By Nick Dial

Terrorism and the media have had a long-running relationship. In an imperfect world, they are, in fact, the perfect couple. The media needs terrorism to boost ratings, make money, and drive headlines. Terrorism needs the media to project fear, destruction, promote their message, and provide the ability to effect the globe through 24/7 news cycles that broadcast their horrific acts free of charge.

When it comes to terrorism, the media acts as a “force multiplier.”  A force multiplier is something that increases a group’s ability to become more powerful without increasing the size of the group. For example, if you have a squad of 4 men armed with rifles, they are a formidable force against that of fellow men. Give these same men rocket launchers and grenades on top of the rifles they possess and they have now become 3 times more powerful with the ability to engage vehicles and targets that before would have been out of their ability. The media serves a similar purpose with terrorism. The media acts as a force multiplier by taking a single act and magnifying its effects by broadcasting it for all to see.

The media, in the past 10 years especially, has allowed terror cells to use our living rooms as a stage to act out their agendas. The shocking broadcast of Daniel Pearl and his beheading laid the foundation for more gruesome acts to be carried out, filmed, and televised. A terrorist once made the comment, “I would rather kill one man on camera, then a hundred men off camera”-Unknown. This statement pretty-well sums up the relationship between terrorism and the media. To carry out an act on camera provides the group to “capture” a horrific moment forever, and save it for later use, as if it were a weapon that can be used over and over again. John R. White, author of the book Terrorism and Homeland security, States the following, “terrorism becomes more horrific to create better drama. News film is constantly replayed, giving the illusion that attacks are repeated time and time again,” (2008).  The media is considered by many terror groups a weapon, and will use it to the best of their abilities. Constantly, the media will be placed in the middle between the two as opposing forces use the media as a battleground of rhetoric and accusations. For example, in 2001 a U.S. Army helicopter crashed, and immediately the Taliban tried to claim responsibility for the event. The U.S. military however, publically denied that the Taliban played any role what so ever in the loss. An example of such action is shown below:

“An exchange of claim and counter-claim took place between Washington and the Taliban after the regime said it had recovered wreckage from a downed US helicopter inside Afghanistan.

Taliban fighters posed for television pictures next to aircraft wheels which the Taliban regime claimed had been taken from the wreckage in Helmand province, close to the southern city of Kandahar. The Al-Jazeera network showed the pieces of wreckage that the Taliban said were stenciled with words written in English.

But the Pentagon dismissed the claims, saying that none of its helicopters had been lost inside Afghanistan. The only helicopter crash, it said, was the accident in the early hours of Saturday when a Black Hawk, on standby for search and rescue for a Special Forces operation, came down inside Pakistan. Two US personnel were killed in the crash, which officials say may have been caused by a storm of dust created by the helicopter’s blades” (Buncombe, A, 2001.

This paragraph serves as a perfect example of how the media, becomes a virtual battle ground to sway public opinion and perception, as the old saying goes “those who control the media, control the war”-unknown.

Media is a central factor in any war, especially terrorism. Another factor that plays a critical role in war and terrorism as well is funding. Funding is the blood line that makes waging such actions possible, after all money makes the world go round, and funding is exactly what provides terrorism with the logistical capabilities needed to continue its agenda.

Funding for terrorism comes from several areas. Perhaps one of the largest areas of controversy is that of Islamic charities in the United States. According to the Washington post, The U.S. Government has linked many charities to supporting and funding terror groups and their activities.

“Charities based in Northern Virginia and sponsored by the government of Saudi Arabia invested millions of dollars in a company suspected of funding al Qaeda and the Islamic Resistance Movement, the government alleged for the first time yesterday.

An affidavit made public in federal court in Virginia contends that the Muslim charities gave $3.7 million to BMI Inc., a private Islamic investment company in New Jersey that may have passed the money to terrorist Islamic groups. The money was part of a $10 million endowment from unnamed donors in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, according to the affidavit filed by David Kane of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement”(Farah, D, 2003).

Many of these charities have been shut down and their accounts frozen as a result. This continues to be an ongoing problem with terrorism and its funding.

The other major funder of terrorism is that of state sponsorship. For example, Iran fights a proxy war with both Israel and the United States through funding terror via an umbrella base organization. By terror groups being satellite attachments to Iran, they can receive funding through non direct means. For example groups may meet in a mosque for a sermon, but while there they are in reality conducting business for terrorism backed by Iran. This allows Iran what is known as “plausible deniability”. In the public eye they can play the game of not being involved, but the back scenes show a different story.  An example of how an umbrella organization functions can be seen below.

(Diagram from “Terrorism: An Inconvenient Truth” By Nick Dial)

Terrorism has been, is, and will continue to be an ongoing battle. The media and funding are both key factors and critical for it to sustain its survival. While in a free society the media cannot be controlled, the largest thing that can and must be targeted is that of terrorism funding and its bloodline. The United States needs to continue to expand efforts to stop the flow of American currency into the coffers of terrorists. Whether people want to acknowledge the fact or not, every time we fill our gas tanks we fund terrorism. Terror sponsoring states continue to sell the United States oil, and gas being a essential element to modern  living, forces us to indirectly fund terror every time we purchase gasoline. One major step in the right direction choke off such proxy funding of terror is to break ground here, on our own soil, here in the U.S. By utilizing all of our resources, natural gas and most importantly, OUR OIL, we would not only strengthen our national security, we will make money doing it.

References

Buncombe, A. (2001). Us denies taliban shot down helicopter in afghanistan. Retrieved from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-denies-taliban-shot-down-helicopter-in-afghanistan-632369.html

Farah, D. (2003). U.s. links islamic charities, terrorist funding. Retrieved from           http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17354-2003Aug19&notFound=true

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

By Nick Dial

Recently Arizona passed into law a new bill, 1070. This new bill has brought on an onslaught of controversy, rumors, myths, and nonstop attacks.  The problem is, when you listen to the outlandish statements made by those who oppose this new law, it quickly becomes evident that they themselves either did not read the bill and have no understanding for how the law works in practice or they are simply ignoring the facts and dishonestly exploiting the issue for political gain.

Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked liked an illegal immigrant, and if you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (2010). This statement coming from a sitting president is shocking. My first question is this; tell me, Mr. President, what does an illegal alien look like? I wasn’t aware that in the United States illegal aliens were labeled as one race over another. Are there not illegal immigrants that may be Canadian, Asian, or European? The fact that now the President is insinuating the Latino race as the Poster Child for what an illegal immigrant looks like, should be troubling and offensive to all Latino people of this nation. In a debate where the word “racism” often gets thrown around, you must ask yourself, who are the ones really making race a focal point? It’s certainly not a law that only focuses on legal status. Nowhere in this bill does the law make any reference to race or skin color in any way.

President Obama’s statement also demonstrated that he either has no understanding of how law enforcement works, or he is choosing to ignore the facts and push misinformation to drive more hysteria in support for his political position on this issue. By stating that you may be “harassed” by simply going out in public is both false and inflammatory. To have the leader of our nation spread such misinformation on legislation when Obama himself was a sitting legislator displays gross negligence on his part as the representative of this nation.

To clear up some of the myths about this bill being spread by activists on the left, let’s take a look at the popular talking points being repeated.

Myth: Hispanics will be randomly stopped by police when they go out in public.

Fact: This could not be any less true. A police officer must conduct themselves as they always have, and have probable cause for their stop. Citizenship status is not a primary infraction and therefore does not constitute probable cause for a stop. It is a secondary infraction. An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation,  then later find the driver has no legal status or identification. At this point an arrest may result after further investigation. This is no different than a drug charge. You don’t look at a car and say, “hey, they have drugs.” Once the vehicle is stopped, however, there may be other factors that indicate further probable cause to look for; drugs for example-an odor being emitted from the vehicle.

Myth: You will be questioned without just cause. What is considered reasonable suspicion?

Fact: Reasonable suspicion is very uniform in its application. If an officer pulls a vehicle over and the driver does not speak English, has no driver’s license, no state ID, no social security number to give, at this point there is ample reasonable suspicion for the officer to investigate further.  The officer would then run a name and date of birth check to see if any DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records show. If this comes back blank with no record, there is probable cause to detain the individual to investigate their legal status.

Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.

Fact: Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green card. In most states you must carry a form of ID and if an officer asks for your identification on a stop, you must give it to them. Arizona’s law is no different then what is already on the books. When you go to the DMV, you MUST provide vital records such as a birth certificate in order to obtain a valid driver’s license. If you are not a citizen, you still must have the proper paper work that shows you are in the nation legally before obtaining the license. When an officer stops an individual and must enquirer into legal status, whether or not that person holds a valid driver’s license with the state tells the officer most of what they need to know. Having a valid license takes the place of a birth certificate. The notion that you would have to carry such papers is false and not supported by fact, but rather emotional sentiment and misconception.

Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.

Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. Most police officers conduct themselves in a professional manner and are careful  not to violate a person’s civil rights. The idea that somehow a new bill will cause racial profiling is an empty one. This statement is based on the assumption that officers who racially profile would only do so if it were “in the rules.” Racial profiling is illegal, and whether or not an officer participates in such acts is the choice of that individual. This law will no more encourage the officer who chooses to profile anymore then racial profiling being illegal will discourage it. This is like the empty argument stating that making guns illegal to carry will rid gun crime. If you’re a criminal, you don’t care about the law hence the title “criminal”, and will carry a weapon anyway regardless of what the law states. The same concept applies to the corrupt officer.  Ethics come down to the individual, not what a law may or may not state. They will either profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that practice.

Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime.  This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.

Fact: While this bill is not focused specifically at drugs, it does aid in the cartel drug problem in a large way. Illegal immigrants who come here to work depend on an economic system that caters to their illegal status. Their ability to find work, employment, earn an income and maintain a place to live is necessary for their survival. This bill makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to seek employment. It makes it unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal and unlawful to rent a home to an illegal. The end result of this will become a natural weeding- out process. The people, who are truly here to work, will leave on their own merit. They will have no other choice because you must be able to provide an income and shelter for families to live upon. They will either go back home or simply move to another state that is lax on immigration law. In 2008 E-verify for employment and immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpio made Arizona a more restricted place for illegal aliens to reside. Since 2008, an estimated 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state. The natural result of this will make law enforcement more effective when fighting drug and cartel crime, because people who are only in AZ to work will have to relocate, leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegal aliens who are here for sinister reasons, i.e. to traffic, push drugs, and run cartel errands will not need to relocate. They do not rely on legitimate work to provide an income. The lack of a general population of illegal aliens to blend in with may even result in cartels moving operations in cities and states that do not have such strict laws. Because the general population would move away, this leaves their operatives exposed for tracking and apprehension. It is much harder to blend in as just another landscaper looking for work when all the legitimate workers have moved away to other states where they can still obtain work. This will greatly aid both ICE and local law enforcement in combating cartel activity and tracking down operatives for such operations.

