Cloning Experiment Shows Cancer Reversible - Report
By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A cloning experiment may show that the body
itself has the ability to reverse cancer, U.S.-based researchers said on
Saturday.

They cloned mouse embryos from a melanoma skin cancer cell, and created
healthy adult mice using some of the cloned cancer cells, showing that
malignancy is not the inevitable fate of a cancer cell.

"This settles a principal biological question," said Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch
of the Whitehead Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
one of the country's leading experts in cloning.

He said while the genetic elements of cancer cannot be reversed, the
epigenetics -- how the genes are actually turned on and off -- can be.

The finding, published in the journal Genes and Development, point to a
new way to treat cancer, said Lynda Chin of the Dana-Farber Cancer
Institute and Harvard Medical School, who worked on the study.

"Drugs that target the cancer epigenome may prove to be a key
therapeutic opportunity for diverse cancers," she said in a statement.
In other words, it might be possible to silence a cancer gene.

Cancer begins when certain genes mutate, or when a certain, inherited
version of a gene somehow gets turned on.

This can happen through various so-called epigenetic processes -- when
other molecules in a cell affect genes without actually altering the
sequence of DNA.

In the experiment, Konrad Hochedlinger and Robert Blelloch, both
researchers in Jaenisch's lab, took the nucleus from a melanoma cell and
injected it into a hollowed-out mouse egg cell.

This started the egg growing as if it had been fertilized by sperm.

They did not allow this embryonic mouse to develop, but harvested from
it embryonic stem cells -- immature cells that have the potential to
become any cell in the body at all.

They put these stem cells into healthy mouse blastocysts -- very early
embryos only a few days old. Some of these developed into healthy,
normal mice.

"It's important to note that the stem cells from the cloned melanoma
were incorporated into most, if not all, tissues of adult mice, showing
that they can develop into normal, healthy cells," Blelloch said.

They included skin pigmentation cells, immune cells and connective tissue.

This could only have happened if the cancer cells had lost their
malignant qualities, at least temporarily, the researchers said.

But when certain cancer-related genes in these mice were activated, they
developed malignant tumors at a much faster rate than normal mice, the
researchers added.

Many researchers want to try similar experiments with human cancer
cells, but the administration of President Bush forbids the use of
federal funds for such study because it would involve the creation of
what is technically a human embryo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUNS and DOCTORS

a. The number of physicians in the United States is 700,000

b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.

c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health &
Human Services)

THINK ABOUT THIS:

a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes, eighty- million!).

b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.

Alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this
gets out of hand.

As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers
for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FACE OF THE STORM
BY CARL F. WORDEN

Having had a hand in forming the Southern Oregon Militia back in 1993, a
curious news reporter from back east contacted me to ask if I really thought
it possible that a raggedy group of American citizens could band together,
overthrow the existing government and return America to the constitutional
rule the Founding Fathers envisioned.

I asked, "Are you asking me if we could win?" "Yes", he replied. I told him,
"Yes, we would win, but the real issue is what would we win?"

That is the only rational reason we citizens haven't descended on Washington
D.C. already. We know that a major upheaval in American civil rule would lead
to a splintering of differing interest groups that would in turn lead to a
shattering of a once great nation: A once great nation that no longer
cooperated in a union of states that has withstood the tests, depressions and
wars of time. Hell yes, we would win, but what then? Our international
enemies would probably descend on us like locusts.

Leaving that consideration aside, let's get back to that reporter's question
by examining what is happening in Iraq right now, with a taste of salt from
our learning experiences in Viet Nam.

We lost the war in Viet Nam to a raggedy group of under-armed, but dedicated
Communist insurgents. Our armed forces in Viet Nam were far better equipped
and superior in training, yet we lost anyway. It was the first modern test of
citizen guerilla forces waged against a standing army, and 58,000 lives later,
we limped home. If you will recall, our own insurgents, loosely organized
under a guy named George Washington, sent a another superior standing army
from England limping home. Such is the legacy of an armed citizen
insurgency, and our excellent adventure in Iraq is going exactly the same way.

I shouldn't even have to write this, but an insurgency of really pissed-off,
armed citizens, even numbering only 5% or less of an entire population, can
topple an existing government.

Back in Viet Nam, Charlie would go into the villages at night to recruit new
conscripts and punish the villagers who had cooperated with our forces.
During the day, our forces would go into the villages to seek information and
make nice with the local folk. The non-combatant citizens were caught in the
middle, and Charlie's boys would summarily execute anyone known to have
cooperated with us. In the interim of battle, thousands of Vietnamese citizen
non-combatants were killed collaterally, and most of them were killed by our
forces who were shooting at Charlie while he was hiding amongst them. In the
balance, the locals overwhelmingly blamed the foreign invaders (us) and that
led to even more local citizens jumping off the fence to fight us.

