Thursday, 11 July 2013

Abraham Lincoln’s Forgotten Atrocities

Abraham Lincoln's Forgotten Atrocities
By Jim on February 23, 2013

The Lincoln movie is on the verge of picking up a heap of Oscars at the Academy Awards on Sunday night. That movie did not quite capture Honest Abe's full record. I was raised in a county that was devastated (and lost much of its population) as a result of Lincoln-approved Scorched Earth tactics in the final year of the Civil War. The northern armies treated Confederate soldiers who resisted the barn-burning and crop-burning as war criminals and hanged them. (Some background on the Civil War in Virginia can be found in my memoir riffs in Public Policy Hooligan).

Here is a riff I did on Lincoln for a National Review Online symposium on Lincoln 12 years ago, and a snippet on Abe from Attention Deficit Democracy

James Bovard
Author of Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion & Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years

How can the same people who vigorously support indicting Serbian leaders for war crimes also claim that Lincoln was a great American president?

Lincoln bears ultimate responsibility for how the North chose to fight the Civil War. The attitude of some of the Northern commanders paralleled those of Bosnian Serb commanders more than many contemporary Americans would like to admit.

In a September 17, 1863, letter to the War Department, Gen. William Sherman wrote: "The United States has the right, and … the … power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain. We will remove and destroy every obstacle ­ if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper." President Lincoln liked Sherman's letter so much that he declared that it should be published.

On June 21, 1864, before his bloody March to the Sea, Sherman wrote to the secretary of war: "There is a class of people [in the South] ­ men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." How would U.N. war crimes investigators react if Slobodan Milosevic had made this comment about ethnic Albanians?

On October 9, 1864, Sherman wrote to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant: "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources." Sherman lived up to his boast ­ and left a swath of devastation and misery that helped plunge the South into decades of poverty.

General Grant used similar tactics in Virginia, ordering his troops "make all the valleys south of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad a desert as high up as possible."

The Scorched Earth tactics the North used made life far more difficult for both white and black survivors of the Civil War.

Lincoln was blinded by his belief in the righteousness of federal supremacy. The abuses and tyranny that he authorized set legions of precedents that subverted the vision of government the Founding Fathers bequeathed to America.

****From Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, 2006):

The more vehemently a president equates democracy with freedom, the greater the danger he likely poses to Americans' rights. President Abraham Lincoln was by far the most avid champion of democracy among nineteenth century presidents­and the president with the greatest visible contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lincoln swayed people to view national unity as the ultimate test of the essence of freedom or self-rule. That Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, jailed 20,000 people without charges, forcibly shut down hundreds of newspapers that criticized him, and sent in federal troops to shut down state legislatures was irrelevant because he proclaimed "that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."


Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts abolitionist, ridiculed President Lincoln's claim that the Civil War was fought to preserve a "government by consent." Spooner observed, "The only idea . . . ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this­that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot."

EPA Wants Gov’t To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be

Breaking News from EPA Abuse: EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be
Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
EPA Abuse

EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be

Jul 09, 2013 05:32 pm | Breaking News

Regulation: No longer the stuff of science fiction, a little-noticed change in energy-efficiency requirements for appliances could lead to government controlling the power used in your home and how you set your thermostat. In a seemingly innocuous revision of its Energy Star efficiency requirements announced June 27, the Environmental Protection Agency included an "optional" requirement for [...]

Read More and Comment: EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

Climate Change Isn't World's Biggest Problem

Jul 09, 2013 05:24 pm | Breaking News

It's particularly trendy among politicians and members of the media to be worried about climate change. When President Obama recently spoke before a crowd in Berlin, he said that climate change "is the global threat of our time." But that's not true. Just a cursory glance around the world reveals that, given the enormous problems [...]

Read More and Comment: Climate Change Isn't World's Biggest Problem

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

Video: Congressman speaks against Frightening new EPA regulations

Jul 09, 2013 05:22 pm | Videos

Congressman John Culberson (TX-7) speaks on the House floor against a proposed amendment that would allow the EPA to regulate virtually all water on private lands.