Bill 1070 is in place simply to enable our local law enforcement with the power to enforce laws that often get neglected on the federal level. For example, one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no driver’s license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was however, we did not have the tools in place to detain the man. This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration. If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented the first day they discovered his legal status.

The outcry against Arizona’s new law is not only silly, but is a complete demonstration of ignorance of the already existing laws of this nation. Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same a double jeopardy.  Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal, Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense. The question can be asked, “What’s all the fuss about?” The real answer is simple- enforcement. Illegal aliens and their supporters have long lived comfortably in the United States relying on the complacency and lack of enforcement of the federal government to thrive. Now that a border state like Arizona has made a stand to enforce the law the federal government chooses to ignore, they have no more economic collusion that came with sanctuary policies. They are angry because in Arizona, the gravy train has made its final stop, and the tax payers have had enough. There will be no more free meals; no  more living in comfort while law abiding immigrants patiently wait for their legal papers to enter this country the respectful and correct way. The message here is that we reward those who follow the rules, and tell people who cut the line and break the rules to get in the back. The first step has been taken and hopefully, many other states will soon follow suit.

By Nick Dial

The moon is non- existent. The darkness is so dense one could feel claustrophobic as it closes in around them. Sgt. Henderson checks his watch, 0315 hours. His surroundings look surreal as he peers through his night vision cope. The landscape around him is alive with the eerie green hue of his night vision. The locusts are busy at work, making a droning ambient noise that reminds the rest of the world of their presence. Sgt. Henderson checks his watch again. “Three more hours, and then I can go home,” he thinks to himself. Suddenly the locust stop and the surrounding area is cast over with an unsettling calm. Just as Sgt. Henderson thinks how odd, an unmistakable sound arrives; engines. Sgt. Henderson continues to peer through his night vision scope when he sees them. Two pickup trucks driving in tandem, the trucks are blacked out and hard to see with the naked eye. Sgt. Henderson calls in an order over the radio. Suddenly vehicles move up and block the path of the two trucks as armed operatives advance. The operatives surround the trucks yelling orders to exit. The occupants exit the truck with their hands in the air, they are quickly zip tied and secured. Inside the trucks Sgt. Henderson and his team find Ak-47’s, water, maps, bails of marijuana, and what appears to be a storage container about 4 feet by 5 feet in size.  Upon opening the container, they are horrified as they see the interface of a sophisticated nuclear device. The only identity of its origin is text which appears to be Russian.

Does this sound like a page from a war novel? In reality these kinds of raids take place every month along the south border of the United States and Mexico. So far, there has not been a nuclear device discovered, but this is a very threatening possibility that needs close attention. There have been Terrorist operatives apprehended on the northern border, but the border on the north is more controlled then the south. While we have a better idea of what is coming across the United States northern border, the United States southern border still remains a “no man’s land.” Many arguments have been made in favor of illegal immigration, but the facts behind illegal immigration need to be closely examined. Illegal immigration is a direct threat to the safety, health, and economic security of every legal American resident.

In a post 9/11 world, radical ideology and terrorist threat has become a reality in our daily life. With financing to back their agenda, and modern technology coming to the front lines on terrorist behalf, this issue must be looked at thoroughly. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 16^th, 2008 Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security testified:  “Several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons” (Lansbaum, 2008). James Loy also stated, “The convergence of terrorist threats, a nuclear weapon black-market, a porous national border and escalating illegal immigration is finally attracting the attention the growing crisis deserves. Unfortunately, the attention is being paid by terrorists, not by the U.S. government.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was reported that 85 of 135 small Nuclear weapons were missing. It would not take much effort for terrorists to successfully insert sleeper cell operatives into this country. There is a very large network of human trafficking rings set up to help achieve such a task. With threats such as this, time is of the essence. According to research originating from Pepperdine University, the Mexican Government has openly printed manuals promoting and explaining how to illegally enter the United States. Analysts at Pepperdine state the following; “The Mexican government’s recent publication of a comic-book style pamphlet on how to safely cross the border is a direct affront to the country’s relationship with the United States”(M. Overbeck, 2008). President Vincente Fox, former president of Mexico regarded illegal immigrants as “heroes” for having left Mexico into the United States, and then sending money back to support the Mexican economy. With an undermining southern neighbor promoting illegal immigration, Al-Qaeda has had half the work done for them. A door has been provided; they only need to literally walk through.

Terrorist threats due to open borders are obvious but one threat of illegal immigration many may have not considered is health security. Health security is also an issue of the utmost importance. With a thriving community and people interacting with each other, personal hygiene and disease control is a top priority. Great achievements have been made in this country eradicating once common diseases such as tuberculosis.  This feat, however, is at threat of being set back generations through an uncontrolled influx of host that carry disease across the border. With legal entry, immigrants must undergo a thorough medical examination to ensure no threatening disease is released into the United States. Illegal immigration by-passes this process leaving the residents of the country completely at the mercy of what communicable diseases the illegal brings into the country. Dr. Laurence Nickey, director of the El Paso health district, states the following; “Contagious diseases that are generally considered to have been controlled in the United States are readily evident along the border … The incidence of tuberculosis in El Paso County is twice that of the U.S. rate. Leprosy, which is considered by most Americans to be a disease of the Third World, is readily evident along the U.S.-Mexico border” (L. Nickey, 2008). Dysentery along the border is also several times that of the United States (2008).  Because of this issue, the reality of major health epidemic is very real. “Super Bugs” a strain of bacteria which do not respond to antibiotics are becoming more prevalent. It is crucial that possible health disasters, which were mostly something of the past in the United States, do not come back into commonality.

Once an illegal immigrant crosses into the United States, U.S. taxpayers and private hospitals pick up the tab for ill and diseased illegal aliens.  Because the influx of illegal aliens, many hospitals and facilities along the Border States are being forced to close their doors. It’s only a matter of time before the problem migrates to the rest of the country. Los Angeles County supervisor Michael D. Antonovich states “What is unseen is their [illegal aliens’] free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America’s finest emergency medical facilities, and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors” (Antonovich, 2008).  This is mainly due to uninsured illegal immigrants seeking medical attention at hospitals for everyday things that would normally be addressed by a family doctor. At a hospital, by law the hospital must treat a patient, and cannot turn anyone away. According to Federation for illegal immigration reform “Immigrants are often uninsured and underinsured. Forty-three percent of non-citizens under 65 have no health insurance. That means there are 9.4 million uninsured immigrants, a majority of whom are in the country illegally, constituting 15 percent of the total uninsured in the nation in the mid-1990s  The cost of the medical care of these uninsured immigrants is passed onto the taxpayer, and strains the financial stability of the health care community” (2008). This issue is one that is bleeding community’s dry of all medical financing. The counties are literally going bankrupt.

The effect of Illegal immigration on the economy is another impact many do not fully understand. Economic security is the bloodline to maintain a standard American lifestyle. More and more jobs which were traditionally held by U.S. citizens, such as construction, are being snatched up by illegal immigrants. People are losing their jobs due to the inability to compete in the market. According to Immigrationcounters.com, a site that actively updates various effects of illegal immigration, the number of skilled jobs taken by illegal immigrants to date is 10,667,935 (2008). These jobs normally would be held by American citizens with fair wages and coverage such as workers compensation. Due to the ability of an employer to pick up workers for far less, these jobs for Americans are almost lost completely.  Many argue that illegal immigrants take the jobs that Americans do not want. It has been found however that when illegal immigrants are removed from those jobs, many Americans get in line to take their place. For example, ICE agents seized 595 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally. Several workers, who did not identify themselves, said they were working and trying to keep the plant operational in the wake of the sudden loss of co-workers (Kemp, 2008). Hundreds of job applicants lined up, eager to take advantage of the sudden job openings at the plant located in Jones County, where the unemployment rate is 6.3 percent (Kemp, 2008). Law maker Terril states “There is no job that an American citizen is unwilling to do,” he says. “They’re just not willing to do it at the wage rates that are being paid to illegal aliens,” (Terril, 2008). As the facts above show, the notion that illegal immigrants do the “jobs Americans don’t want” just is not true. The opposite has been the outcome, jobs open up and Americans want them.

The threats to the United States and her citizens due to illegal immigration are real and grave. This country must wake up before it is to the alarm of a health epidemic, an economic employment crisis, or a smuggled nuclear weapon detonating in a major city. US citizens must stand up and demand action.  The policies of the past 30 years have done nothing to solve this growing issue. Times have changed, and so have the dangers associated with the times. Our southern border has become an interstate of corruption, danger, disease, drugs, oppression, and legal employment depression. It is time to bring in the big stick…..with a mop attached.

References

Landsbaum, M (2007). Al-qauda’s illegal immigration threat. Retrieved 09/01/2008, from

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AEB39FF3-E0E8-4E1D-8353-BE0D004E2785

(2008). Federation for American Immigration reform (2008). Retrieved September 1, 2008, Web site:

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters64bf

Immigration counters.com. (2008). Retrieved September 2, 2008, from Immigration counters.com Web site:

http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

Kemp, E (2008). Applicants line up to fill jobs open after plant raid. Retrieved 09/02/2008, from

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20080827&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=808270366&Ref=AR

Overbeck, M (2008). Guide promotes illegal immigration, Retrieved 09/29/2008, from

http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/perspectives/2005/2005-01-13-border.htm

By John Stricker

Well, it’s been ten years and the decennial United States Census is upon us all once again.  It seems like only a couple of years ago I was asked how many bathrooms were in my house and whether or not I owned, rented, or had a mortgage.  I didn’t answer them then and I’m not going to answer them this time.

I believe our nation should follow the Constitution of the United States and its amendments.  I believe that with all of my heart.  Not only should the government follow it, but so should its citizens.  With that in mind, I will partially fill it out and supply the government with the information the Constitution says it should collect every ten years.  To find out what that information is all we have to do is open our own copy of the Constitution.  (You do have one, right?  No?  Well you can find one at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2 online.)

The part of the Constitution that deals with the census is Article 1, Section 2 and it reads:

“Section 2 – The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Now the parts in italics were modified by the 14^th Amendment, Section 2 and that reads:

“2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

So you need to take out the part in italics and put this amendment in there.  The intent of this section is clear, it’s there to set the number of representatives in the house.  It specifies, as amended, that it should count every person in each state.  That number is to be reduced, however, by the number of non-taxed indians, and then proportionately reduced in a ratio of those ineligible to vote for certain reasons that are over 21 years of age with the total number of males over 21 years of age in that State.  A bit complicated, I know, but not really and all we’re really concerned about is what information the Constitution demands to fulfill its mandate.

First, it needs to know a headcount of everyone living in the state.  It also needs to know if you’re an Indian (Native-American, if you prefer) that is untaxed.  It needs to know your age to determine a number and it needs to know your sex since that number is calculated by the male population.

