to lose by the narrowest of margins (only 2%). For this effort, both the Deseret News and Davis County Clipper labelled anti-fluoridationists as kooks and did everything in their power to sucker citizens into supporting fluoridation. The Salt Lake Tribune was the only newspaper that officially came out against water fluoridation, but even its clout was not strong enough to defeat well-funded proponents. Which brings me to the topic of Global Warming.

What does Global Warming have to do with water fluoridation? Everything! Most of us are now familiar with ClimateGate, in which numerous emails between top climate researchers revealed an underlying current of deception in the advocation of Global Warming. The emails admit outright that the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion. Billions of our taxpayer dollars went to fund so-called “studies” that proclaimed that carbon dioxide was an evil poison that threatened the very existence of life on earth. Oceans would rise 20 feet, glaciers were in a torrential melt-down, and the ice caps were “disappearing.”

Despite ClimateGate, these global warming alarmists are still at it, trying to destroy the economy with their lies, vitriol, and name-calling. Global warming, contrary to what is portrayed in the news, isn’t about “saving the planet,”, etc.,etc. It’s about control: control of energy, control of natural resources, control of people, and control of people’s money through taxation. The Cap and Trade legislation that has fortunately not been passed would have skyrocketed energy costs and done nothing other than to take money from our pockets in large quantities and give it to the government. The last thing anybody in their right mind should do at this point is give our government more of our hard earned dollars.

As is obvious now with Global Warming, government has learned very well that it can control scientists–buy off scientists–with lucrative incentives to support whatever policy government wishes to promote. Scientists have willingly sold their soul to government, and government has funded absurd studies to promote whatever result it wants scientists to support. One of the most absurd was a study that found that global warming would lead to more illegal immigration:

Between 1.4 million and 6.7 million Mexicans could migrate to the U.S. by 2080 as climate change reduces crop yields and agricultural production in Mexico, according to a study published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The number could amount to 10% of the current population of Mexicans ages 15 to 65. Click here for source.

Common sense, however, blares that plants thrive on carbon dioxide and more of it will actually increase crop yields.

But common sense hasn’t been coming from all too many scientists for many, many years. Global warming wasn’t the first scam perpetrated by governmental/scientific collusion. It’s also not likely to be the last. One of the first, however, was, yes, water fluoridation. In short, large fertilizer manufacturing companies, needing a cheap way to rid themselves of toxic byproducts of their manufacturing process, colluded with government officials to pawn off a number of different “fluoride” compounds as “beneficial” to the public health. The end result was the addition of these “fluorides” to our drinking water supply to “save our children’s teeth.” “Study” after “study” after “study” proclaimed the benificence of fluoride, which if it really did what was claimed would render dentists practically obsolete. But obsolete they are not. And short of work they are not. The fluoridation of Davis County’s water supply has done virtually nothing to reduce the incidence of caries. And proponents have yet to produce even one–yes, ONE–valid double-blind study that proves that water fluoridation reduces the number of cavities in a community! Most of Europe does not fluoridate and actually has lower incidence of caries than fluoridated areas in the United States.

So the end result is that we are paying millions of dollars to add unproven toxic waste to our drinking water that does no good at all. The only real beneficiaries are the phosphate fertilizer industry which now profits from this waste (selling it to municipalities) instead of having to safely dispose of it.

Both global warming and water fluoridation are sad commentary on what corporate/government interests are able to accomplish with a biased media to assist. It is saddest of all that some of the most educated citizens in our community, the doctors and dentists, have been suckered into supporting this snakeoil policy. Back when we were attempting to defeat water fluoridation, we invided Dr. Paul Connett, a scientist well acquainted with the fluoridation fraud, to speak in Davis County to local doctors and medical personnel. Hundreds of doctors/personnel were invited: not even a half a dozen bothered to show up. Dr. Connett recently published The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There. I’m posting a review below. I hope that our legislators will take note of this and take action to end the archaic and dangerous practice of fluoridation in all Utah communities. It’s a waste of precious dollars in these difficult economic times and does nothing good whatsoever for ourselves or our children. In may, in fact, be doing significant harm to our health. We were almost suckered into the Global Warming propaganda and lies, which ClimateGate opened our eyes to; it’s now time to undo the water fluoridation sucker punch.

David A. Hansen

Article follows:

Fighting Fluoride

by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

Recently by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD: What Kerouac, Kennedy, Lincoln, and Practicing Medicine Have Taught Me About Liberty

The battle for and against fluoridation of the public water supply has entered a new phase. Three things have happened since I researched and wrote “Fluoride Follies” five years ago.

In their efforts to have all the community drinking water in the U.S. fluoridated, promoters of fluoridation are taking a different tact. Rather than grapple with community-level politics and local referendums on this matter, they are increasingly targeting state legislators and are pushing for statewide mandates to fluoridate the public water supply.