Now look at what's happening in Iraq. Same thing. We'll lose in Iraq.

If American citizens chose force to overthrow the existing government of the
United States to restore constitutional rule, they could do it. They would
win. They would summarily execute any citizens cooperating with the
government, and they would make the opposing forces die from a thousand tiny
cuts. They would wreak havoc on power, transportation, the economy, you name
it. The opposition would be confined to living in armed camps, going out only
under heavy guard, and even then subject to attack. Just like Iraq. It is a
nightmarish, bloody scenario that no rational American citizen would ever want
to see played out here.

Unlike Viet Nam and Iraq, we insurgents would look just like every other
American, only we'd be far more well-armed and devious. Hell, we'd make those
Iraqi insurgents look like girl scouts. No wonder the little scum-bags in
Washington want to ban citizens from owning "assault weapons" and .50 caliber
sniper rifles.

Could we win? Yes, we would win. But what would we win? It remains to be
seen whether the people running this unconstitutional government of the United
States will see that they have made a grave mistake and reverse the trend, or
drive forward into the face of the storm that awaits them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FAT LADY HAS SUNG
by EDGAR J. STEELE

January 5, 2004

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards."
-- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution" (1999)

"They have treated me and others like me with utter contempt. They have
confiscated our property and put people in maximum-security prisons over
ownership of fender washers, claiming they were unassembled silencer parts.
... They have shot a man's wife in the head because his gun's buttstock was
too short. ... They burned 90 people alive over a disputed two hundred dollar
tax.
- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences" (1996)

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings."
-- Old Southern American saying (concerning church service)

"It ain't over 'til it's over."
-- Yogi Berra (1973)

It's over.

The fat lady has sung.

Elvis has left the building.

The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US
Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision
which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years
- but all good things must end...I guess...at least, that's what they say.

We all know how saying nothing sometimes can be among the most profound of
statements. Ask any husband.

Nowhere is silence so profound as when offered by the Supremes. And, never
has their silence been so overwhelming as on December 1, 2003. That's when
the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case
of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see.

Here's the background, briefly: California's legislatively-crafted "assault
weapon" ban was stronger than the national ban. Both bans essentially outlaw
any rifle that looks like it means business, regardless of capability -- I kid
you not, cosmetics really is the upshot of these bans.

Silveira sued in a losing attempt to overturn the more-stringent California
ban. Silveira unsuccessfully appealed up through the legal system to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals. Next stop: US Supreme Court, which now has "denied
cert," which means it allows the ruling below to stand.

Here's the real kicker, though. Silveira doesn't just nationalize the
California definition of assault weapon. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court
made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms
contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental
right to possess a firearm.

You heard me right. You no longer have a right to own a gun.

Mind you, here is the Second Amendment, in full: "A well-regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not just some people, but the people. You and me, in other words.

And it's a fundamental (God-given) right, therefore the government can't mess
around with it...ever. "Unalienable rights," was how the Declaration of
Independence described these fundamental rights. Unless we let it. We just
did, by tolerating this sort of behavior from our government.

Mind you, the Ninth Circuit Court's judges didn't just come out and say you
don't have a right to a gun. They did it in legalese: they merely "affirmed"
a prior decision of their own, in which they said as much.

So, the US Supremes affirm the ruling of a lesser court (by silence, thereby
making it the law of America, nonetheless, because contrary rulings from other
jurisdictions will not be tolerated), which affirmed its own prior ruling,
which says you have no right to own a gun.

Like thieves in the night, with stealth, the black-robed dictators steal your
rights.

All this silence and misdirection clearly tells you how they feel about what
it is they are doing. Yet, they go ahead and do it anyway. And the average
American is too stupefied to know any better...or, worse, care. No, it does
get worse: many who care and understand actually applaud this result.

The ground now has been set for blanket bans and confiscation. What? Cold,
dead fingers, you say? Yeah, sure. When martial law is declared, hardly
anybody will resist.

What? Martial law never will be declared in America, you say? Yeah, right.
Just wait until the next Reichstag Fire....er....terrorist event which occurs
on US soil. The smart money is betting that happens within a month or two, by
the way.

Some will ask, "What's the big deal, anyway? Guns are no match for government
munitions these days, anyway. Guns really are good only for hunting. Who
needs hunting, with the Safeway just down the street?"

Here's my response, which echoes that of America's founding fathers: The
Second Amendment's guarantee of the individual's right to bear arms actually
comprises the teeth of the Constitution; what enables us to enforce the
provisions of the Constitution against an out-of-control government.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Sound familiar? It should.
It is from the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, small arms are scarcely outmoded. One need look only to the
debacle occurring in Iraq at this moment for the proof of that statement.

And as for the Safeway? America's supply line is about 3 days long - no more,
certainly. In a crunch, you can bet that all the publicly-available food will
disappear overnight...into government hands, for consumption exclusively by
"our leaders." Safely tucked away in all those nice, little underground
shelters they built for themselves with our tax money in recent years.