Watch the Video and Comment: Congressman speaks against Frightening new EPA regulations

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

Fed Fuel Regulations Throw Jobs Overboard

Jul 09, 2013 05:20 pm | Breaking News

The Environmental Protection Agency acts as if every new burdensome demand makes a huge difference for the health and wellbeing of humans, in addition to claims that its costly, excessive regulations upon private business are actual net job creators. The data and facts easily debunk the agency's junk science and alien economics, but unfortunately reality has failed [...]

Read More and Comment: Fed Fuel Regulations Throw Jobs Overboard

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies

Jul 09, 2013 05:19 pm | Breaking News

One of the big applause lines in President Obama's recent Georgetown "climate action plan" pitch declaring an all-out EPA war on coal and it's fossil cousins said: "And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for [...]

Read More and Comment: Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

Farm groups sue EPA over farmers' privacy

Jul 09, 2013 04:51 pm | Breaking News

National farming groups are suing the Obama administration over concerns that thousands of farmers and ranchers will have their personal information compromised. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council filed a lawsuit on Friday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from responding to information requests from environmental groups that they [...]

Read More and Comment: Farm groups sue EPA over farmers' privacy

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

The battle for economic and energy freedom

Jul 09, 2013 04:06 pm | Marita Noon

During the Fourth of July celebrations, you probably thought about the freedoms we enjoy in the USA. Perhaps you even pondered how those freedoms are slipping away right before your eyes. But, did you think about economic freedom? Did you think about energy freedom? They are all connected and are all important to America. Economic [...]

Read More and Comment: The battle for economic and energy freedom

Like EPA Wants Gov't To Control How Cold Your Beer Can Be on Facebook   share on Twitter   Google Plus One Button

Weekly Featured Resource

 SubscribeForward to a Friend 
Copyright © 2013 EPA Abuse, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website.
Our mailing address is:
EPA Abuse
42104 N Venture Drive
Suite B122
Anthem, Az 85032

Add us to your address book

EPA Abuse

3,300 tweets
following 1,249 people

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit

Moral Extortion and Blackmail Rhetoric

July 11, 2013

Moral Extortion and Blackmail Rhetoric

By Michael Bargo Jr.

The Democratic Party has achieved and maintained power through a clever abuse of Western ethics. The strategy can be seen through a discussion of two types of manipulation: moral extortion and moral blackmail.

Moral extortion is the technique of creating guilt in a person by saying, "if you allow this to happen you will have it on your conscience." So when Democrats say you must vote for them or the poor will starve, conscientious voters will think, "well I must vote for them I certainly cannot live with myself if I allow people to starve." Whether this is true or not, whether it reflects reality or not, doesn't matter. It is a very clever way to place the decision to vote within a person's own mind; to make them punish themselves for not voting for Democrats. Gone are the days when threats can be made against voters. The modern political campaign is far too sophisticated for that.

Moral blackmail is a cruder technique that is related to moral extortion, but has a different spin. Moral blackmail is the technique used by President Obama when he said: "voters must pressure Republicans to increase the budget and stop the sequestration of funds. If funds are sequestered then first responders will not have their funds cut, border patrol hours will be cut, etc." The standard definition of blackmail is that person A says something bad will happen to person B if person B doesn't do what person A wants. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all use this spin to create a state of tension in the minds of voters: that they can't possibly allow bad things to happen to helpless people. So Democrats use the thoughts of voters as the punishment they will endure if they don't follow the policies Democrats want.

So while moral extortion is used to create a people program, moral blackmail is used to keep it. And the person who will be blamed is the voter who does not pressure Republicans to raise the debt limit. All of these dire consequences will then be on the conscience of all the voters who allow it to happen.