A second development has inflicted a chink in the Federal Government’s armor against antifluoridationists. The Office of Drinking Water in its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned the government’s National Research Council (NRC) to examine the toxicology of fluoride. It was commissioned to assess the EPA’s 4 ppm (parts per million) maximum contaminant level goal, along with its 2 ppm secondary maximum contaminant level, a level set to keep children from having unsightly dental fluorosis, where white specks form on teeth, and with further fluoride exposure become confluent and turn brown. The council’s 506-page report was published in 2006. It unflinchingly faces up to the health-damaging effects of fluoride in public water.

The third development is the publication, in September 2010, of The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There by Paul Connett, PhD, the director of the Fluoride Action Network; James Beck, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary, Canada; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil, Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, UK. The Case Against Fluoride is well-written, which makes it easy to read; and it is comprehensive, citing more than 1700 references, pro and con, dealing with fluoridation of public water. This book is the ideal litigator’s brief for prosecuting the case against fluoride.

Most Americans, 269 million in a population of 304 million (88.5 %), get their water from public water systems, and 196 million (72.4 %) drink – and bathe and wash their clothes with – fluoridated water. Maryland is the most heavily fluoridated state, where 99.8% of people use fluoridated public water, followed by Kentucky (99.4%), Minnesota (98.8%), North Dakota (96.4%), Illinois (95.4%), and Indiana (94.5%) (The District of Columbia, appropriately enough, is 100 percent fluoridated.) Hawaii (at 10.8%), New Jersey (13.6%), Oregon (27.4%), and Louisiana (28.3%) are the least fluoridated states. These statistics are for 2008, the most recent ones available on fluoridation. That year, in Louisiana, the legislature approved and the governor signed into law an Act that requires all community water systems in Louisiana having 5,000 or more customers (some 110 systems serving 2 million) to fluoridate their water.

Promoters are pushing for mandatory statewide fluoridation in various states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts among them. In Oregon, a bill (HB2025) is pending that will mandate statewide fluoridation. It would require all municipal water systems serving 10,000 or more customers to add fluoride to their water, for 2.4 million Oregonians, 66 percent of the state’s population. Legislators in California passed a state-mandated fluoridation law in 1995 that is contingent on municipalities obtaining an outside, non-state source of funds for it. State officials are putting increasing pressure on California cities, notably San Diego, that have not yet complied with the law. (In 2008, 58.8% of California’s public water was fluoridated.)

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that shows fluoride damages health. The National Research Council (NRC) report published in 2006, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards (available free online HERE) is the first one in the 65-year history of fluoridation that examines fluoride in an open-minded and unbiased way. Charged with carrying out a government-stipulated once-every-decade review of EPA’s fluoride standards, the council’s panel of reviewers examined not just epidemiologic studies but also biochemical and animal studies and clinical trials. The report cites over 1,100 references. The panel concluded that the EPA’s maximum and secondary maximum contaminant level goals for fluoride, 4 ppm (4 mg/Liter) and 2 ppm (2mg/L) respectively, are “not protective of public health,” particularly with regard to three things: dental fluorosis; skeletal fluorosis, which causes chronic joint pain and arthritis imitating osteoarthritis; and fractures. Among the many studies the NRC panel reviewed, for example, one showed that elderly people have a 3-times greater chance of having a hip fracture drinking water with a fluoride concentration of 4.4 ppm; and another one indicated that even a 1.5 ppm concentration, close to that used in public water, is associated with a possible doubling of hip fractures. These courageous government-appointed NRC reviewers also concluded that “fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers.” The [2010] Case Against Fluoride cites several other important health studies on fluoridation done since the publication of the NRC report in 2006 that support its findings.

Concerns about these 2 and 4 mg/Liter maximum contaminant levels are relevant to people drinking and using fluoridated water at 1 mg/L. Even people who live in non-fluoridated communities consume, on average, 4 mg of fluoride a day. It is in toothpaste, fruit juices, soda pop, tea, and processed foods. People living in fluoridated areas consume twice as much fluoride, 8 mg/L a day. Fluoride is readily absorbed through the skin (bathing and wearing clothes washed with fluoridated water) and through the lungs (inhaling steam in a fluoridated shower). As a result, it turns out that two-thirds of the fluoride people take into their bodies using fluoridated community water comes from bathing and wearing clothes washed in it. Athletes and people working in hot climates who drink a lot of water and infants who are fed formula with fluoridated tap water are at particular risk for being subjected to a toxic dose of fluoride. The EPA’s maximum dose level for fluoride is 0.06 mg/Kg/day, a level that many people and infants exceed.

Four years have elapsed since the NRC recommended that the EPA carry out more studies and consider lowering its 2 mg/L and 4 mg/L fluoride maximum concentration level goals. So far nothing has been done. This agency’s response to the NRC’s unwelcome news on fluoride brings to mind an observation Winston Churchill made about such things: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”

Publication of The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There is a signal event in the 65-year story of fluoridation. The book’s authors document in a convincing fashion that fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. They address first the ethics of this medical practice and present general arguments against fluoridation. In the summary to this part of the book, they write:

“When the fluoridation of drinking water began, there was little evidence for its long-term safety, and since then little attempt has been made to monitor its health effects systematically. Because there are so many unanswered health questions, fluoridation of water must be considered an ongoing experimental procedure, and as such it is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which forbids experimentation on humans without their informed consent. Only a minority of countries practice fluoridation. In Europe, nearly all countries either have never fluoridated their water or have ceased doing so. Yet the incidence of caries has declined just as much in those countries as in countries that practice fluoridation.”

