Always an interesting guest on coast to coast.

HITLERS ESCAPE

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/01/14

Author Jerome Corsi talked about his new book,Hunting Hitler, which explores the historical possibility that Hitler escaped Nazi Germany at the end of World War II. FBI and CIA records indicate that the U.S. government took seriously reports that Hitler had escaped to Argentina. The traditional story is that Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker, along with his mistress Eva Braun in April, 1945. Later the Russian Army was said to discover them and photograph Hitler, making sure the bullet hole in his forehead was visible. But Corsi believes this was a Hitler "double" who, while he bore some similarities, was three inches shorter than the Fuhrer. Dental records also didn't match, he added.

In 2009, archaeologist Nicholas Bellantoni, working with the History Channel for a MysteryQuest documentary, was allowed by the Russians to view Hitler's alleged skull fragments. He concluded that the skull belonged to a person who was 40 or younger (Hitler was 56 at the time of his supposed death), and the fragments indicated they came from a woman rather than a man, Corsi recounted, adding that DNA results backed up Bellantoni's assertions.

According to FDR's Sec. of State, James F. Byrnes, during a meeting with Joseph Stalin in Ukraine, Stalin told him that he believed Hitler was still alive and was possibly living in either Spain or Argentina. In 1945, General Eisenhower also said he believed Hitler had escaped. Martin Bormann was said to create a special escape route into Argentina as their current regime was sympathetic to the Nazi cause. Various documents suggest that Hitler's escape from Germany may have involved fleeing in a helicopter to Austria, then flying to Barcelona, and eventually arriving in Argentina via a German submarine. After he arrived, he lived in somewhat luxury for the next 20 years, until he died in 1965, Corsi detailed.

So I'm suppose to turn in the means to protect myself based on the opinion of a father who had a jerk for a son and a city that doesn't allow concealed handgun ownership to citizens with clean police records? Harvard University just released this report that proves gun-control is counterproductive to deterring crime.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of Inte... Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gunmurder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownershipnecessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

"Dearest Friends...........
Planning to........
* Embassy (US) (Army,Line ..........etc)
* Arrest War (weapon(AWW),Spirit ..........etc)

Have a nice weekend...........
Thanks........take care....
See you............^^"

"Wars and rumours of war...!! Sounds familiar..?? We live in end times, as biblical scholars observe...And of course, behind the scenes and sometimes in front, peace is being negotiated..The dark cabal want nuclear war and will continue to use their…"

Replies

Malcolm May 28, 2014 at 12:00am

Hitler didn't escape. He just transferred his ideas and ways onto a certain U.S. president:
- Pet Rock > Malcolm May 28, 2014 at 5:03am
  
  gun control works for despots
  - Acute Observer > Pet Rock May 28, 2014 at 4:35pm
    
    I know of at least 6 dead people that would not agree with that assessement.. ;)
    
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10854968...
    - Pet Rock > Acute Observer May 29, 2014 at 4:06am
      
      hand in your guns because of the psychos going on shooting rampages-if he had no gun he would have continued the murder spree in the berkeley area with the knife he used to kill three guys (for reasons unknown they didn't fight back) -duh
      - Malcolm > Pet Rock May 29, 2014 at 5:54am
        
        People don't kill people. Knives kill people.
    - Malcolm > Acute Observer May 28, 2014 at 5:00pm
      
      So I'm suppose to turn in the means to protect myself based on the opinion of a father who had a jerk for a son and a city that doesn't allow concealed handgun ownership to citizens with clean police records? Harvard University just released this report that proves gun-control is counterproductive to deterring crime.
      
      Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
      
      I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
      
      However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
      
      The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of Inte... Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
      
      The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
      
      Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
      
      For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
      
      If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
      
      Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
      
      The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
      
      [P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gunmurder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
      
      It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownershipnecessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
      
      Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.
      - Acute Observer > Malcolm May 28, 2014 at 5:20pm
        
        If you need a gun to protect yourself you must have seriously mismanaged your freedom in the first place. ;)
        
        The best way to stay safe is to not create new enemies.
        
        But speaking of weapons for protection .. A gun can't protect me from the cabal. Chemical weapons could. So, should I therefore go get some? ;)
        
        Malcolm > Acute Observer May 28, 2014 at 5:29pm
        
        LMAO BIG TIME!!!
        
        SO MAIN-STREAM CRIME IS GENERATED VIA ONE'S CREATION OF ENEMIES?? Try poor economic situations and bad times. Are you sure you're 40 years old?????
        
        The best way to stay safe is to stay away from unsafe areas and have a means to protect yourself during bad economic times, LIKE RIGHT NOW. Main-stream crime rises with poor economic times. IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH PISSING OFF OF OTHERS, regardless of whether or not such individuals need such golden showers to wake them up and out of the trendy illusions they cherish.
        
        Acute Observer > Malcolm May 28, 2014 at 8:11pm
        
        Crime is generated by attraction, so.. How are You attracting criminals into your life? ;)
        
        Malcolm > Acute Observer May 29, 2014 at 12:55am
        
        I don't attract criminals. I treat them and make them better in my internal medicine unit for bad choices they've made.
        
        What makes you think I "attract" criminals??