These statements have the potential to be seen as threats. But the electorate does not perceive them as threats. Voters appear to allow Obama enough moral authority to get away with portraying the situation not as a threat but as simply describing what will happen. Either way, the person listening to the president's statement is supposed to feel betrayed by the GOP, to feel guilty, and to feel compelled to right the wrong that Republicans are destined to do, if not enough money is given to people programs in the budget.

The president then deflects attention away from his own spending issues and makes the electorate responsible for them. Of course the electorate didn't make the budget deficits, the president did. And the sequestration was the president's idea in the first instance. But this doesn't matter; it's always possible to set these situations up so the voter will be responsible for not forcing Republicans to do the right thing. It's a clever deflection of responsibility and attention away from the president to the Republicans, and to make voters feel that they are in charge.

It's a very subtle means of manipulation. And curiously, it's always about money. The president never says "unless you volunteer in your community the poor will suffer." Instead, he always says "unless you allow us to increase the budget the poor will suffer," or "if you put Republicans in charge the poor will suffer, we will have dirtier air, dirtier water, and the sick and elderly will not be taken care of." This focus on money confirms the blackmail description. And of course the decision they are manipulated into making always puts more money into the hands of Democrats.

There's never enough money to help the poor. And since no one can put a price on helping to relieve suffering the budget must always be open-ended. This is justified by saying that the middle class won't bear the burden, the rich will, by finally being forced to pay their "fair share" of taxes. So the tension is released, and comfort is gained, by allowing Democrats to take money from the rich to help the poor. It is morally okay to take more money from the rich.

Of course it's never true that Democrats take money from only the rich: everyone has to pay higher taxes. And even though the national debt has doubled under Obama's tenure, and the standard of living of the average American continues to decline, voters will at least have the moral comfort of knowing they are doing the right thing.

Any doubts voters may have that their family will be hurt by higher taxes are swiftly allayed by the thought that only the rich will pay higher taxes; that their loopholes will be closed, and they will no longer be able to hide money offshore. So that makes the decision to vote for Democrats not only morally comforting but the right financial choice.

The most disturbing aspect of this strategy is that its effectiveness depends upon the continuing social problems of the disadvantaged. If the programs were successful, and poverty, crime and health care issues were ended, moral extortion and moral blackmail would become empty rhetoric. And since these two rhetorical cards are keystones to Democratic campaign rhetoric, it follows that social inequality, poverty and suffering must not be ended. The programs designed to correct them cannot be allowed to end them.

The result is that we do not see improvement in the social ills of people in the U.S. but even further growth. More people are on food stamps than ever, unemployment is the highest since WW II. And all because if they are cured they can no longer be used to persuade voters that Democrats must be elected to cure them.

The consistency of this analysis with the campaign rhetoric and policies of Democrats leaves one with the impression that it is all planned. It is intentionally done for effect. And if so, creates the painful realization that Democrats have used their understanding of moral sensitivity to exploit voters' concerns for the helpless and disadvantaged, for no end other than to gain power and wealth for themselves while hurting the very people they claim to care for. The treatment of minorities under Democratic rule confirms this.

Page Printed from: at July 11, 2013 - 11:28:00 AM CDT



Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit

World Tribune calls Obama’s birth certificate “100% forgery”

Dr. Eowyn posted: "World describes itself as "the only American newspaper that focuses on international news" and which eschews "'commodity news' that is widely available on 'mainstream media' platforms, offering instead news of strategic significance, supplemen"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

World Tribune calls Obama's birth certificate "100% forgery"

by Dr. Eowyn

World describes itself as "the only American newspaper that focuses on international news" and which eschews "'commodity news' that is widely available on 'mainstream media' platforms, offering instead news of strategic significance, supplemented by exclusive intelligence reports on Geostrategy and  East Asia. Since December 1998, World has broken hundreds of exclusive stories in the North American market and has quietly influenced the coverage of the rapidly growing Internet media community."