The Case Against Fluoride next marshals evidence indicating that fluoridation is ineffective in its intended purpose of preventing tooth decay, then it recounts the history of what the authors call “The Great Fluoridation Gamble,” followed by a section on how fluoride harms health. Four chapters are devoted to explaining, in turn, how fluoride harms the brain, the endocrine system (especially the thyroid gland), bone, and kidneys. Another one analyzes evidence that fluoride causes osteosarcoma in young boys. In the chapter on fluoride and the brain, the authors write, “There have also been twenty-three studies indicating a lowered IQ in children associated with levels as low as 1.9 ppm fluoride in drinking water.” The chapter on the endocrine system finds that fluoride causes hypothyroidism and goiter, by a variety of biochemical mechanisms, and notes that the second most widely prescribed drug in fluoridated America was levothyroxine (Synthroid), for impaired thyroid function. Fluoride poisons enzymes, particularly those in bones, which contain 99 percent of the fluoride in the body. With its enzymes poisoned by the fluoride stored there and unable make the collagen needed to keep bones healthy and strong, they become brittle and weak. The Case Against Fluoride makes a strong case that the 1 mg/Liter (1 ppm) concentration of fluoride added to community water can wreak widespread deleterious effects in multiple organ systems.

For the last 30 years the fluoride used to fluoridate community drinking water is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, or naturally occurring calcium fluoride, but untested silicofluorides – hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, sodium hexafluorosilicate. These fluoridating agents are waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry and contain trace amounts of arsenic and lead. Fertilizer plants sell these unpurified silicofluorides to municipal water systems at a profit, rather than, at considerable expense, having to dispose of them as toxic waste.

In a court trial against fluoride, the judge presiding would stop pro-fluoridationists from making ad hominem attacks that focus on the character of the opposing witness instead of the evidence at hand; and proponents of fluoridation making repeated dogmatic assertions that fluoridation is safe and effective would be subject to cross examination. An attorney using The Case Against Fluoride as her brief in prosecuting the case against fluoridation would most likely obtain a criminal-level verdict of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Case Against Fluoride also addresses, and discredits, forty claims pro-fluoridationists make for fluoride. These are some of them: Claim 1) “There is no difference in principle between chlorination and fluoridation;” 3) “Fluoride is a nutrient;” 5) “The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you;” 9) “Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families;” 12) “For every dollar spent on fluoridation, $38 is saved in dental costs;” 15) “Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation;” etc. The authors deal with Claim 17, “Fluoridation is safe and effective,” this way:

“This empty phrase is parroted so many times by pro-fluoridation officials and dentists at meetings considering fluoridation that one begins to wonder if they receive some kind of commission every time it is uttered! Be that as it may, mechanically repeating a phrase, no matter how often, without backing it up with solid supporting evidence does not make it true.”

With solid evidence now showing that fluoride placed in public water is not safe, health authorities nevertheless still continue to promote fluoridation of community drinking water. The American Medical Association (AMA) says, “The AMA recognizes the important public health benefits of drinking properly fluoridated water and encourages its member physician and medical societies to work with local and state health departments, dental societies, and concerned citizens to assure optimal fluoridation of community drinking water.” The American Dental Association (ADA), in its statement on the subject, reminds us that “Studies conducted throughout the past sixty years have consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults.” The American Heart Association assures us that “no evidence exists that adjusting the fluoride content of public water supplies to a level of about one part per million has any harmful effect on the cardiovascular system;” and the American Cancer Society claims that “scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.” But none of these accolades can top the Federal Government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC has proclaimed fluoridation of community drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements in the 20th century.

Starting in the 1940s with World War II, vast amounts of fluoride were needed to make atom bombs (using uranium hexafluoride to separate the fissionable uranium-235 isotope from the nonfissionable uranium-238 isotope), and emitted as toxic waste in the metal industries, especially smelting aluminum used to make airplanes. Fluoride emissions from these industries were killing crops and livestock and lawsuits loomed. Pushed partly as a matter of national security, the government painted a happy face on fluoride and convinced health policy makers and medical and dental leaders to approve putting it, well diluted, in public drinking water (for more on this part of the story see “Fluoride Follies“).

How can health authorities continue to be wrong about fluoride? For 65 years? And for the last 30 years using a non-pharmaceutical-grade of fluoride taken unaltered and untested from the smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry? The truth is such things are not as improbable as one might think. This is not the first time that authorities have been so wrong about the safety and effectiveness of what was considered to be a therapeutic element. Before fluoride it was mercury. Mercury was used to treat a variety of conditions ranging from cuts and scratches to syphilis. It was considered to be safe and effective. Older Americans reading this can call to mind the little reddish-brown bottle of mercury-laden mercurochrome used to treat the odd cut or scratch. But even with syphilis, bad as that disease is, treating it with mercury proved to be worse than the disease itself. Finally recognized as the poison it is, medications containing mercury are no longer used, except, sad to say, mercury is still used in some multi-dose vaccines as a preservative. Likely what happened with mercury, however, will also happen with fluoride.