What it does not need to know is whether or not your home is owned, you pay a mortgage, you rent, how many toilets you have, or anything else.

What can happen if you don’t fill it out?  That falls under USC 13 Title 221 and you can look it up any number of places but the penalties are two-fold, should they decide to prosecute you.  First, if you refuse or neglect to answer you can be fined $100.  That’s it.  No jail time, just a fine.  Second, if you give false answers, you can be fined $500.  Again, that’s it.  No Jail time.

The remainder of this is what I do.  I am making no recommendation and urging nobody to follow what I do, but I will share with you my feelings on the matter.  I follow the Constitution.  I provide them with the names of the people living in my house, their sex, and their age (by birthdate).  I provide nothing else.  If they want to fine me, then they are welcome to do that, but nobody has been fined for failure to fill out their census forms since 1960.  (There was another prosecution over the 1970 census, but that conviction was thrown out on appeal.)

I want to point out that it is federal law that you answer these questions but it is not Constitutionally mandated.  There are a whole list of laws that aren’t mandated in the Constitution and if you don’t follow them you can be prosecuted, even though you might believe these laws to be unconstitutional.  I would also be remiss in my duties if I didn’t point out that the collection of information beyond what is required to fulfill the Constitutional mandates of Article 1, Section 2 have been heard in the US Supreme Court in 2002 and ruled that it was Constitutional in the case of Morales v. Daley.

The Federal Government, in my opinion, is becoming more and more invasive into the private lives of US Citizens.  The decision of the Supreme Court is, again in my opinion, fundamentally flawed, but that is the topic for a different article.  The US Government is exceeding its mandate in the Constitution on a daily basis and if they wish to fine me $100 for not completely filling out my form then it’s a small price to pay to put a chink in that invasive armor.  Let your own conscience be your guide.

By Nick Dial

A common phrase seen and heard used by protesters the last several years is “separation of church and state” This phrase has been used to protest the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, school, curriculum, nativity scenes in public, and even gay marriage. So….does separation of church and state apply to these activities and venues?  This is where people must dust off that old history book to find the real intentions behind what “separation of church and state” really means.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution there was sound reasoning behind why they made specific reference to religion. The U.S. Colonies had lived under the thumb of King George III for some time and had grown weary of monarchy rule and the arbitrary law that came with it. Religions other than the Church of England had been suppressed for quite some time so much so, that the Puritans settled in the Americas in order to freely practice their religion. This was nothing new to the founding fathers; they knew this history as well as anyone else.

The term “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the US Constitution.  The phrase was made popular by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote a letter defending the rights of a group of Baptists to practice their faith.

“The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” (U.S. Constitution, 2010).

Since then Jefferson’s words have often been used out of context and, unfortunately, by those who misunderstand the very reasons the First Amendment addresses the issue.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Us constitution, 2010).

The key words regarding this issue are the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Again, we need to look at history to understand the reasoning behind their position. We know that the Puritans came from the Old World to escape religious persecution so that they could practice their faith freely. Europe’s, and especially England’s, long history of religious oppression was the reason for inclusion of the phrase “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Although none of Europe was particularly religiously tolerant, the oppression reached intolerable levels during the rule of King Henry VIII. In the sixteenth century, King Henry had failed to have a son born in order to retain a male heir to the throne. There had already been tension between the authorities in Rome and England for some time. King Henry went to the Pope requesting that his marriage be annulled. He was refused. He had fallen in love with a new woman, Ann Boleyn, and wished to be married to her in place of his current wife. After refusal from the Pope, the king met with his closest advisors and developed a novel idea.

“When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment” Protestant England, 2010).

Taking the advice of his advisors King Henry did just that. England broke off from Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England was formed. King Henry was then declared head of the church and was free to annul any marriage he wished. When the Church of England was created it became the official church of the kingdom and an act against the king was viewed as an act against God. This is the very reason why the founding fathers put safeguards such as the First Amendment in place. They knew from their own history the dangers of a church being part of the government and the abuses permitted under a state religion.

The founding fathers were logical men. The point of the First Amendment was to keep any religion from becoming a state sponsored religion, not the government being supported by those of faith or any reference to faith. If their intent was to keep any reference of God or faith out of government, they would not have made such bold statements about their beliefs in God and God’s role in our granted freedoms.

In the Declaration of Independence they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.  George Washington himself called for a national day of prayer during the Revolutionary War.

The notion of keeping God or faith out of governmental matters, or public displays of faith was never the intent behind the first amendment. It was there to keep religions from being empowered by government support and turning into a tool of tyranny. Today, due to lack of understanding and revisionist history behind the First Amendment’s purpose, we see people taking things completely out of context to fit their world views. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of God in school, gay marriage, abortion, or any other political issue involving religion. Being an advocate for or against such things and publicly announcing it is fine, that’s what America is all about.  Before you rush out with a sign saying such things as “separation of church and state” keep one thing in mind; if you don’t learn the history behind what you are saying and its true meaning you will accomplish nothing except make yourself look foolish.

References

Protestant england. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM

Us constitution. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html

By Nick Dial

The debates people have over airport security consist of profiling, invasion of privacy, and check- in time. 

“Profiling” has become a buzzword in today’s media with such a derogatory connotation it has become something of a dirty word. Today, profiling immediately gets related to abuse of power and unjust treatment. The fact is that profiling is necessary to effectively perform any real security and determent of crime.

On January 28, 2008 a covert tester for the Transportation Security Administration was able to sneak a mock bomb past airport security checkpoints undetected. According to CNN:

“ Jason – that’s the name CNN was asked to call him – slides a simulated explosive into an elastic back support. The mock bomb is as slim as a wallet; its fuse, the size of a cigarette. He wraps the support around his torso, and the bomb fits comfortably into the small of his back” (Meserve, Jeanne, Ahlers, Mike, 2008).

What is a “mock bomb?”  It is a small, concealable device with a fuse that is replicated to look and feel as its real counterpart. The scary part is that this stealthy act of terrorism can be executed at any time.

In the days following 9/11 people were willing to sacrifice small inconveniences in the exchange for added security and peace of mind. People are starting to forget the issues that surrounded 9/11 and the reason added security was necessary. Since there has not been another successful attack since 9/11, awareness has dropped and complaints have come in earnest about the added security. George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In this case, the complacency beginning to be displayed only invites another attack – and once again, history repeats itself.

Racial profiling is a touchy topic, but one that should be examined thoroughly and honestly. The problem with discussions of profiling today is that people are not applying critical thinking to the topic. For example, police officers must profile when they patrol. They are, in fact, paid professional profilers. Every time they patrol they are observing their surroundings for activity that is suspicious. There are many factors that come into play that must be addressed, and yes, race is one of them. For example, let’s say an officer is patrolling in the middle of the night in a known predominately black neighborhood. The officer knows the history and surroundings of the area. He may also know that there is a rift between a white gang and black gang in that area. The white guy is wearing dark baggy clothing. At this point the officer must ask them self the following questions:

1. Are white people commonly in the area?
2. Are people normally in the area in the middle of the night?
3. Do members of the rival gang wear baggy dark clothing, or clothing of similar appearance?
4. Are the chances of this person being in this area going to lead to a confrontation?

These questions need to be examined critically and analytically. If most or all of these questions can be answered “yes”, would the officer be unjustly racially profiling for stopping the person to speak with them?  The answer is no. There is a difference between profiling strictly based off of race, and profiling based on multiple factors. Race may be a contributing factor, but it is not the only factor. In this example, there is more than reasonable probable cause for the officer to suspect an issue may be at hand. The suspect is not breaking any laws by being there, however it is not unreasonable to engage the person in conversation in order to investigate. If nothing else the officer may offer to give the man a ride or notify him of the dangers of being in an unsafe part of town. The job of the officer is to protect all of the public, even if the man is a gang member.

With the previous example in mind let’s shift the situation to an airport. We must use what we currently know to combat the threats to the air traveler – in this case terrorism. We place a lot of responsibility on TSA, and they are charged with keeping hundreds of thousands of travelers safe as they go through these ports. To realistically combat the threat of terror, we must have guidelines in place to narrow down the search for the best results. If TSA treated an eighty year old grandmother as a suspect, we would be wasting valuable resources unless there was reasonable suspicion ahead of time to investigate such a person. With the issue of terrorism, here is what we know. There have been many terror attacks worldwide in the past 20 years. Of those, several have been directed toward the United States. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by young Middle Eastern men. The First World Trade Center bombing was carried out by young Middle Eastern men. 9/11 was perpetrated by young Middle Eastern men, Arabs to be specific, and the recent plot of 2006 in England, where British authorities prevented the bombing of several U.S. bound planes, was being attempted by young Middle Eastern men. According to the Washington Post “Three of the four suicide attackers who killed 52 passengers in London’s transit system last summer were British citizens of Pakistani origin, investigators concluded. The fourth was identified as a Jamaican-born convert to Islam” (Ward, John, 2006).  Based off this information, the ongoing perception of terror plots being carried by young Middle Eastern men or of Middle East decent is a correct one. They clearly state that three of the four men were of Pakistani decent, and the fourth was of Jamaican decent.

We know terror is real, and we know its threat continues to push our security to the limit. History shows a clear correlation between young men recruited by terror cells, especially men of Middle Eastern decent.  Is it unreasonable for their age and ethnicity to be a red flag?  Some may say yes, some may say, no. It could be argued that history shows it’s not illogical to place this at the top of many considerations when investigating a suspect. To disregard this fact would be foolish and naive. There is a clear history of bank robbers wearing ski mask, and if you walk into a bank with a mask on, it’s almost a guarantee you will be profiled and treated with apprehension from the moment you walk in the door. This is only logical- and what we know from history supports this apprehension.

When it comes to security and expectations of the public, we must remember we do not live in a perfect world. While “political correctness” works on paper, it rarely applies in real world security situations. If we want our safety guaranteed, or at the very least have our safety a top priority, then we must be willing to make certain compromises. We can’t have it both ways and expect an effective outcome.

References

Meserve, Jeanne, and Mike Ahlers. “TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security.” CNN (2008): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.

Ward John, . “Plot to bomb U.S. bound jets is foiled.” Washington Pots (2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html

By Nick Dial

Many people may not be aware that terrorism has a long history. While there has been a steady history of atrocities committed, it is the advent of modern day technologies that brings terrorism to our living rooms for all to see. It can no longer be ignored or neglected as much as it was before. To better understand modern terrorism, you must first take a look at the history behind it.