It is therefore of no small significance that World has seen fit to publish the following article, citing a respected and experienced document forensics expert, Reed Hayes, that Obama's birth certificate is a "100 percent forgery".


blank bill board ready for your text

Forensic findings on Obama's birth certificate: 'A 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it'


Special to


By Grace Vuoto


There is a problem with President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate: It's a forgery, say multiple forensic experts who have examined it. A report detailing the evidence will soon be presented to Congress.


On April 27, 2011 the White House released Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate in an attempt to quell a public firestorm over the validity of the shorter version he provided prior to his 2008 election. A group of concerned citizens in Arizona suspected the Certificate of Live Birth produced in 2011 by the administration was fabricated; they asked Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County to investigate.

"We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it," said Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator Lt. Mike Zullo in an exclusive interview with WorldTribune.

This is a key development, asserts Lt. Zullo, because Mr. Hayes is a certified handwriting analyst and forensic document examiner who worked repeatedly for Perkins Coie, a reputable law firm, and was deemed a dependable professional in their legal cases. Moreover, Perkins Coie has defended Mr. Obama in his legal jousts on the birth certificate matter over the past five years.

"Mr. Obama's operatives cannot discredit him," said Lt. Zullo. "Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm's reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases." In addition, Mr. Hayes is a Democrat whose business is based in Hawaii. He cannot easily be accused of having a political axe to grind in this matter, explains Lt. Zullo.

Mr. Hayes initially agreed to simply take a cursory look at the document. Yet, within one hour, he called Lt. Zullo. "There is something wrong with this," said Mr. Hayes.

A few weeks later, the expert, who has over 20 years of experience and has authored five books on his craft, presented a detailed 40-page report with a stark assessment: "…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources," writes Mr. Hayes. "In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated," states Mr. Hayes.

The report by Mr. Hayes is now an affidavit that belongs to the Cold Case Posse and cannot be retracted, regardless of any political or social pressure he encounters, explains Lt. Zullo.

"There has been a very effective media campaign to discredit anyone who tries to work with us," said Lt. Zullo. "It is impossible to discuss this issue without being lambasted."

Those who defend Mr. Obama say inquiries into the president's birth certificate are based on conspiracy theories; these are "birthers," they insist, who simply refuse to accept the credible evidence presented by Mr. Obama.

As a precaution against others misusing or manipulating Mr. Hayes's report, Lt. Zullo has copyrighted it.

Mr. Hayes's report has provided yet another certification — among a resounding 1,200 computer software tests undertaken by Lt. Zullo's team — that demonstrates, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the long-form birth certificate has been fabricated. Lt. Zullo appointed two reputable computer science professionals, working independently of one another, to examine the long-form birth certificate. Both experts confirmed the document is inauthentic.

"Somebody made this," said Lt. Zullo, referring to the long-form birth certificate as a nine-layer, computer-generated PDF document. "Someone spent days doing this."

"The recreation of an official document is a crime," said Lt. Zullo. "Either there is no original birth certificate or there is something in the original that is being concealed."

The Maricopa County Cold Case Posse consists of an all-volunteer unit of accomplished individuals with experience in criminal investigations and legal professionals working under the law enforcement authority and direction of Sheriff Arpaio.

Sheriff Arpaio asked Lt. Zullo in August, 2011 to quickly quell the concerns of about 250 citizens who asked for an investigation. Yet, to his dismay, Lt. Zullo was unable to do so, having concluded within five days of his work that the document was compromised. He has since traveled to eleven states in eleven months, relying on public donations, on a grueling campaign to gather information about the certificate.

He filed an affidavit on May 14, 2013 to the Supreme Court of Alabama chronicles much of the evidence he has compiled thus far. In particular, he depicts a two-day meeting of investigators, attorneys, and information technology professionals, including Mara Zebest, a nationally recognized computer expert.

"All in attendance agreed unanimously that the White House computer image .pdf file contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document," states the affidavit.

The Cold Case Posse has determined that the certificate of live birth the White House presented is not a photocopy of an original document but one that "was pieced together electronically from multiple sources," according to the affidavit. The registrar's signature stamp and date stamp are from different layers of the document and are imports from other sources.