Joel Kaufmann, PhD, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, puts the issue plainly:

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data. (J Am Phys Surg 2005;10:38–44, available online HERE)

As Upton Sinclair notes (with additions): “It is difficult to get a man [e.g., fluoride proponents] to understand something [the fact that fluoridation of public water is neither safe nor effective] when his salary [, reputation, and power] depends on his not understanding it.”

One hopes that Americans will come to see fluoride, like mercury before it, as the poison it is and demand that municipalities stop fluoridating their water. With The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There now in public hands, along with the NRC’s Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, government officials, the fertilizer industry, and misguided doctors and dentists pushing for statewide fluoridation of public water supplies will be stopped, and likely sued. The health of Americans will be substantially improved once fluoride is removed from their water.

November 9, 2010

Donald Miller is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. He is a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Davis County Clipper hasn’t changed much. As I was watching the election results with a combined group of 9-12′ers and Constitution Party members last Tuesday night, I received a call from Melinda Williams, a writer for the Davis County Clipper. She complimented me on my 8.77% results, which she said was significantly higher than what was normally expected of 3rd party candidates. She then asked me what I had done differently.  This is how she quoted me:

Hansen said he did two things he thought were interesting that may have influenced voters: He placed a minuteman on his signs, representing the idea that we should oppose the federal government; and he conducted a telephone campaign telling people it is their constitutional duty to not obey the law.

In the political battles I have fought, this paper has a long history of misquoting myself and others to make us look stupid.

They should have written:

Hansen said he did two things he thought were interesting that may have influenced voters: He placed a minuteman on his signs, representing the idea that we should oppose [unconstitutional Federal mandates violating the 10th Amendment] the federal government; and he conducted a telephone campaign telling people it is [the state's constitutional right--and duty-- to refuse to obey unconstitional Federal laws that violate the 10th Amendment]. their constitutional duty to not obey the law.

It’s no wonder newspapers are going bankrupt across the country. Who really wants to read their biased garbage anyway, much less be interviewed by them?

David A. Hansen

Read this: The TSA: America’s Real Child Pornography/Molestation Machine.

And my question is, again, why aren’t our sheriff’s arresting these costumed clowns? Can Utah’s legislators please take care of this problem? A quote below:

A great man had to go through his first invasive pat-down at the airport the other day, since his knee replacements bar him from the naked x-ray machine. This is a the kindest, most well-mannered man I know, but after four very hard jabs to his genitals, he asked the federal agent: “How can you live with yourself, feeling up men all day?” “I love my job,” sneered the goon.

Why are we so insistant upon being good little sheep that we obey every law? These Federal laws are so blatantly intrusive that we as a state should abhor tolerating them, much less obeying them.

Representatives? Senators? Who will sponsor the first bill outlawing these intrusions on our personal liberties?

David A. Hansen

Since the election I have caught up a bit with work and have gathered up most of my signs. I was at first disappointed with my own election results, but after some thought have concluded that our efforts were not without good effect. Leg. 17 candidate David Armstrong’s 15% finish in his race was impressive. He ran against only a Republican incumbent. I finished at almost 9%, running against both a Democrat (about 20%) and a Republican incumbent, Stuart Adams (71%). In an email, Stuart complimented me on my race, saying he was impressed that my percentage was double what might normally be expected from a third party candidate. It’s tough to go up against an incumbent with over $35,000 available to spend and additional help from the Republican Party. But I think it was necessary and a good thing to do so. I believe I was voice to many who otherwise may not have been heard. Stuart told me that he reads this blog and that other state senators were also following it. So, you should know that you have been heard.

Our message is, of course, that Utah should be more forthright in its responsibility to refuse to obey unconstitutional Federal mandates. Those mandates are in the tens of thousands, but we need to start with taking from the Feds the lands that rightfully belong to Utah, refusing to fund unconstitutional Federal mandates, stopping the forced peep shows and grope fests being conducted by the TSA at our airport, refusing to allow Obamacare, ending the Federal enforcement of unconstitutional firearm laws, keeping taxes low, beginning the process of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, and ending the unconstitutional asset forfeiture proceedings that deny citizens due process. Those are a good start, anyway.

Utah, furthermore, needs to accomplish these things in a way that tells the Federal government to butt out–and that means Federal judges as well. The Constitution is very clear where the 10th Amendment specifically limits the Federal government’s powers to those that are specifically listed. And where the Federal government has refused to perform its enumerated responsibilities, Utah needs to take up the slack and execute those duties as well, particularly securing our borders. The principle is called Nullification, and it is time honored, from the days of the very beginnings of our country. Just as our Founders refused to obey British laws because they did not have representation, we too, as a state, can refuse to obey Federal laws that are outside of the Federal government’s constitutionally specified powers.