Does the current system of elections in America constitute "Consent of the
Governed?" Scarcely. Hardly anybody votes these days, it seems. We realize
that any candidate allowed to run for office already has been vetted by the
real powers that be. You think Howard Dean will be any different from Bush
II? Really? Nobody who could make a difference will make a difference
because such a person is not allowed to run for office...at any level.

I recently had a list member write to tell me, "Your legal talent is wasted on
commentary. We suffer not from a lack of commentary. We suffer from a lack
of lawyers who will file lawsuits on behalf of pro-white candidates/activists.
One of the root causes for this is because the better educated, more affluent
pro-white lawyers while sympathetic don't respect those who need legal help.
It's a class thing." I disagree. What is pointless is the filing of
lawsuits; the attempt to work within the system. The system is
broken...irretrievably.

In fact, precisely what now is needed is commentary to awaken our fellow
Americans to the tyranny growing in America.

The single best piece of commentary I have seen on the Silveira case is by
another lawyer: "Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of
Silveira" by Peter J. Mancus.
(http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp) His is a passionate and
brilliant, albeit lengthy, article worthy of your time. Among Mr. Mancus'
observations:

"What value is the 'right to petition to redress grievances' or to file a
lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of
a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the
solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the
petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the
applicable law correctly? That is what happened with Silveira at the Federal
9th Circuit...

"How viable is the 'right of self-defense' if you must first beg government's
permission to defend your life with a gun, when government thinks it has the
power to withhold its permission, with immunity, and to criminally prosecute
you if it catches you packing a gun without its permission?...

"(T)he entire purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to take away government's
unfettered discretion, but, guess what, government now claims it has that very
discretion that the Framers intended to deny to government, and, to exacerbate
matters, government now hides behind its immunities when it commits
wrongdoing, and, still worse, it has the gall to accuse citizens of hiding
behind their rights and being "gun nuts" or worse when they refuse to go along
to get along...

"We are on an increasingly steeper slope toward a free fall into tyranny. The
U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira made that slope steeper-much
steeper. That fact is simply not appreciated by some...

"I am afraid that a violent confrontation with our own Government(s) looms
ahead...

"We are in a downward spiral toward some flashpoint where a hardcore of
no-nonsense "no more" constitutionalists will press the issue and not submit
to perceived, insufferable oppression...

"I know 'the gun solution' (political assassination, open rebellion, etc.) is
fraught with peril and inadequate and morally complex and legally illegal.
But, what is left? When we peacefully claim our birthrights, peacefully
pursue a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court and are stiff-armed while we point
to what is written in the Constitution, we are mocked, scorned, ridiculed,
rebuffed, ignored, dismissed, and rejected...

"(I)t is not about guns. It never was about guns. It is really about this:
1) liberty; 2) ordinary citizens retaining a legally enforceable right to
retain the most efficient, pragmatic means to enforce the rest of their rights
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution-privately owned, registered or
unregistered, firearms; 3) holding government accountable; 4) keeping
government from indefinitely blowing through Constitutional red lights,
violating the Constitution's commands; 5) forcing government to wear its
Constitutional collar, connected to a Constitutional chain, staked firmly into
the bedrock of Constitutional law.

"Now, when government slips that Constitutional collar and refuses to put it
back on and wear it compliantly and honor the Constitution's commands, with
the judiciary's blessings, what then?
"How does one make a snarly, robust, active, gargantuan government wear a
collar it does not want to wear? How does one get close to the beast's teeth
and claws to put on that collar and survive?...

"Before Silveira and now with Silveira, the peaceful, legal way was tried...It
failed because the Black Robes and the system failed...

"Currently, the United States is not led, run, nor operated per its own
Constitution's rules and commands. Our governments are out of control, and
we, the People, have lost control of our own governments...

"When Governments succeed in manipulating us to focus on, and to chose
between, Security versus Liberty, they win. They win because the instant we
choose either, we forfeit the other, and we will inevitably lose what we
chose. We especially lose when we choose Security. That choice makes us too
dependent on Governments to protect us. Governments cannot protect us in all
ways at all times. Governments can, and do, however, use this issue to
manipulate us against ourselves, to surrender more Liberty so it can increase
its powers over us and tie us down with its chains rather than we tie it down
with the Constitution's chains..."

Keep in mind that Mr. Mancus, like myself, is a lawyer. He well appreciates
what he dare not say aloud concerning judges and our government, on pain of
being disbarred. Outspoken as are both he and I, still we are incapable of
advocating things that you might legally advocate.

It is not yet illegal to bury weapons, so I can in all seriousness advise you
to bury those you previously acquired "off paper," via private sales. Do it
properly, with ammunition and in well-sealed, watertight containers.