Terrorism has a long history, getting its roots during the French Revolution. The term terrorism was coined by Edmund Burke in the 18^th century. He was referring to the brutal reform that had taken place by the revolutionist. They had decapitated thousands in public with little trial or justice of any kind. Since then, the term terrorism has taken many different meanings. Napoleon referenced resistance fighters during his world conquest as “terrorist”. The Germans did the same during WWII referring to any resistance, which was not recognized by an official military or government as “terrorist”. Today the meaning is drastically different. The FBI defines terrorism as the following: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (White, 2008, P. 7). Depending on where you live in the world may bring different definition of terrorism. The popular saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” may ring true in some cases, however I would argue Islamic jihad terrorism does not fall into this category. A freedom fighter must fight for true freedom, such as the French Resistance did against the Nazi occupation. Militant Islamic Jihad fights for the spread of Islamic purity law and Jihad (struggle or effort, now referred to as holy war). This law allows the oppression, abuse, and murder of women. Women cannot vote, drive, or move freely in public. This law even goes to extremes such as not allowing someone to carry tomatoes and cucumbers in the same basket, for this is a “sexual innuendo”. This law has no tolerance for people of diverse faith. All who oppose this ideology, Muslim included are regarded as enemy and therefore need to be eliminated, only then will true Islam be restored. The most who suffer from this ideology are Muslims themselves.

Modern day terrorism is dominated by Islamic Jihad. This wasn’t always the case. During the 60’s and 70’s, Latin American terrorism was very active. Its structure was founded from Marxist and socialistic values. The organization of those groups is mimicked today by Islamic Jihadist groups. Many may not be aware of the roots of Militant Islam, so to better understand the roots of this ideology, an over view will be provided. Ibn Taymiyyah was an Islamic scholar in the 13^th century. He sought to find a solution to the carnage during the crusade wars. He felt through prayer, he was enlightened to bring about Jihad. He felt that Muslims had lost their way, and need to seek purification from the inside out. He referred to this as the sixth pillar of Islam and called for the destruction of all opposition.  Most Muslim scholars view Jihad as a struggle against evil. Taymiyyah took this and expanded it into more militant terms. Jonathan R. White, an expert in terrorism states the following: “Ibn Taymiyyah expanded the meaning of jihad by advocating attacks on none believers and impure Muslims” (White p. 193, 2008). The only tolerance he provided was for Muslims who conformed to this ideology. Since him, there have been various philosophers such as Abdul Wahhab, and Sayyid Qutb. Influenced by Taymiyyah, these philosophers have expanded on Taymiyyah’s militant theology and have had great influence on modern day terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a devote follower of Qutb. Qutb teaches that all Islamic nations should impose Islamic purity law. When this is achieved, they should confront the world. Islamic terrorist leaders and organizations worldwide use these philosophers and their views as justification for their action.

Since the world trade center attacks of September 11^th 2001, new legislation was passed known as the patriot act. This legislation opened the door for various agencies’s to go after terrorism and take an aggressive offensive role. According to www.whitehouse.gov, the official website for the white house, the patriot act accomplishes the following: “The Patriot Act Eliminates Double Standards By Allowing Agents To Pursue Terrorists With The Same Tools They Use Against Other Criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track a drug dealer’s phone contacts than a terrorist’s phone contacts, and it was easier to obtain a tax cheat’s credit card receipts than to trace the financial support of an al-Qaida fundraiser. The Patriot Act corrected these double standards – and America is safer as a result” (The white house, 2008).

Basically the patriot act has allowed such things as expediting the process of intelligence gathering. Before, the judicial process took so long to obtain warrants, that the risk of losing the information or evidence was too great. By the time they would get approval, the evidence was long gone. This allows Agency’s to get started on the Intel gathering while the warrant is being obtained. This way they don’t lose the evidence. There still needs to be an approval for the warrant at however, and any evidence gathered with failure to obtain a legal warrant will result in invalid evidence. This is referred to as “sneak and peaks”. This has become an issue of controversy in the country. Many people feel that it violates civil rights. The problem is that people are forgetting one key thing. Agencies are going after enemy combatants in this country, in the past, they would have been called SPIES! When you have national security threats from an enemy combatant, domestic civil law is often not applicable or insufficient. There is a whole new range of federal anti-espionage and foreign threat laws that come into play.

Recently the Supreme Court decided that enemy combatants on foreign battlefields will be afforded the same rights as criminals within the United States borders.  This is the first time in history this has been decided. The problem with this is the enemy will use our legal system, (which is in place to protects citizens) to exploit our media and judicial system. They don’t play by the rules, but will use the rules to work against the United States. Sometimes common sense needs to take over. This is our Achilles heel, and they will cut it every chance they get. Many argue that the patriot act does nothing to secure our safety, and that we are more vulnerable than before. According to the Heritage foundation (2007), 19 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, some even “homegrown” right here in the United States (James J. 2007). With the rise in terror attacks all through 2009, we should be more perseverant now than ever.  Fort Hood, the Christmas bomb attempt, the shooting of military recruiters, and several more plots foiled, should serve as a clear testimony that the fight is far from over. Only through strong will and a desire to succeed will we as a nation rise above this radical ideology.

References

Carafano, James J. (2007). U.s. thwarts 19 terrorist attacks against america since 9/11. Retrieved 12/01/2008, from

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

The white house. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.

By Vanessa The “Afro-Conservative”

I’ve learned over time that the relationship between Blacks and the “government” is not as simplistic as pundits would like to make it seem.  On the one hand some liberals believe that Blacks cannot survive without government, while some conservatives believe that government need not play an active role, under any circumstances except that which is delineated in the Constitution. Both extreme positions invariably dismiss key times in history when Blacks utilized government in order to subsist, and times in history when Blacks were able to subsist without the help of bureaucracies.

During slavery, despite collective sharing between Blacks families, these families still had to rely on the slave owner for goods and resources.  Republicans understood the interdependent dynamics between the slave and slave owners.  Republicans also acknowledged how difficult it would be for Blacks if they just emancipated Blacks without any formal support systems, what we know today as “safety nets.” On March 3, 1865 the Freedman’s Bureau bill was passed primarily by Republicans in Congress and was signed by Abraham Lincoln in order to provide food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, and employment to newly freed Blacks. After vetoing a bill to increase the federal power of the Freedman’s bureau, Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s Democratic successor later disbanded the bureau.

After a mere 7 years of support from the Freedman’s bureau (1865-1872), Blacks began to develop informal mutual aid networks.  These mutual aid networks helped the two-parent (mother-father) survive by providing spiritual, physical, and emotional support during a very tumultuous time for Blacks.  It’s no secret that during the Great Depression, whatever White America felt, it was magnified for Black America.  Moreover, many “New Deal” initiatives, although lauded by those on the left, did very little to curtail the economic travails of Blacks.

Therefore, the Black Church was a powerful force that provided services for Blacks which included credit unions, sunday schools, job training, and various other services meant to elevate the spiritual, social, and economic standing of Blacks.

Government didn’t begin taking an active roll in the Black Community again until the 1960s.  So, needless to say for over 88+ years, Blacks were on their own.  According to the Department of Labor statistics between 1890 and 1940, Black males had slightly higher labor force participation as compared with Whites Males.  Moreover, during the time between Reconstruction and the 1960s, many Blacks began to reap the benefits of free enterprise.  For example, Greenwood, in Tusla Oklahoma, was one of the areas we know today as the “Black Wall Street.” Greenwood was home to many Black multimillionaires until the Race Riot (where Whites came in and burned down the homes and businesses of the thriving Blacks).  Even after the race riots, proving the resiliency of Blacks- Blacks still rebuilt the town and it became economically prosperous once more–until desegregation caused Blacks to stop shopping at Black owned businesses and opened the door for Blacks to fraternize White owned businesses.

Before the Black church comprised of race-hustlers, political opportunists, and prosperity pimps, the Black church enforced principles that included family cohesiveness, education, and economic stability.  Once government began to take an active roll in the lives of Blacks, the power of the Black Church in regards to setting mores (values) diminished.  Instead, a new sense of “entitlement” was unfortunately embraced.  This new formal aid network, otherwise known as “government social programs” began to dismiss the importance of the two parent (mother and father) family structure.  High illegitimacy rates which contributed to the many other social pathologies we see in the Black community are a direct result of “government programs” usurping the roll of the family, community, and Black church.

As Conservatives of all walks, we must first understand the history between the dynamics of Black people and government.  We must also acknowledge the times when government was beneficial to blacks (e.g. Freedman’s bureau) and times when  programs and initiatives were to the demise of the Black community (War on Poverty).  Currently, almost 70 percent of Black children (almost 90 percent) in the inner city are headed by single mothers.  Social scientists of all political persuasions acknowledge that these trends didn’t begin until after Liberals began to infiltrate the Black constituency.

The objective no longer remains to criticize liberals but to counteract their paternalistic policies by drafting policies and proposals that call for a re-emergence of mutual aid networks (Church, non-profits) to help with problems associated with poverty, job-readiness, drug abuse, marriage, and economic literacy that plagues the Black community.

Towsend Lett. Doctors 2001;  221: 62-67.

By Prof. Garth L. Nicolson

Bioterror and Biological Warfare agents are most often colorless, by-and-large odorless microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi) or toxins (usually protein toxins) derived from microorganisms that can be spread in air as aerosols or in food or drink to infect as many people as possible.  They are easily concealed, and thus difficult to detect before an attack.  They are also difficult to detect when released, so a biowarfare or bioterror attack would be difficult to ascertain, especially due to the usually nondescript initial signs and symptoms expected in casualties from such an attack.  Their main advantages to terrorists are allowing easy escape and causing panic and chaos within a civilian population.  Their aim is to overwhelm emergency medical departments at local hospitals and clinics.  However, there are ways to help protect yourself against bioterror agents and by extrapolation biological warfare agents and to help identify an attack when it occurs.

Terror not Casualties is the Objective

The most likely target for bioterrorism is a major city or other densely crowded areas, such as transportation hubs, major sports events or public rallies and especially government buildings.  Although recently even civilians in remote areas were frightened enough to seek medical attention for what they perceived was a bioterror attack, in reality an attack in a remote area would be extremely unlikely.  In high population density areas, the ventilation systems in large buildings might be especially temping targets, as these are rarely protected.  As we have seen, practically any delivery system can be used to penetrate an office building, even a letter delivered by the postal service.  Once an attack has occurred, most biological agents (see below) would need an incubation period of several days in order to cause sickness.  As mentioned above, this has the advantage of allowing a bioterrorist time to escape or perform undetected other acts of terrorism.  Thus a single bioterrorist could ‘hit’ several targets long before an attack was suspected.  Even with large numbers of people exhibiting nonspecific signs and symptoms within a few days after an attack, it would take some time for the medical community to recognize these events as a bioterror attack.  This is primarily due to the expected dispersed nature of patients seeking medical attention at different institutions and at different times.