It is crucial that we move on nullification quickly. The longer we stall, the more divided our nation is becoming. Too many of us have become too dependent upon the government, and it is bankrupting us and destroying our economy. Continued infringments on our liberty will likely reach a boiling point that could spark a rebellion that will make the Civil War look like a cakewalk. Since Obama was elected, Americans have bought enough guns and ammunition to outfit the entire Chinese army. Why? Because these Americans can see the writing on the wall. They want to preserve our prosperity and freedoms from the government-induced destruction that is taking place. They realize, having studied history, that government cannot do what it is doing (bailouts, printing of trillions of dollars out of thin air, offshoring of millions of jobs via world trade agreements, etc.) without destroying the economic engine that has allowed our country to become the most prosperous in the world’s history. Contrary to major media opinion, there is no economic recovery. As I write this the Federal Reserve is looking to print (out of thin air) another TRILLION dollars to cover deficits. Such actions (being done over and over again) will inevitably lead to hyper inflation that cannot help but destroy prosperity. Citizens ought to be up in arms about this. But it seems the use of big, important words, such as “qualitative easing” make it sound like the perfect solution to our economic woes.

The most alarming thing to me is that so many citizens are oblivious to this destruction of our prosperity and freedom. They go about their lives as if all is well in Zion. And when one of our pieces of literature land on their door step, they react with derision. In response to a letter my wife wrote recommending a particular slate of freedom-oriented candidates, one woman replied with an anonymous letter as follows:

“I have voted in every election since I was old enough to register. I also have researched the candidates and issues, as I do every election. I do not need your research or “voting recommendations” and highly resent your assuming the need to inform me as to whom and what I should vote for. This is still a free country and your attempt to influence or control my vote is NOT APPROPRIATE, especially since it would appear that you have a vested interest in the outcome of your husband’s election. Sincerely, a thinking for herself voter.”

So there you have it. Freedom of speech is now “inappropriate” and is an attempt “to control” her vote. And, according to this ”thinking voter,” recommending a slate of candidates is especially inappropriate if you have a vested interest in restoring our liberty and prosperity and happen to be married to a guy who plans to do it.

I hope there’s not too many such ”thinking voters” today….  If there are, our nation is clearly in deep trouble….

I want to thank those of you who supported this campaign. I did it for you, not for myself. Nobody else would step up. I could easily be contented with running my little business and raising my family, but somehow the overstepping of the government is seriously beginning to annoy me and many others. Sometimes we have to step outside of our comfort zones and step up to the plate. I gave it my best, and still hope for the best. I hope you will all contact Stuart Adams and your own representatives and senators and encourage them to support freedom vigorously in order to restore the Constitution. That’s what this was all about. That’s what made our nation great. That’s what can restore our nation to its former greatness. Thank you again….

Stay tuned. The election may be over, but the battle isn’t.

David A. Hansen, Ex-Candidate for Utah State Senate District 22.

The TSA policies for our “protection” are serious intrusions against our right to privacy. Read the article below. My comments follow.  

What the TSA Isn’t Saying About Full Body Scanners and Your Right to Opt Out – Say ‘I Opt Out.’ Every Time.

DontScan.Us 

Get the facts about Advanced Imaging Technology 

Since January 2010 the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been rolling out what they term Advanced Imaging Technology, or Whole Body Imaging, at airports around the United States. These devices are used to perform a virtual strip search of passengers, looking beneath the clothes to display a picture of the skin. The TSA originally said that these machines would be used only for secondary screening, for those passengers that set off an alarm at the walk-through metal detector or Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) machine. They are now being used as primary screening at 45 airports, to take nude images of passengers who have done nothing more suspicious than present a boarding pass. 

  Photo by John Wild

 Remember to say “I opt out.” 

Printable Pamphlets 

Advanced Imaging Technology is a strip search. 

Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) is also known as Whole Body Imaging (WBI). This technology uses radiation to penetrate a person’s clothes and create a nude image of the person. This technology is used to determine whether or not a person has hidden items under clothing. The TSA considers the images produced by AIT to be “family friendly.” The image above is from an AIT scan of a man named John Wild using backscatter X-ray. This image is a low-resolution copy of the original, so it does not show as much detail as the original. Do you consider this image family friendly? 

These images are generated using radiation, either from a backscatter X-ray or millimeter wave device. Scientists and researches are already questioning the safety of irradiating thousands of people per day at every airport in the country. Several University of California, San Francisco faculty members delivered a letter of concern to the TSA noting that the comparison of backscatter X-ray machine dosage to “cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray” is “very misleading” and have noted that “real independent safety data do not exist.” 

Risks and Benefits 

Health Risks 

Backscatter X-ray uses ionizing radation, a known cumulative health hazard, to produce images of passengers bodies. Children, prengant women, the elderly, and those with defective DNA repair mechanisms are considered to be especially susceptible to the type of DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation. Also at high risk are those who have had, or currently have, skin cancer. Ionizing radiation’s effects are cumulative, meaning that each time you are exposed you are adding to your risk of developing cancer. Since the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almsot entirely by the skin and tissue directly under the skin, averaging the dose over the whole body gives an inaccurate picture of the actual harm. In their letter of concern, the UCSF faculty members noted that “the dose to the skin could be dangerously high.” The eyes are particularly susceptible to the effect of radiation, and as one study found allowing the eyes to be exposed to radiation can lead to an increased incidence of cataracts. 

Another type of device uses millimeter wave technology, which if improperly calibrated can cause burns. Less is known about the potential health risks of the millimeter wave devices than those of backscatter X-ray, and as with the backscatter devices, no independent testing has been conducted. 

Privacy Risks 

Aside from the health risks of these devices, the fact remains that they allow strip searches to be conducted on a wide-scale level. That they are automated and mechanical in no way changes the fact that when a government agent looks beneath your clothing you are being strip searched. These strip searches are being performed without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as primary screening. A recent article in the San Diego Entertainer on August 31, 2010 stated that “the scans are detailed enough to identify a person’s gender… to identify a passenger’s surgery scars, or to discern whether a woman is on her menstrual cycle or not.” Although the TSA purports to be staffed by highly trained professionals who respect the privacy and dignity of travelers, TSA Screener Rolando Negrin was ridiculed by other TSA screeners for having a small penis after being imaged by an AIT device. 

Property Risks 

There are also property risks. During the time that a person is inside the full body imaging machine, it is impossible to maintain a line of sight to his or her belongings. Remember that because you cannot have anything in your pockets during the scan, this will include all your identification, money, and all personal items. Numerous thefts have been reported at security checkpoints, including incidents that led to the firing of four TSA employees at JFK as ABC News reported. 

Benefits 

The benefits of the virtual strip searches are that these machines can confirm only that the imaged areas look normal, but not that items have not been hidden in body cavities or under folds of skin. Unlike existing metal detectors and Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) machines, these devices cannot determine whether the person being imaged is carrying metal or explosives. 

Opting Out 

Say “I Opt Out.” 

Should you decide to opt out, you must be aware that the TSA will perform a pat down instead of subjecting you to the WBI/AIT. The TSA may try to pressure you into submitting to the WBI/AIT. You are not required by law to submit to imaging, however, many TSA employees may attempt to intimidate, coerce or insist that it is required. You will need to be firm, and sometimes will not be allowed to opt out unless you state in exactly these words “I opt out.” While you should be able to opt out using your own terms, such as requesting a pat down instead, or stating that you will not be photographed nude, remember that not all screeners will be respectful of your decision. They may continue to insist until you say “I opt out.” In these cases it is up to the individual traveler to determine whether to stand firm or to use the TSA’s preferred wording. 

WARNING: Enhanced Pat Down 

Be aware that the TSA is using what they call an “enhanced pat down” in many instances. These pat downs are much more rigorous and often include the TSA using their palms to touch your genitals in a manner that could feel like sexual assault. If you feel that you or your child were inappropriately touched during the enhanced pat down, call for a law enforcement officer. 

Reprinted with permission from DontScan.Us. 

Reprinted from http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/airport-body-scanners.html 

My comments: 

From the looks of things, TSA is totally out of control. Coercing people through machines that denude them is no different than forcing people to be participants in peep shows. Is the TSA pat-down really any different than a sexual assault? Would husbands, in years gone by, have permitted anyone–even government agents–to do what is now being done to us, our wives, our daughters, and our children–without probable cause? The scanners in particular have made millions of dollars for companies that produce them (more than likely, that’s what this really was all about–follow the money!) We can, no doubt, expect to see these strip machines in growing numbers in many venues for our “safety” unless we take measures that stop these intrusions. These procedures do not stop determined suicide bombers, who can easily swallow a bomb, place it in a body cavity, or even hide it in a fold of fat. 

Here’s what I propose:  Use existing state laws that already protect against assault and against coercing others to perform in peep shows, and, after providing a warning, have the local sheriff arrest any TSA agents that continue to effect this invasion of our privacy and our rights. These agents should be charged appropriately if they insist on continuing this practice, otherwise sent on their way. Any Federal judges that attempt to get in the way should also be arrested and be charged with aiding and abetting the crime. Utah should then provide its own security that respects the rights of citizens. 

I still remember those days long gone when I could carry a pocketknife on board an airplane. 9-11 would never have happened had people been allowed to be armed. It is lunacy to think that we are safer by allowing government to disarm us. What was that about “shall not be infringed”? Were there exceptions? 

I think not… 

The real question is, do we have the resolve to be free? Or are we going to continue to be herded like cattle at the whim of our “masters”? During the last week of this campaign I sent out this message to over 10,000 homes of registered voters via the telephone: 

Hi, I’m David A. Hansen, and I’m running for Utah State Senate District 22. Are you concerned about Obamacare, the bailouts, and the other abusive Federal mandates that are destroying our economy? Did you know that the 10th Amendment prohibits the Federal government from enacting these mandates? It is constitutional–it is in fact our duty as a state–to reject these unconstitutional mandates. Our Founders stood up to government abuse. We should too. Visit RestoreMyFreedom.org to learn about my plan to better fund education and to restore our freedom and prosperity. That’s RestoreMyFreedom.org. Thank you. Paid for the the David A. Hansen Campaign.

I’m writing this on the night before the election, and, having watched my website statistics, I have, unless there is some huge surprise, determined that this message has gone over like a lead balloon. For my lawn signs I used a Minuteman figure to portray that we ought to be as resolute as our Founders were in standing against tyranny: 

 Was this another lead balloon? The Federal government is trashing our rights, destroying our economy and prosperity, putting us in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars, and we citizens keep electing politicians who prefer a “big-brother-may-I” approach? That isn’t going to work, folks. No, not at all. If we want to save our nation, our freedom, and our prosperity, something much much more needs to be done. This kind of overbearing power doesn’t back down easily. Our Founders knew that. We too ought to know that. 

God bless America. We’re certainly going to need Him. 

David A. Hansen, Candidate for Utah State Senate District 22, Constitution Party

Read the story below and ask yourself if this American citizen really deserved to go to jail for this “crime”?  My comments below the article.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=38088

Contact: Paul Velte, 512-296-5563
Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights
website: http://www.io.com/~velte/pt.htm

In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.

The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the “Texas Gunshow” that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.

Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.

“Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling,” commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, “who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?” He also said, “What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens.”

Velte pointed out that “There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish.” Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:

1. Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
2. Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
3. Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
4. What has he been promised for his cooperation?
5. Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
6. Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?

Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland “a liar” for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings.  Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence.

Dave’s comments:

These sorts of cases are becoming more and more common and very scary. There was another case a while back in which a veteran loaned his semi-automatic rifle to a friend; after several hundred rounds being fired, the rifle malfunctioned and kicked off a couple rounds with each pull of the trigger. Federal law enforcement caught wind of it, prosecuited him, and the jury threw him in prison for several years.

As a state senator, I wish to implement Utah state laws that will nullify the ability of the Federal Government to prosecute these types of cases. In our state, the Sheriffs should be the top law enforcement officials. And the sheriff in the above instance would have the power to review the case and explain to the BATF that, no, they’re NOT going to prosecute the citizen. The real oddity about this case is that the Federal government is suing the state of Arizona for supposedly “profiling” in order to catch illegal aliens, yet in this case the gun collector was convicted for NOT profiling correctly before selling a firearm to someone with a bona-fide Texas drivers license! Jury nullification would also have saved this American citizen from jail if the jury had not been ignorant of its right to find innocent in cases where the law is unconstitutional or misapplied. This sort of Federal prosecution is nothing less than tyranny. We CAN stop it at the state level. We should stop it before it ever reaches a jury. And if it does reach a jury, the jury should know better than to convict where the law is unconstitutional.

Unless we want this tyranny in our backyard, we need to elect legislators with the courage to get these kinds of laws passed.

David A. Hansen, Candidate for Utah State Senate District 22

Below are five YouTube videos I have prepared summarizing my plan for funding education and for restraining the Federal Government and putting it back into its Constitutional box where it belongs. The First is my wife, LeeAnn, introducing me, the Second is my own introduction, Third is entitled, “Liberty Made America Great”, Fourth is entitled, “How We Got to This Point,” Fifth is, “How States Can Restore the Balance of Power between States and the Federal Government.”

LeeAnn’s Introduction of David A. Hansen:

David A. Hansen, Introduction:

Liberty Made America Great:

How We Got to This Point:

How States Can Restore the Balance of Power between States and the Federal Government:

Thank you,

David A. Hansen, Candidate for Utah State Senate District 22, Constitution Party

Here’s a 60 Minutes video that shows how bad the economy is getting in California. The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has not only affected lower level positions, but it has also had a huge impact on higher level jobs: these are well-educated people that can’t find work–at all–even after 99 weeks…

Click here to read about the 99′ers.

Utah needs statesmen who will take action to solve these problems, which have been caused by the Federal Government’s overstepping its constitutional authority. See my blog entries on Nullification. More coming soon.

David A. Hansen, Utah State Senate District 22 Candidate.

I very much like this group. If elected I will be joining it.

Click here for more info.

David A. Hansen, Candidate Utah State Senate District 22, Constitution Party

One of my readers emailed me this:

Sincerely,
R. Jay Hutchinson

Mr. Hutchinson:

You have hit the nail on the head of the difference between my opponents and myself. However, by picking the civil rights issue to whip me with, you fail to see that there is even greater danger in the precedent of allowing the Federal government to regulate civil rights. While I and I’m sure most others deplore the outrageous discrimination that we saw against the blacks early in our nation’s history, the Constitution did not grant the Federal government the power to regulate discrimination. This really should have been left up to the states. The dangerous part enters in when the Federal government carries its anti-discrimination policy too far. For instance, the Supreme Court Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision was only one vote away from forcing a private organization, the Boy Scouts of America, to accept gays into its leadership positions. This would be anathema to most of us and would have virtually killed an organization that does amazing good for our youth. How much longer before such an out-of-control Federal government would then dictate to churches that they must not discriminate against gays and allow them to be ordained as priests or married in privately held temples? And if you think that the Federal government would not discriminate against churches, look how it already threatens the tax-exempt status of churches if they speak out on political topics.  