"The fact that the stamps can be picked up and moved about the document leaving a white background…is evidence enough of tampering," states the affidavit.

During our interview, Lt. Zullo narrated his encounter in Hawaii on May 21, 2012 with Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine, who after repeated questions, failed to confirm the document released by the president is the same as any that might exist in their records.

"If you make a copy of your driver's license and alter it, is it still a copy?" asked Lt. Zullo. She did not directly answer the question, and instead replied: "But you still have a driver's license." She agreed to confirm only specific items on a list, not that the document the White House produced is identical to any in the Hawaii archives. This incident "sent all the alarm bells ringing," said Lt. Zullo.

"If an official document is altered in any way, it must be stated that it is an amended version," said Lt. Zullo. "Failure to do so is a crime."

The Cold Case Posse continues to gather evidence. The current report, consisting of 300 pages and likely to balloon to 400, will soon be delivered to Congress.

"We can't send it to the Department of Justice for obvious reasons," said Lt. Zullo, referring to the lack of credibility of current Attorney General Eric Holder who has been embroiled in multiple scandals, and is accused by leading Republicans of lying to the American people.

"I am working on this 24/7," said Lt. Zullo. He has endured long hours on the case, under intense pressure from Obama administration operatives and supporters who seek to discredit Lt. Zullo and anyone who cooperates with the investigation.

When I asked why he persists, he replied, in the terms of a devoted officer of the law: "I know it's a felony."

"The entire United States has been defrauded by a document that is usually automatically issued to every person in America. This is a blatant manipulation. If President Obama can't be honest about his birth certificate, he can't be honest about anything," Lt. Zullo said.

"The original 'birther' is President Barack Obama himself," said former Deputy Sheriff of Florida County and current talk-show host Carl Gallups in an interview with WorldTribune.

"It was Barack Obama who said for 16 years, along with his publisher that he was 'Kenyan born,'" said Mr. Gallups, referring to the promotional materials for Mr. Obama's book by his literary agency Dystel & Goderich prior to his presidential election that referred to him as having been "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia." Mr. Obama's bio was changed on the agency's website in April, 2007, stating he was born in Hawaii. When Breitbart News broke this story, Miriam Goderich issued a press release stating that "a fact-checking error" occurred while she worked as an agency assistant. In other words, for sixteen years, the "error" had gone undetected.

Mr. Gallups, host of Freedom Friday, a pastor for 30 years, author of the Amazon best seller The Magic Man in the Sky, is now the premier media reporter covering the investigation. He has been given a unique position of trust and confidentiality in the case due to his extensive law enforcement background. Mr. Gallups also accompanied Lt. Zullo to CPAC and Capitol Hill earlier this year in order to present the evidence to politicians.

"Barack Obama has not been vetted," said Mr. Gallups. "It is the responsibility of Congress to determine the eligibility of any candidate to hold office. The Senate examined whether Senator John McCain was qualified to run for president and concluded that he was. Yet, no one has done the same for Mr. Obama."

Mr. Gallups explained that he, like most Americans who first hear about this, assume someone, somewhere has determined that a candidate running for office, especially the highest office in the land, has documents that have been thoroughly examined. "Yet, the procedure to run for office is for a political party to endorse a candidate," said Mr. Gallups. "The Democratic National Committee determined that Mr. Obama was eligible. Once a party endorses a candidate, the individual states are not required to do any examination. The only other agency required to do the vetting is the Electoral College. But in this case, they did not do so either."

"Everyone feared a public backlash of some kind," explains Mr. Gallups of attempts to thoroughly vet Mr. Obama prior to 2008. Yet, based on his expert analysis as a former law enforcement officer, the long-form birth certificate document is indeed a fabrication.

"From the beginning, I have always said, as a law enforcement officer and patriot, if I can be proven wrong, I will back down, will declare my mistake and apologize." He has issued numerous public challenges for anyone with credible evidence to come forward.