The recent outbreak of inhalation anthrax in Florida and cutaneous anthrax in New York in the first week of October 2001 might be an example of a fairly restricted bioterror attack.  In this case a very modest amount of anthrax spores caused only a few casualties and one death but caused tremendous panic in the local populous.  Early reports from government agencies were directed at restoring public confidence by reassuring people that this was an isolated incident and denying that a potential bioterror attack had even occurred.  Later authorities had to admit that an attack had indeed occurred.  The lesion was that we should not expect authorities to be immediately candid about a bioterror attack.

Bioterrorism does not have to cause large numbers of immediate deaths to be effective.  Most biological agents do not cause widespread immediate fatalities, or even large numbers of deaths within days of exposure, and most exposed patients might not even have a life-threatening disease.  The main functions of bioterrorism are to cause panic, disruption and chaos, so biological agents don’t have to cause a fatal disease to be effective.  In fact, many biological warfare agents are categorized as ‘incapacitating agents’ that are not intended to produce a fatal disease (Table 1).  They are more effective if they incapacitate and produce strain on a health care system by having many thousands of sick patients inundate treatment facilities that contain only limited quantities of drugs and only a few isolation beds.  Also, it is much easier to spread an incapacitating agent from person to person, because it would not cause enough alarm to require quarantining of exposed persons, which could limit additional exposures.  Recent Ebola virus outbreaks in the Congo suggest that the most effective method to limit casualties is to quickly quarantine anyone who shows signs and symptoms of hemorrhagic fever.  Incapacitating agents often have relatively long incubation times, allowing their widespread penetration into a population before they are ever diagnosed.  Thus exposed individuals may bring the agent back ‘home’ to an unsuspecting family member and spread the disease further.  This may have happened to veterans with chronic infections, such as Mycoplasma and Brucella infections, who returned from the Gulf War only to slowly spread their chronic illnesses to spouses and children.

Biological Agents and Bioterrorism

There are several types of biological agents that could be useful for bioterrorism.  First, there are lethal agents, such as the Ebola, Lassa and other viruses that cause viral hemorrhagic fever, inhalation anthrax caused by Bacillus anthracis spores, smallpox virus, pneumonic plague caused by Yersinia pestis or purified protein toxins, such as the Ricinus communis toxin ricin or Clostridium botulinum toxin (Table 1).  In addition, there are incapacitating agents that cause brucellosis, mediated by Brucella species, Q fever caused by Coxiella burnetii, tularemia caused by Francisella tularensis, mycoplasmal infections caused by Mycoplasma fermentans and mold toxins, such as the T2 mycotoxin.  As mentioned above, incapacitating agents for the most part cause chronic illnesses that are not usually fatal.  However, these illnesses can cause tremendous chronic health problems in infected patients, and most are contagious and the disease could spread and eventually cause an epidemic of chronic illnesses.

Table 1.  Some Common Biological Warfare Agents that Can be Used for Bioterrorism

Disease                        Lethality          Incubation                   Effective           Environmental

or agent                       (death)             period                          dose                 stability

Lethal Agents

Anthrax                       high                 1-6 d                10,000-50,000 spores  very stable for years

Plague                         high                 1-6 d                100-500 organisms      stable for 1 year

Smallpox                     high                 7-17 d              10-100 organisms        very stable

Ebola virus                  high                 2-6 d                10-100 organisms        unstable

Botulism                      high                 1-5 d                0.001 mcg/Kg weight relatively stable

Ricin                            high                 1-2 d                3-5 mcg/Kg weight     stable

Cholera                        high                 1-3 d                10-500 organisms        unstable

Incapacitating Agents

Brucellosis                   low                  months                        10-100 organisms        very stable

Tularemia                    low                  2-15 d              10-50 organisms          stable for months

Q fever                        low                  15-40 d            1-10 organisms            stable for months

Mycoplasma                low                  months                        10-100 organisms        moderately stable

T-2 Mycotoxins           moderate         1 d                   unknown                     very stable

Type B Enterotoxin    moderate         <1 d                 0.03 mcg                     moderately stable

Equine encephalitis     low                  2-6 d                10-100 organisms        relatively unstable

Many of the most lethal biological agents, such as the hemorrhagic fever viruses, are quite unstable in the environment due to their susceptibility to sunlight and extreme temperatures and would not be effective if deployed in an aerosol at long range, for example, by aircraft sprayers. Most viruses that would be useful as bioterror agent quickly cause unique signs and symptoms that would allow isolation of the victims and thus prevent further spread of the disease.  Many of the bacterial or viral incapacitating agents, however, slowly produce illnesses that would not be noticeable until some time later, and during this period they could be slowly and unknowingly spread to others.  Official denial helps this process and allows further penetration into the population.  For example, the widespread official denial of biological exposures during the Gulf War, I believe, helped spread chronic infections, such as Mycoplasma fermentans, that we and others after us found in a rather large subset (~40%) of Gulf War Illness patients.  The continuing denial by the medical organizations that would be expected to respond to such outbreaks is not comforting, because these are the same organizations that would be responsible for responding to a bioterror attack.  Thus if an attack is obvious and results in immediate fatalities, we could expect an all out response.  On the other hand, if an attack is not immediately obvious, such as would be expected if incapacitating agents were used, we might not expect an official response at all, even in the face of continuing casualties and illnesses in the population, and we might expect official denials instead in order to reassure a panicky public.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Biologic Agents

Many agents useful for a bioterror attack, even the lethal agents, produce nonspecific clinical signs and symptoms, so it is important to be aware of these if many casualties occur within a short period of time in one location.  Public health officials are being trained to spot these ‘clusters’ of illness and take appropriate action.  Unfortunately, in an era of managed health care, few hospitals and clinics probably have bioterrorism emergency plans in place.  There has been some national planning for bioterror attacks, and regional emergency supplies and personnel have been placed at the disposal of public health officials.  This plan can be relatively effective for the lethal agents listed in Table 1, but they probably won’t be effective if incapacitating agents are used.  The gradual appearance of casualties with chronic signs and symptoms would probably not be recognized by public health officials.

When detected early, most of the biological agents listed in Table 1, even some of the most lethal agents, can be effectively treated with antibiotics or antivirals.  However, an attack may go unnoticed for some time, and it might take some fatalities before public health officials notice that an attack may have occurred.  There is a strategic national stockpile of antibiotics and antivirals tailored for bioterror attacks, and it can be deployed anywhere in the United States within 12 hours of a documented attack.  Thus it is probably not necessary to stock antibiotics and antivirals, some of which can be quite expensive, in anticipation of an attack.  However, having on hand modest amounts of certain antibiotics that can be taken as soon as certain signs and symptoms occur could save your life.  If a terrorist group has the latest information and advanced expertise to produce resistant variants of biological agents, they could produce bacteria and viruses that can withstand the standard antibiotics and antivirals used for treatment.  Although this scenario is considered unlikely, it could pose some potential problems for treatment of attack victims.  For most agents there are alternative drugs that can be used.  Although some of these are not as effective as the first line treatments, they should be adequate for most patients.  In addition, there are steps that can be taken to increase that chance of survival of a biological attack.  These will be discussed below.

The Signs and Symptoms of Some Biological Agents

Most bioterror agents do not cause unique clinical signs and symptoms that are immediately recognizable in exposed individuals.  This would defeat the purpose of a bioterror attack if the means were immediately known.  Also, if the bioterror agent is quite obvious, then preventive treatment can begin immediately in people who were in close proximity but do not yet show any clinical symptoms.  The most common form of agent that could be used for a bioterror attack are bacteria.  Since bacteria are susceptible to antibiotics, especially in the early phase of the infection, this is an appropriate approach to counter a bioterror attack.  However, not all of the agents that could be deployed are bacterial.  Some examples of the most likely agents that might be used in a bioterror attack are listed in Table 1 and below:

Anthrax.  The most dangerous biological agent is probably the spore form of Bacillus anthracis.  Although the inhalation of anthrax spores is uniformly and rapidly fatal, anthrax infection can be successfully treated in its early stages with antibiotics like doxycycline or ciprofloxacin.  Victims of an inhalation anthrax attack will present initially with a flu-like illness with malaise, dry cough and mild fever.  This phase of the disease usually takes a few days, followed by severe respiratory distress.  Anthrax can be treated, but only before it enters the severe respiratory distress phase.  Most patients in the severe systemic phase will die with or without antibiotic treatments and usually before a laboratory diagnosis can confirm the presence of the bacterium in blood and tissues.  There is a vaccine available, but there are many problems with this vaccine, as we have documented with the military’s anthrax vaccine program (see more information on this vaccine under Gulf War Illnesses section of our website, www.immed.org).  We do not consider this vaccine safe for civilian use, and it would have to be administered in several doses over a period of 18 months to 2 years before an attack.  On the other hand, chemoprophylactic use of antibiotics has been shown to be effective in preventing the illness in 80-90% of monkeys given anthrax spores by inhalation.  If a terrorist group uses a form of anthrax that is resistant to the commonly used antibiotics, then others are available but time may prevent their effective use.  Persons that come into direct contact with anthrax spores should wash thoroughly with soap and water and store their clothing in a sealed plastic bag for biohazard disposal.  If anthrax spores enter the skin, cutaneous anthrax infection can occur, resulting in a black scab over the contaminated area.  At this point the infection remains treatable with antibiotics, but if left untreated approximately 20% of cases result in death.  Persons with cutaneous anthrax can also have headaches, muscle aches, fever, nausea and vomiting, indicating a systemic form of the infection.  Ingestion of contaminated meat can also result in infection (gastrointestinal anthrax).  If left untreated, this form can result in 25-60% fatalities.  Gastrointestinal anthrax can produce intestinal bleeding and similar signs and symptoms to systemic forms of the disease.  Person-to-person transmission of Bacillus anthracis is poor, and this type of infection is not considered contagious.

Hemorrhagic fever viruses.  Viral hemorrhagic fevers caused by Ebola, Marburg, Lassa or Bolivian Hemorrhagic Virus are rapidly progressing diseases that show extremely high mortality rates.  Many of these infections are caused naturally by contact with contaminated food, but they can also occur by contact with urine, feces or saliva.  The viruses are fairly fragile, and dispersing them as an aerosol would not be expected to maintain their viability for long periods of time.  Patients usually present with high fever, muscle aches and pain, hypotension and prostration.  In severe cases, patients have signs of disseminated vascular coagulation with signs of mucous membrane hemorrhage and shock.  At this stage the disease is almost always fatal.  For some hemorrhagic fever viruses the antiviral ribavirin offers some benefit.  Patients require immediate fluid, plasma or blood support.  Although these viruses are airborne, person-to-person transmission can be for the most part prevented by wearing gowns, gloves and marks.  Fortunately, these viruses do not persist in the environment for long periods, and most outbreaks in Africa have been limited by immediately isolating patients.

Plague.  Plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, which is usually spread from rodents to man through the bites of infected fleas or other insects.  In a bioterror attack the bacterium could be spread by inhalation of droplets containing Y. pestis or terrorists could simply disseminate infected fleas or other biting insects.  If left untreated, inhalation of Y. pestis is nearly always fatal within 2-3 days.  Patients usually suffer severe pneumonia with malaise, high fever, cough, spitting up blood and labored breathing.  Eventually patients go into septic shock and die because of respiratory failure and circulatory collapse.  Respiratory plague is very contagious, and strict isolation is necessary.  Early treatment with antibiotics, such as doxycycline, ciprofloxacin or other antibiotics, at the first appearance of signs and symptoms is crucial for survival.  There is a vaccine available, but immunization requires several vaccinations and boosters.

Botulism.  Botulism is caused by toxins released from the bacillus bacterium Clostridium botulinum. This can occur naturally by ingestion of infected foods, but a terrorist attack may utilize an aerosol of the bacterium or the purified toxins.  The botulism toxins are neurotoxins and cause characteristic neurological signs and symptoms within 1-5 days, such as dry mouth, double vision, excessive pupil dilatation, local paralysis, and difficulty in swallowing.  The neurotoxins usually do not cause a fever, and patients are alert and oriented.  Most patients die of respiratory failure, so respiratory support is essential and may have to be continued for several weeks to months.  The toxin can be removed from skin by washing with soap and water.  Clothes must be placed in a sealed plastic bag for biohazard disposal.  If the toxin is used, there is no danger of transmission from infected patients.  Although an antitoxin is available, it is only effective in preventing further progression; it cannot reverse neurological damage that has occurred.

Smallpox.  Smallpox is caused by the naturally occurring Variola Virus.  After exposure, the incubation period for smallpox is approximately 7-17 days, average 12 days, during which nonspecific signs and symptoms, such as fever, malaise and aches occur within a few days.  Characteristic rashes develop, starting as papules that progress to vesicles and then pustules that can form scabs in 1-2 weeks.  At this stage the disease can be mistaken for chicken pox, and it can be spread to others, so quarantine is important for anyone who has direct contact with a patient.  About 40% of unvaccinated people will die of smallpox but most people in the U.S. have received some earlier form of smallpox vaccine which should give some protection.  The antiviral cidofovir has been used to treat smallpox infections.  Effective vaccines are available but were produced many years ago.  New vaccines are under development and should be ready within the next year or so.

Brucellosis.  Brucellosis is caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella.  Historically brocellosis was caused by contact with infected livestock or after ingestion of infected milk.  Aerosols of Brucella are considered very effective at infection.  The disease develops slowly over several months as a flu-like infection with nonspecific signs and symptoms, including intermittent fever, chills, night sweats, malaise, muscle pain and soreness, cough and eventually joint pain and soreness, gastrointestinal complaints, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and constipation.  It might be diagnosed as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Fibromyalgia Syndrome, but it is rarely fatal.  Diagnostic tests are available (see www.immed.org).  The suggested treatment is long-term antibiotics, such as doxycycline or rifampin, and immune support.

Mycoplasmas. Pathogenic mycoplasmal infections are caused by several species of mycoplasmas, including M. fermentans, among others.  These airborne and insect-borne bacterial infections are rarely fatal, but they can cause severe chronic infections that may result in patients being diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia Syndrome or Rheumatoid Arthritis.  As with brucellosis, the chronic signs and symptoms are many and varied from patient to patient, and testing is available (see www.immed.org).  The suggested treatment is long-term antibiotics, such as doxycycline, ciprofloxacin or azithromycin, plus immune support.  There is no known vaccine for mycoplasmas, but individual vaccines have been produced from patient’s white blood cells.

Q Fever. Q Fever is caused by the bacterium Coxiella burnetii.  This can occur naturally from contact with goats, cheep and cattle.  The disease develops slowly over a month or more, with fevers, malaise, headache, muscle pain and soreness and other signs and symptoms.  About one-half of patients will have a pneumonia with cough and chest pain.  In some patients the disease can progress to hepatitis.  Treatment includes antibiotics and immune support.

Tularemia.  Tularemia or rabbit fever is usually caused by contact with infected animals that carry the bacteria Francisella tularensis.  It can also be caused by ingestion of contaminated food or water.  When aerosols are used as the infective route, the disease that evolves has slightly different signs and symptoms.  After an incubation period of 2-10 days, patients present with fever, chills, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and muscle aches and pains.  Many patients will have a pneumonia with coughing.  Airborne (person-to-person) transmission can occur but is considered rare.  The treatment is a 2-3 week course of antibiotics plus immune support.

Bioterror Attack Preventive and Treatment Procedures

Antibiotics. Since there has been a run on supplies of antibiotics in the United States, is this an effective method to counter a bioterror attack?  This would be effective only if there was actual exposure, and the biological agent was bacterial and susceptible to the antibiotic chosen for chemoprophylactic use.  In addition, long-term use of antibiotics can have their own problems.  Some people cannot take ciprofloxacin because of allergic reactions (hypersensitivity or anaphylactic reactions). For example, ciprofloxacin therapy may result in drug crystals in the urine in rare cases, and patients should be well hydrated to prevent concentration of urine. Adverse antibiotic responses resulted in discontinuing ciprofloxacin in ~3.5% of patients, and such reactions included nausea (5%), diarrhea (2%), vomiting (2%) abdominal pain (1.7%), headache (1.2%) and rash (1.1%).  In rare cases cirprofloxacin may cause cardiovascular problems (<1%) and central nervous system (dizziness, insomnia, tremor, confusion, convulsions) and other reactions (<1%).  Pregnant women and children should not use this drug due to reduction in bone and cartilage development.  Although some practitioners have suggested that lower doses could be used for children, this antibiotic has not been approved for pediatric use.  Doxycycline has lower adverse responses and is just as effective against almost all anthrax strains.  However, in a few patients doxycycline causes gastrointestinal irritation, anorexia, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, rashes, mouth dryness, hoarseness and in rare cases hypersensitivity reactions, hemolytic anemia, skin hyper-sensitivity and reduced white blood cell counts.  Doxycycline can be used at low dose in children aged 7 and above, mostly because of the chance of tooth discoloration in younger children.  Azithromycin is the antibiotic of choice for pediatric cases, but its cost generally prevents widespread use.  Adverse antibiotic responses were mild to moderate in clinical trials and included diarrhea (5%), nausea (3%), abdominal pain (3%).  In rare cases (<1%) azithromycin may cause cardiovascular problems (palpitations, tachycardia, chest pain) and central nervous system (dizziness, headache, vertigo), allergic (rash, photosensitivity, angioderma), fatigue and other reactions (<1%).  In pediatric patients >80% of the adverse responses were gastrointestinal.  In children, doses above the suggested 10 mg/kg/day have been shown to produce hearing loss in some patients.  Penicillin has been recommended for some types of bioterror agents, such as anthrax.  For example, amoxicillin, a semi-synthetic type of ampicillin, can cause fatal anaphylactic responses in patients allergic to penicillin, gastrointestinal problems (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and colitis) in some patients, and rarely anemia and changes in white blood cell count.  These are usually reversible on discontinuation of therapy.  As a relative safe preventive alternative, especially in the absence of a confirmed exposure, immune enhancers have been recommended (see below).

Antivirals.  Use of antivirals against viral agents should only be done under the direct care of a physician, and their use is only recommended after a confirmed infection.  They are not recommended for chemoprophylactic use due to a relatively high rate of complications and adverse reactions compared to the commonly used antibiotics listed above.  Some antivirals have to be given intravenously, and this can only occur in a supervised clinical setting.  Cost and availability are factors that severely limit their use, and almost all cannot be used in pregnant women and some cannot be used for children.  Certain nutraceutical treatments can be used instead or concurrently, such as Genistein (in soy/red clover) to inhibit viral kinase, rosemary/lemon balm to reduce complement activation, selenite (see below) to inhibit viral replication, barley grass and lauric acid to inhibit lipid metabolism of viruses and Phyllanthus amarus/niruri to inhibit viral reverse transcriptase.  The efficacy of these supplements in preventing infection by bioterror viral agents is not known.

Vaccines.  Specific vaccines can potentially protect against bacterial and viral bioterror agents.  Most of these vaccines would have to be administered over a relatively long time period to be effective.  For example, the current anthrax vaccine must be administered in multiple doses over an 18-month period to be effective, and it is not even known conclusively that the vaccine is effective against inhalation anthrax.  This vaccine is not recommended for civilian use due to the relatively high rate of adverse reactions, including fatalities and autoimmune diseases that have resulted from its use.  Other vaccines, such as the smallpox virus vaccine, have been in general civilian use for some time and are relatively safe.  New generations of these vaccines are under development, but they will not be available for some time, possibly years.

Passive Immunization. Passive immunization by administration of immune sera containing antibodies against specific bioterror agents is a costly alternative that can only be used after a confirmed exposure.  Newer developments include passive immune sera or pure antibodies that can target toxin molecules themselves instead of the microorganisms.  For example, antibodies against the anthrax lethal and bloat factors (the lethal toxins) or their protective factor (a transport factor needed to transport the lethal toxins into cells) can potentially stop a fatal form of systemic anthrax.  Unfortunately, these approaches are for the most part experimental and are not widely available.

Immune Enhancement and Nutrition.  Immune enhancement and nutritional approaches are not expected to be full-proof preventive measures that will protect against bioterror agents.  However, a healthy immune system is the first line of defense against microorganisms and may determine the severity of illness caused by infections.  Proper nutrition is essential for a healthy immune system.  Unfortunately, most people do not have good nutritional habits, and they would be prudent to supplement their diets with certain vitamins (especially B-complex, C, E, CoQ-10) and minerals, such as zinc, magnesium, chromium and selenium. Also, patients undergoing treatment with antibiotics and other substances risk destruction of normal gut flora that provide important digestive enzymes for processing food in the gut.  Antibiotic use that depletes normal gut bacteria and can result in over-growth of less desirable bacteria.  To supplement bacteria in the gastrointestinal system live cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus in capsules or powder are strongly recommended. A number of natural remedies, such as ginseng root, herbal teas, lemon/olive drink, olive leaf extract with antioxidants fresh or deorderized garlic and oregano oil (in enteric coated capsules), among others, have been shown to be useful for immune support, especially during or after antibiotic therapy.  Some additional remedies are: olive leaf extract, lactoferrin and other natural plant products or herbal mixtures.  Other important examples of immune support are immune modulators, such as bioactive whey protein, transfer factors and other colostrum-derived products and plant glucans.  Good immune boosters have been isolated from mushroom extracts and are widely available from a number of manufacturers. These products have been used to maintain or boost immune systems to prevent infections.

What to do if you Suspect a Bioterror Attack

The most important point to remember if you suspect that you may have been exposed to a bioterror attack is to seek immediate medial attention by going to the Emergency Room at a hospital.  Most hospitals have personnel that have been trained to respond to a bioterror attack, and they know what to do to reduce your risk of dying or becoming permanently incapacitated.  In contrast to your personal physician, most hospital emergency personnel have received some type of training on how to respond to biological emergencies.  Take with you a list of where you have been for the previous several days, who you have come into close contact with, your signs and symptoms and what you think might be the source for your medical problem.  Also include any previous medical problems, medications that you are currently on and anything else that would help hospital personnel deal quickly and effectively with your problem.  Finally, in the extremely unlikely event that you or a member of your family becomes exposed to a potential bioterror or biological agent, it is important to carefully watch the other members of your family for the appearance of similar signs and symptoms.  Speed is of utmost importance in counteracting the agents listed above.  It is better to be ridiculed for acting unnecessarily than to not act at all if you feel that you or someone close to you may have been exposed to a biological agent.

For additional information contact:

Prof. Garth Nicolson

President & Chief Scientific Officer

The Institute for Molecular Medicine

P.O. Box 9355, S. Laguna Beach, CA 92653

phone: 949-715-5978

fax:714-596-3971

Email: gnicolson@immed.org

Publications and Reports

1. Potential biological weapons threats, by M. G. Kortepeter and G. W. Parker. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1999; 5:523-527.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/kortepeter.htm

2. Bioterrorism Resources, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epedimiology, http://www.apic.org/bioterror/

3. Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Strategic Plan for Preparedness and Response, by A. S. Khan et al., Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep. 2000; 14:1-14.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4904a1.htm

4. Defense Against Toxic Weapons, by D. R. Franz, U. S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD.

http://www.nbc-med.org/

5. NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive Operations, U.S. Army Field Manual 8-9, U.S. Navy Publication 5059, U.S. Air Force Joint Manual 44-151, 1996.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/toc.htm

6. Anthrax as a Biological Weapon,

http://www.jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n18/ffull/jst80027

7. Plague as a Biological Weapon,

http://www.jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v283n17/rfull/jst90013

8. Smallpox as a Biological Weapon,

http://www.jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n22/rfull/jst90000

9. Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon,

http://www.jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v285n8/rfull/jst00017

10. Mycoplasmal infections in fatigue illnesses: Chronic Fatigue and Fibromyalgia Syndromes, Gulf War Illness and Rheumatoid Arthritis, by G.L. Nicolson et al. J. Chronic Fatigue Syndr. 2000; 6(3/4):23-39.

http://www.immed.org/publications/infectious_disease/JCFS99108t.html

11. Vaccines in Civilian Defense Against Bioterrorism, by P.K. Russell, Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1999; 5:531-533.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/Russell.htm

12. Anthrax Vaccine: Controversy Over Safety and Efficacy, by G.L. Nicolson, M. Nass and N.L. Nicolson. Antimicrob. Infect. Dis. Newsl. 2000; 18:1-6.

http://www.immed.org/publications/gulf_war_illness/anthrax3-18-00.html

13. An Assessment of the Safety of the Anthrax Vaccine, by H.C. Sox, Jr., et al. Institute of Medicine, March 30, 2000.

http://www.nap.edu/html/anthrax_vaccine/

14. Dietary considerations for patients with chronic illnesses and multiple chronic infections. A brief outline of eighteen dietary steps to better health, by G.L. Nicolson and R. Ngwenya. Townsend Lett. Doctors Patients 2001; 219:62-65.

http://www.immed.org/reports/treatment_considerations/TownsendDietConsid.-01.8.6.html

Journal of Degenerative Diseases 2008; 9(2): 50-53.

Garth L. Nicolson, Ph.D. and Nancy L. Nicolson, Ph.D.

The Institute for Molecular Medicine, Huntington Beach, California 92647

Hypothesis: The emergence of new diseases and the increase in incidence rates of those with previously described signs and symptoms from the 1970s onward are due to our increasingly toxic environment, the emergence of previously isolated infections and the purposeful development and testing of new Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction agents.

Introduction

Over the last 70 years a tremendous worldwide effort has been undertaken to develop new Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction (BWMD) agents.  Requirements for these new agents are that they must be colorless, by-and-large odorless microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi) or toxins derived from these microorganisms that can be spread in air as aerosols or in food or drink or by biting insects to infect as many people as possible.¹ They must be easy to conceal, and thus difficult to detect before an attack.  They must also be difficult to detect when released, so a biowarfare or bioterrorist attack would be difficult to ascertain, especially due to the usually nondescript initial signs and symptoms expected in casualties from an attack.  Another advantage is that they allow the perpetrators easy avoidance or escape while eventually causing panic and chaos within a civilian or military population while overwhelming emergency medical departments at local hospitals and clinics or military medical facilities.

A misconception about BWMD agents is that they would have to cause large numbers of immediate deaths to be effective.  Most BWMD agents do not cause widespread immediate deaths, or even large numbers of deaths within days of exposure, and most exposed patients might not even have a life-threatening disease in order to cause panic and terror.  The main function of BWMD is to cause disruption and chaos, so BWMD agents don’t have to cause a fatal disease to be effective.  In fact, many biological warfare agents are categorized as ‘incapacitating agents’ that are not intended to produce fatal disease.  They are more effective if they incapacitate and produce strain on a health care system and economic infrastructure by having many thousands of sick patients inundate treatment facilities that contain only limited quantities of drugs and only a few isolation wards.

It is much easier to spread a BWMD incapacitating agent from person to person, because it would not cause enough alarm to require quarantining of exposed persons, thus causing a failure to limit additional exposures.  BWMD incapacitating agents often have relatively long incubation times, allowing their widespread penetration into a population before they are ever diagnosed or detected by laboratory tests.  Thus exposed individuals may bring the agent back ‘home’ to an unsuspecting family.  This may have happened to veterans who returned from the first Gulf War only to slowly spread their chronic illnesses to spouses and children.²

Biological Agents Used for BWMD

There are several biological agents that could be useful as BWMD.  First, there are lethal agents, such as the Ebola, Lassa and other viruses that cause viral hemorrhagic fever, inhalation anthrax caused by Bacillus anthracis, small pox virus, pneumonic plague caused by Yersinia pestis or purified protein toxins, such as the Ricinus communis toxin ricin or Clostridium botulinum toxin (Table 1).  In addition, there are incapacitating agents, such as brucellosis caused by Brucella species, Q fever caused by Coxiella burnetii, tularemia caused by Francisella tularensis, mycoplasmal infections caused by Mycoplasma fermentans and mold toxins, such as the T2 mycotoxin.  As mentioned above, the incapacitating agents for the most part cause chronic illnesses that are not usually fatal.  However, these illnesses can cause tremendous health problems in infected patients, and some are contagious and the disease could spread.

Table 1.  Some Common Biological Warfare Agents Useful as BWMD

Disease                        Lethality          Incubation                   Effective           Environmental

or agent                       (death)             period                          dose                 stability

_______Lethal Agents________________________________________________________

Anthrax                       high                 1-6 d                8,000-50,000 spores    very stable for years

Plague                         high                 1-6 d                100-500 organisms      stable for 1 year

Smallpox                     high                 7-17 d              10-100 organisms        very stable

Ebola virus                  high                 2-6 d                10-100 organisms        unstable

Botulism                      high                 1-5 d                0.001 mcg/Kg weight relatively stable

Ricin                            high                 1-2 d                3-5 mcg/Kg weight     stable

Cholera                        high                 1-3 d                10-500 organisms        unstable

_______Incapacitating Agents__________________________________________________

Brucellosis                   low                  months                        10-100 organisms        very stable

Tularemia                    low                  2-15 d              10-50 organisms          stable for months

Q fever                        low                  15-40 d            1-10 organisms            stable for months

Mycoplasma                low                  months                        10-100 organisms        moderately stable

T-2 Mycotoxins           moderate         1 d                   unknown                     very stable

Type B Enterotoxin    moderate         <1 d                 0.03 mcg                     moderately stable

Equine encephalitis     low                  2-6 d                10-100 organisms        relatively unstable

Many of the most lethal BWMD, such as the hemorrhagic fever viruses, are quite unstable in the environment due to their susceptibility to sunlight and temperature and would not be effective if deployed in an aerosol at long range by aircraft or missile.  However, others, such as anthrax spores, can easily survive using this method of dispersal.  Anthrax spores have been found to survive for over 50 years in the environment, even under extreme conditions.  Although anthrax spores are considered one of the most likely biological agents that might be deployed, once the illness occurs it cannot be commonly spread to others, unlike many of the incapacitating agents.  Other highly lethal infections, such as from hemorrhagic fever viruses, show unique signs and symptoms that would allow isolation of the victims and thus prevent further spread of the disease.  Many of the bacterial or viral incapacitating agents, however, could slowly produce illnesses that would not be noticeable until some time later, and during this period they could be slowly spread to others.

Development of New BWMD Agents

Over the years new BWMD agents have been developed, but their testing has remained difficult due to the fact that most nations involved in BWMD development are signatory to the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Biological Weapons.  For example, the USA ratified this international treaty in 1975.  This treaty bans the development and testing of all BWMD agents.  However, signatory nations have circumvented this ban by conducting secret experiments under the guise of biodefense research, which is permitted under the treaty, or by flagrant disregard of the terms of the treaty.

The authors’ inadvertent involvement in discovering the unethical program began when military casualties returned home from Gulf War I with undiagnosed chronic illnesses that could not easily be assigned to the normal military diagnosis categories.  Eventually this became known as Gulf War Syndrome or Gulf War Illness.² Over the years tremendous effort has been expended to first deny the existence of Gulf War Illness, and then when this proved difficult, to deny that it could be caused by an infectious agent.³ Most military physicians were content to believe that Gulf War Illness was a psychological problem, not one caused by exposure to biological, radiological or chemical events.^2,3

One of the interesting stories that occurred during the discovery of an unusual pathogen in approximately 40% of Gulf War Illness patients was that this same agent was present in the Texas prison system in the mid-1970s to late-1980s, well before the Gulf War in 1991.⁴ This pathogen, Mycoplasma fermentans, is a primitive cell wall-deficient bacteria that was first patented by a U.S. Army pathologist and was thought to be involved in a number of chronic diseases.⁵ In fact, the discovery and most of the research on M. fermentans was conducted by U.S. Army laboratories.  For example, M. fermentans was found by Lo and his collaborators to cause a lethal infection in non-AIDS-infected military personnel.⁶

Until after the first Gulf War the U.S. Department of Defense’s own medical school (Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences at the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center) taught the following about M. fermentans infections.⁷

Mycoplasma fermentans⁷

The most serious presentation of M. fermentans infection is that of a fulminating systemic disease that begins as a flu-like illness.  Patients rapidly deteriorate developing severe complications, including adult respiratory distress syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and/or multiple organ failure.

The organs of patients with fulminant M. fermentans infections exhibit extensive necrosis.  Necrosis is most pronounced in lung, liver, spleen, lymph nodes, adrenal glands, heart and brain.  M. fermentans is identified in areas of necrosis, particularly in the advancing margin of necrosis, by the immunohisto-chemistry using specific anti-M. fermentans and M. fermentans incognitus antibiody and/or by in situ hybridization assays using cloned incognitus strain DNA.  Mycoplasma-like particles are found intracellularly and extracellularly by electron microscopy.

Microorganisms such as M. fermentans have also produced progressive chronic illnesses in a variety of animal species.  For example, Lo et al.⁸ found that injection of M. fermentans into nonhuman primates resulted in development of a fulminate, fatal illness.  These animals displayed many chronic signs and symptoms but did not mount an antibody response until they were near death.⁸ In humans, infections like M. fermentans have been associated with increased severity of signs and symptoms in fatiguing illnesses,⁹ neurodegenerative diseases,¹⁰ neurobehavioral diseases,¹¹ autoimmune diseases,¹² complex infections like Lyme Disease¹³ and other diseases.^10,14

Our hypothesis is that this process did not occur randomly.  Infections like M. fermentans were not acknowledged in the medical literature before the late 1980s. In addition, new emerging illnesses like the fatiguing illnesses (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia Syndrome, Gulf War Illnesses, etc.) were relatively unknown before the 1980s, or were found in only a few cases reported by the 1990s.  Some diseases (for example, neurodegenerative, neurobehavioral and autoimmune diseases) showed striking increases in incidence during this same 1980s period.¹⁰ All of these diseases have one thing in common—the high incidence of chronic infections that were rarely found previously.¹⁰ Prominent among these chronic infections were infections caused by Mycoplasma species and similar bacteria.¹⁰

‘Weaponization’ of New BWMD Agents

Once new biological agents have been isolated and tested in animals and humans, they have to be ‘weaponized’ before they are considered useful as BWMD.  This process must take into account various properties that are necessary for enhanced survival, dissemination and pathogenic properties of the microorganism.

Before the advent of genetic engineering, microorganisms were ‘weaponized’ mainly by a slow process of selection to obtain variants that possessed the properties necessary for a BWMD agent.  For example, the candidate microorganism must be resistant to heat, sunlight and dryness; thus variants were selected for enhanced resistance to these environmental conditions.  They also must have strong pathogenic properties and cause sickness by the entry of small numbers of microbes into the body.  This could be accomplished by passing the candidate microorganism through multiple animals or even humans to select variants with increased pathogenic properties.

By the 1980s the use of genetic engineering allowed researchers to bypass lengthy selection regimens by inserting particular genes into candidate microorganisms to ‘improve’ their BWMD properties (Table 2).

Table 2.  Some Genes Useful for ‘Weaponizing’ Candidate BWMD Agents

‘Weaponsization’ Property      Gene to be Inserted                 Resulting Characteristic

Heat resistance                        Thermal resistance genes         Survives explosions or fires

Dry resistance                         Spore-forming genes               Survives desert or dry conditions

Cellular entry                          Receptor gene                         Increased cell entry

Cellular death                          Apoptosis or toxin genes        Increased cell and tissue death

Tissue targeting                       Tissue receptor gene                Targets particular tissues/organs

Immune resistance                  Immune suppression genes     Immune suppression

Mass production                     Growth genes                          Grows easily to high density in vitro

For example, we hypothesize that ‘weaponization’ of M. fermentans probably occurred by the insertion of several genes that enabled the micoorganism to better survive and possess increased pathogenic properties.  Evidence for this genetic process can be found in the genetic signature of M. fermentans seen in military patients and those civilians used for experimental studies on the infectious process.

A contentious finding of ours identified a gene from the HIV-1 virus in some military patients infected with M. fermentans. The particular gene was the env gene, which encodes gp120, part of the viral spikes that allow the HIV-1 virus to bind to specific receptors on cells and allow the virus to enter cells.¹⁵ This is shown in Figures 1 and 2.  We hypothesize that insertion of the env gene increased the pathogenic properties of M. fermentans by allowing it to more easily enter cells as well as target cells of the immune system, just like the HIV-1 virus.¹⁶

Interestingly, when we examined some of the guards who worked in Texas prisons implicated in the testing of M. fermentans as a new BWMD agent (see next section), we found evidence of various HIV-1 genes in different patients (env, pol and rev) not just the one gene (env) found in military patients.  This ‘exposure’ to various gene-containing M. fermentans strains preceded the first Gulf War, so it implicated the Texas prisons in the testing of various candidate gene-modified M. fermentans mutants for their properties, including their pathogenecity.

Figure 1. The genomic and physical structures of the HIV-1 virus

Figure 2. A hypothesis on how the HIV-1 env gene increases the entry rate and pathogenic properties of Mycoplasma fermentans.

Testing of ‘Weaponized’ BWMD Agents

Once new candidate BWMD mutant microorganisms have been developed, there is natural pressure to test the new mutants, along with their engineered genomes, to see if their resulting properties make them more effective as BWMD agents.   Such testing can be conducted in animals, but for some purposes only humans are useful as test subjects.  Thus there is pressure to conduct clinical trials using human subjects.  Two of the most useful groups of possible subjects for such clinical trials are military personnel and prisoners.¹⁸

In the case of M. fermentans we believe that clinical testing was performed on both military and prison personnel (inmates).  Evidence for this includes the presence of M. fermentans in the blood of Gulf War Illness patients who received multiple military vaccines during deployment and in some cases their immediate family members (but only after the veterans returned to the home)¹⁷ as well as in prison guards who worked in selected prisons in Texas.⁴ In the case of veterans of the first Gulf War, there was a strong association of Gulf War Illness symptoms to the military vaccines received during deployment.¹⁹

In the case of prisoners as experimental subjects, Texas has a long history of using prisoners for clinical trials.^{18, 20} According to the minutes of the Texas Department of Corrections Board, selected prisons in East Texas were used for experiments that were conducted using various Mycoplasma species to determine pathogenicity and countermeasures against infection.²¹ This likely resulted in the spread of mycoplasmal illnesses from prisoners to guards and other prison employees and then to their immediate family members in the community.

In the 1980s in the city of Huntsville, Texas most of the employment was at the local state prisons.  In this small East Texas town there was a dramatic increase in neurodegenerative, autoimmune and fatiguing illnesses that were linked to employment at local prisons.  Although unproven, it is likely that the increases in chronic illnesses in towns like Huntsville were indirectly linked to the clinical trials being conducted at local prisons.²² It is very likely that other states also provided experimental subjects from their prisons and military bases for the testing of new or existing BWMD agents, and this may have contributed to the overall increases in the incidence of chronic illnesses seen in various regions around the nation.

References

1. Kortepeter MG, Parker GW. Potential biological weapons threats. Emerg Infect Dis 1999; 5:523-527.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/kortepeter

2. Nicolson GL, Berns P, Nasralla M, Haier J, Nicolson NL, Nass M. Gulf War Illnesses: chemical, radiological and biological exposures resulting in chronic fatiguing illnesses can be identified and treated. J Chronic Fatigue Syndr 2003; 11(1):135-154.

http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

3. Nicolson GL. Testimony to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, United States House of Representatives, Washington DC, January 24, 2002.

http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

4. Nicolson GL, Nicolson NL. Project Day Lily, Xlibris Publishing, ISBN: 1-4134-8519-7, 2005.

http://www.projectdaylily.com/

5. Lo S-C. Pathogenic mycoplasma. U.S. Patent 5,242,820.  Issued September 7, 1993.

6. Lo S-C, Dawson MS, Newton PB et al. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients.  Am  J  Trop  Med  Hygiene 1989; 41:364-376.

7. Pathology Syllabus VI. Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, 1994.

8. Lo SC, Wear DJ, Shih WK, et al. Fatal systemic infections of non-human primates by Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain).  Clin Infect Dis 1993; 17(S1):283-288.

9. Nicolson GL, Gan R, Haier J.  Multiple co-infections (mycoplasma, Chlamydia, human herpesvirus-6) in blood of chronic fatigue syndrome patients: association with signs and symptoms. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 2003; 111:557-566.

http://www.immed.org/illness/fatigue_illness_research.html

10. Nicolson, G.L. Chronic infections in neurodegenerative and neurobehavioral diseases. Lab Medicine 2008; 39(5):291-299.

11. Nicolson GL, Gan R, Nicolson NL, Haier J. Evidence for Mycoplasma, Chlamydia pneunomiae and HHV-6 Co-infections in the blood of patients with Autism Spectrum Disorders. J Neuroscience Res 2007; 85:1143-1148.

http://www.immed.org/illness/Neurodegenerative%20Diseases.html

12. Haier J, Nasralla M, Franco AR, Nicolson GL.  Detection of mycoplasmal infections in blood of patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatol 1999; 38:504-509.

http://www.immed.org/illness/autoimmune_illness_research.html

13. Nicolson GL, Nicolson NL, Haier J. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients subsequently diagnosed with Lyme Disease Borrelia burgdorferi: evidence for Mycoplasma species co-infections.  J Chronic Fatigue Syndr 2008; 14(4):5-17.

14. Nicolson GL, Nasralla M, Franco AR, et al. Mycoplasmal infections in fatigue illnesses: Chronic Fatigue and Fibromyalgia Syndromes, Gulf War Illness and Rheumatoid Arthritis.  J Chronic Fatigue Syndr 2000; 6(3):23-39.

http://www.immed.org/illness/autoimmune_illness_research.html

15. Nicolson GL, Nicolson NL, Nasralla M.  Mycoplasmal infections and Chronic Fatigue Illness (Gulf War Illness) associated with deployment to Operation Desert Storm. Intern J  Med 1998; 1:80-92.

http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

16. Nazari R, Josi S. CCR5 as a target for HIV-1 gene therapy.  Curr Gene Ther 2008; 8:264-272.

17. Nicolson GL, Nasralla M, Nicolson NL, Haier J. High prevalence of mycoplasmal infections in symptomatic (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) family members of mycoplasma-positive Gulf War Illness patients. J Chronic Fatigue Syndr 2003; 11(2):21-36.

http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

18. Knight V. The use of volunteers in medical virology. Prog Med Virol 1984; 6:1-26.

19. Steele L. Prevalence and patterns of Gulf War Illness in Kansas veterans: association of symptoms with characteristics of person, place and time of military service.  Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:992-1002.

20. Couch RB, Cate TR, Douglas RG, Jr, Gerone PJ, Knight V. Effect of route of inoculation on experimental viral disease in volunteers and evidence for airborne transmission. Bacteriol Rev 1996; 30:517-529.

21. Brown C. Mycoplasma experiments conducted in Texas prisons. J Degenerative Dis 1999; 1(1): pages

22. Medley S. Testimony to the President’s Panel on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, Washington DC, August 14, 1995.