We now have a Federal government growing completely out of control in many more issues: health care, education, firearms rights, agriculture, religious freedom, privacy, creation of inflationary fiat money, massive spending, etc., etc. These are areas that simply do NOT fall under the interstate commerce clause, nor under any other clause. The Tenth Amendment very succinctly states that only certain powers are granted to the Federal government. All others belong to the states or to the people.

So, tell me this, how did Utah get away with refusing to obey the Federal Real ID Act? We simply refused to obey. So did many other states, and it stuck. We all know that the Federal government has no business regulating drivers licenses. That’s a state issue, period. We don’t need Federal judges to tell us that. Over the years we have allowed thousands of usurpations by the Federal government to the point that a revolution has already taken place: a revolution of political correctness, big-brother government, etc. Where’s the amendment that disallowed gold and silver as legal tender? Where’s the amendment creating the Department of Education, and a host of other Federal departments? Where’s the amendment allowing for infringments on Second Amendment rights? There aren’t any. None. And because these amemdments are not there, the Federal courts have no standing.

If we argue that we must obey the Federal Courts when they are clearly outside Constitutional bounds, then we acede to tyranny. Let’s say the Federal courts upheld an outright ban on firearm ownership (something the Supreme Court very nearly allowed not too long ago with its 5-4 Heller vote to uphold the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right). Would such a law be constitutional? Would you be under obligation to turn over your guns to the Federal government based upon the Supreme Court decision? I say, no. Our Founding Fathers also clearly said no.

But how many of us would accept such a restriction–because “we are a law abiding people”? I daresay, too many would though they should not. There are many historical instances in which good people “broke the law” and for good reason. Did the biblical Daniel obey the law banning prayer? No. Did our Founding Fathers obey the British order to give up their arms to the Regulars? No. Yet, both of these instances of lawbreaking were punishable by death! Unjust laws simply do not require obedience.

Our Founding Fathers held that the right to keep and bear arms was a right that existed innately, that it was a right from God himself and that no one could have that right infringed upon–even with their own consent (“unalienable”). Yes, in this case, even a lone individual or a state can and should stand up against tyranny and refuse to obey such an unconstitutional law.

Allowing Federal courts to determine the constitutionality of laws is, in every sense of the word, a conflict of interest. Given that these are Federal courts, of course they’re going to  justify these unconstitutional infringements.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of brain power to see that the 10th Amendment should be severely limiting upon the Federal government. And the few things that the Federal government should be doing, it is not. It’s not protecting our borders, it’s not regulating trade (having passed that off to unelected world government bureaucracies), and it is no longer coining real money (excepting unbacked paper currency, which it is currently creating out of thin air by the boatload).

Mr. Hutchinson, you claim that it’s dangerous to refuse to obey unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions. I say that it’s dangerous to obey them when those decisions lead to the creation and strengthening of a tyrannous Federal government. Disallowing the people (yes, that’s the same as ‘militia’) from keeping and bearing arms, for instance, leads to a very dangerous situation such as happened in Germany, Russia, China, and many other nations where millions upon million of people were murdered by their own governments–after having been first disarmed. Allowing the government to print trillions in fiat currency without any backing is leading to the greatest economic collapse ever in the history of the world–right here in the U.S.A. Allowing the Federal government to dictate education decisions has led to the dumbing down of millions of school kids. And these things are not dangerous?

The genesis of this problem dates to the passage of the 17th Amendment on April 8, 1913, which allowed for the popular vote to elect U.S. senators (Utah was the only state to explicitly reject this Amendment). Before that, U.S. senators were selected by the various state legislatures. Veering away from this has created basically two houses, both of whose members are elected by big-moneyed corporate interests. If senators were still elected by state legislators, I am confident that states rights would not have been so severely eroded. Senators that did not protect states rights would be very easy to remove when their terms expired–no amount of money could save them.

The Constitution is very clear that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of courts: Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” If states still had proper representation in the Senate it is very likely that Federal courts’  and government’s abuses of power would have been reigned in by now. Since the Federal government has refused to stay within its bounds set by the Constitution, and allows the courts to run amok, states have no other choice but to reassert themselves until this monster is again under control. If we succumb to the belief that it’s not OK to disobey unconstitutional laws unless Federal judges agree, then we are unlikely to ever win back our liberties and are more than likely to eventually lose them all.

So, yes, it is up to the states to determine when the Federal government oversteps the 10^th Amendment. There may come a time when even individuals will have to make that determination. The precedents have been set already. That’s why we kicked King George and the Regulars out of our country:

 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Declaration of Independence)

 With the 17^th Amendment, we no longer have truly representative government: as a result, the Federal government is bursting its britches and emptying our wallets and intruding on every aspect of our lives (our Founders called it “despotism”).

I believe that nullification is our last and best opportunity to contain this despotism peacefully. So if you prefer a timid, mother-may-I approach to liberty, and don’t mind losing your liberty in the process, then please vote for one of my opponents. But if you want and demand liberty and prosperity for you and for your children and their children, then vote for me, because I will guard liberty relentlessly—and I will not take no for an answer.

David A. Hansen, Candidate for Utah Senate District 22, Constitution Party.