"This is not fun; it is not easy," he said. "I have been marginalized and insulted simply for stating the truth of the matter. As a patriot, ex-cop, father and grandfather, I know what I know. Please prove me wrong. I will back away."

Mr. Gallups echoes the sentiment of many who have looked at the evidence: initial dismissal, then shock, disbelief, an assumption that it is all a mistake that will quickly be debunked and then the horror of concluding that the certificate Mr. Obama has presented is fake.

What many in the media fail to grasp is that so-called "birthers" would rather be wrong than right. It is more upsetting for many of them to believe that this kind of crime can be committed than that it was not.

The difference between a conspiracy theory and a crime is that a conspiracy theory cannot stand against the test of forensic evidence. Those who dismiss this investigation as merely "kooky" must answer these questions: Are leading experts in their field who have provided their professional assessment to a criminal investigation merely to be ignored?

Why would these experts risk their reputation and also commit perjury? It is therefore kookier to disregard these assessments summarily than to view them with an unbiased eye.

The evidence currently being accumulated by the Cold Case Posse requires consideration. It is time for Congress to do its constitutional duty and examine all this hard evidence in the clear light of day.

Grace Vuoto is the Editor of Politics and Culture at World Tribune, host of American Heartland with Dr. Grace on WTSB Radio and is the founder of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.


Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit

Gun Geo Marker app tries to locate homes, businesses of gun owners


Gun Geo Marker app tries to locate homes, businesses of gun owners

By Jeremy A. Kaplan

Published July 11, 2013



A new Android app asks users to expose the home addresses of gun owners they deem "potentially unsafe" -- and share that information with the world.

The Gun Geo Marker app, released to Google's Play app store on July 7, invites users to mark the homes and businesses of "suspected unsafe gun owners … to help others in the area learn about their geography of risk from gun accidents or violence. "The app bills itself as merely a tool to collect information, but it was hit with a firestorm of negative reviews and comments from people worried that it could do more harm than good.

"This is dangerous and invasive," wrote Levi Russell in a review of the app. "Dangerous because it allows criminals to determine where they might steal firearms….you are an accomplice to any firearm theft that will occur due to the existence of this app."

"Major violation of privacy," wrote Danielle Sigman in another review, one of more than 700 one-star reviews of the app. "Could cause a lot of safety issues for non-gun owners."

Brett Stalbaum, the developer of Gun Geo Marker and a lecturer with the Visual Arts department of the University of California, San Diego, said he had received threats over the app.

"The gun rights community has been busy making personal threats (we remain unconcerned), as well as spamming the Gun Geo Marker database with false markers," he exclusively told "Though these fake markers are not useful for identifying dangerous guns and owners, they are certainly representative of the highly paranoid reaction we have come to expect from any attempt to improve gun safety in the United States.

"This kind of reaction -- automatically lining up on the wrong side of reasonable measures to improve the safe use and ownership of guns -- aids and abets the crisis of child shooting deaths," he said.

In January, a similar outcry arose after a New York newspaper published the home addresses of area residents with permits to own guns. After threats were called into their offices and the home addresses of editors posted online, The Journal News took down the data.

Whether an app or online, publishing the addresses of gun owners is a risky proposition, experts warn.

"This makes those who don't have guns an easier target for criminals. It's a safety issue," John Lott, gun expert and author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime," told

"I've debated a lot of gun control advocates over the years, and I've never met someone who has been willing to put up a sign in front of their house indicating that their home is a gun-free zone," he said.

Google tells they do not comment on individual apps, but said to refer to their Google Play developer program policies for apps that are not allowed. 

The policy says Google Play does not allow content that contains violence or hate speech, bullying or illegal activities, among others. Gun Geo Marker is not available on the iPhone.

"As a gun owner myself, I want to see our rights preserved, and thwarting the will of 90 percent of the American people who want common sense, constitutional measures to improve gun safety is mathematically unwise," Stalbaum said.

Print    Close




Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit