Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory “decontaminations”

The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the “Pandemic Response Bill” 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone “suspected” of being infected to submit to interrogations, “decontaminations” and vaccines.

It’s also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel. You can read the text yourself here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf…

Here’s some of the language contained in the bill:

(Violation of 4th Amendment: Illegal search and seizure)
During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority… may exercise authority… to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises; to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be
decontaminated any building or facility; to destroy any material; to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;

(Violation of 14th Amendment; illegal arrest without a warrant)
…an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. [Gunpoint]

(Government price controls)
The attorney general, in consultation with the office of consumer affairs and business regulation, and upon the declaration by the governor that a supply emergency exists, shall take appropriate action to ensure that no person shall sell a product or service that is at a price that unreasonably exceeds the price charged before the emergency.

“Involuntary Transportation” (also known as kidnapping)
Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center.

$1,000 / day in fines
Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which noncompliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both.

Forced vaccinations
Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority: (1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease…

Forced quarantine for those who refuse (illegal imprisonment without charge)
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.

Arrest for refusal to be “decontaminated”
If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court… During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontamination or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.

Interrogation
When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under section 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public health authority may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information… If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health…

Forced isolation and quarantine
An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.

Forced entry into any home or building…
There’s a lot more in this bill, including language that allows Mass. police to enter any home or building without a search warrant, to destroy any object or building they suspect may pose a threat to public safety, to order the closing and / or decontamination of any facility using highly toxic chemical decontamination agents, and to arrest, detain and interrogate anyone who gets in their way.

Meanwhile, all state law enforcement and medical personnel are granted complete immunity from prosecution for their part in violating your Constitutional rights. So if they violate your right to due process, or they accidentally destroy your home, or they kill your family dog because they suspect it might be infected, you have absolutely zero recourse.

Under this bill, Massachusetts becomes a medical police state. There is no debating it. It’s all written, clear as day, in this law: The citizens of Massachusetts will have no rights, period. The Constitution is ancient history. You are now the property of the State.

Kiss your freedoms goodbye
Massachusetts, it seems, has never met a vaccine it didn’t like. This is the same state that rounded up the parents of schoolchildren who hadn’t been vaccinated, then corralled them into a courtroom (with attack dogs standing guard outside) and forced vaccine injections onto all the schoolchildren under the threat of jail time for parents who resisted.

Remember, readers, that this is all taking place in the “land of the free,” a nation that former President George Bush claimed was so envied around the world that terrorists attacked America because they “hate freedom” and wanted to destroy our way of life. But terrorists need no help attacking freedom as long as Massachusetts is in the vaccine game, because this latest form of “gunpoint medicine” destroys freedom for everyday Americans in a way that terrorists could have never hoped to accomplish with all the bombs in the world.

Massachusetts, it seems, has done what terrorists could not: It has turned “free” Americans into medical slave subjects who no longer have any freedom to decide the details of their own medical care. All options have been stripped from them but one: The Big Pharma option. That’s the one that involves using untested, unproven and potentially dangerous vaccines that could paralyze you or even kill you. All to defend you against a virus that’s so weak, almost anyone with decent levels of vitamin D and basic nutrition can resist the virus without incident.

But Massachusetts, as you’ll see below, is just the beginning. It turns out that the whole nation could soon find itself under a similar forced vaccination policy…

Isolation camps, forced vaccinations and more
In 2006, former President George Bush signed into law the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). It gives power to the Secretary of the U.S. government’s Health and Human Services department (HHS) to declare any infectious disease a “national emergency” and therefore require mandatory vaccination of the entire population. Because of the existence of this PREP Act, the entire population of the USA is now but one pen stroke away from being subjected to mandatory swine flu vaccinations at gunpoint.

Those who resist such vaccines will be arrested and taken away for “isolation” in domestic prison camps. They can’t just leave vaccine refusers free to live among the population, of course, because that would send the message that anyone can refuse the vaccines without consequence. So they’ll arrest those who refuse the vaccine, labeling them “a threat to national security” (enemies of the state) and imprison them without trial, without charges and without any legal representation whatsoever.

Meanwhile, all those who take part in enforcing these crimes against the American people will be granted complete immunity. From the HHS website: “[the Secretary may] issue a declaration… that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency…”

There are other laws already on the books that strip Americans of virtually all Constitutional rights in a “pandemic emergency” scenario. One such act is The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (S. 3678), which probably merits another article altogether.

Have no illusions: At the stroke of a pen, the Constitutional rights of all Americans will be immediately suspended. Mandatory vaccinations and “decontaminations” will kick in and the mass arrest of resisters will begin. There will be no court, no trial, no jury and no due process. Your actions will be dictated to you by a law enforcement officer or a health care worker who has been granted complete immunity, so if you just happen to get kicked around a bit (or shot), there’s really nothing you can do about it.

Some might argue these are necessary actions to save a nation from a deadly pandemic. And yet they forget that the pandemic has been intentionally allowed to worsen by censoring information about vitamin D and natural remedies that could stop it. Somebody at the top, in other words, wants this pandemic to get really bad, perhaps because it allows them to invoke precisely the draconian response I’ve outlined in this article. Seizing power in a Democracy cannot be accomplished by simply declaring war on the rights of the People. Rather, a situation must be engineered where the People are so desperate that they beg to be controlled. Releasing a pandemic into the wild is the perfect way to accomplish precisely that.

Timing
None of these laws will be invoked before the vaccines are ready in large numbers, of course. Part of the purpose in all this is to prop up Big Pharma profits with massive vaccination efforts, so until the vaccines are actually available, don’t expect to see any declarations of a public emergency.

It might take until October or November before the vaccines are readily available in sufficient quantity to inject just half the U.S. population. But once that milestone is reached, a declaration of a pandemic emergency is imminent. Trust me on this point: They won’t let all those hundreds of millions of vaccines sit around unused; they’ll make sure they get injected into the People as soon as possible, because that’s the only way to justify making more.

So the sequence of events we’re likely to see here are:

#1) Waiting on vaccine manufacturing to procure at least 150 million doses in the U.S. Probable timeframe = October.

#2) Hyping up a few local swine flu breakouts in schools in order to justify step #3. Probable timeframe = November / December.

#3) Declaring a full-blown national emergency and announcing mandatory vaccinations for everyone (to use up the vaccines that are now available). Probable timeframe = January / February / March.

#4) If the disease continues to spread, this is when you’ll see forced entry into homes and buildings, forced “decontamination” sprayings, widespread arrests and forced quarantine of resisters, Martial Law and a complete crackdown on freedoms (especially in the inner cities). This will likely continue through the winter until Spring arrives, bringing the sunshine that will suppress the virus around the May 2010 timeframe.

All this is written in black ink. It’s already part of the pandemic response plan. Body bags, FEMA camps and much more.

Two years ago, this was all the domain of conspiracy theory “wingnuts.” Now it’s State law. Now it’s being openly discussed in security conferences and health care meetings. What will we do when the hospital beds are full? How will we accomplish the “involuntary transportation” of those who are infected? Are there enough zip-tie handcuffs to go around? How do we disarm and arrest citizens who refuse to be vaccinated? How do we prevent National Guard troops from becoming infected themselves?

These are the questions circulating now at high levels, all across the world. And the answers are always the same: Abandon freedoms. Strip the People of any rights. Dictate from the top down and arrest anyone who gets in your way.

Welcome to the Land of the Free. I hope you are prepared for what looks to be coming, because this isn’t America anymore, folks. This is Amerika, and the Constitutional rights you thought you had are about to be written right off the books.

Thanks to infowars.com

How To Avoid Forced Flu Vaccine (AKA Religion Finally Helps Us?)

I apologise for not updating recently, I will try to post at least once a week now. I'm very glad to see all the new viewers from so many countries. It's always a pleasure helping out so many people (over 250+ so far!)

This next post is about avoiding the flu vaccine, which is probably the best thing I could help you with so far.

Later this year in America we might get forced flu vaccines, the borders may close etc.

This new swine flu vaccine is by far the worst their has ever been (please read my post: Swine Flu Hoax,)

The best way to avoid a forced flu vaccine is telling them it is against your religion... sounds simply right? Anything that is against what they want us to do is never simply. But to practice your rights, you must read the following article:

The Law On Vaccine Religious Exemptions: What You Need to Know

There's a lot of information on the Internet about vaccine religious exemptions. Unfortunately, much of it is misleading or incorrect. The law on religious exemptions is inherently complex. The truth is, for most U.S. citizens, the law on vaccine religious exemptions is not clearly defined. In addition, law continually changes and evolves, so staying on top of your rights requires ongoing vigilance.
A complete explanation of vaccine religious exemption law is beyond the scope of an article (which is why I'm writing a book on the subject -- be on the look-out for this in the near future!), but an introduction to some of the complicating factors may not be.
First, in the U.S., vaccine requirements and exemptions (also known as exceptions or waivers) are addressed at the state law level, as the federal government lacks authority to address vaccine requirements and exemptions for state residents (federal laws do address vaccine requirements and exemptions for immigrants and the military; they also provides a means of avoiding vaccines in the workplace). Vaccines are legally required in all U.S. states and territories, but exemptions are also available in each state and territory that at least some residents may exercise.
One's right to refuse immunizations in the exercise of one's religious beliefs is a right afforded by both state and federal law in all but two states (Mississippi and West Virginia), primarily by way of state code and the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments. So, right off the bat, vaccine religious exemptions necessarily involve a potentially complex mixture of state and federal law. Furthermore, on the state level, there are both statutes and regulations that must be reviewed to determine fully one's rights and options, and state constitutions may play a role as well.
Rights are seldom if ever absolute. One person's right to exercise their religion is limited by opposing rights -- in the case of vaccine religious exemptions, the state's right to require immunizations for the presumed benefit of society. Furthermore, determining your rights is not simply a matter of reading a state statute or a Constitutional Amendment. While those may be necessary starting places, they contain only broad generalizations that tell you little if anything about how that law applies to the specific set of facts and circumstances in your life. Make no mistake -- the application of those laws can vary, sometimes radically, with the widely varying circumstances of different individuals and families.
How do we determine, then, how the law applies to specific situations? We must look to legal precedent, or case law. Legislatures may make the laws, but it is the courts that interpret it -- on a case-by-case basis, one individual dispute at a time. When a case in a lower court is appealed to a higher court, the higher court (or federal district courts and some state trial courts) may issue a written "opinion" that serves as guiding precedent for the lower courts in future similar disputes. So, for starters, then, to determine what the law is for your specific situation, you must determine whether or not there is any legal precedent that applies.
Needless to say, the totality of court opinions constituting the body of precedent in any given area of law, at any given time, can never precisely address all of the different hypothetical future circumstances that may arise in that same area of law -- especially where there is limited precedent in the first place, as is the case with vaccine religious exemptions. When a situation comes up that doesn't clearly match any existing precedent, it may be difficult to say with any certainty what the law is for that specific situation. When precedent bears some resemblance to a current situation but is distinguishable from it, there may be opposing arguments about how the existing precedent applies to the present situation, with corresponding uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome.
Unfortunately, the complexity doesn't end there. Even if there is precedent that clearly applies to your specific situation, you still have to look to whether or not that precedent is "binding" or "persuasive." This depends on whether or not the precedent was issued by a court within your jurisdiction. If not, it is "persuasive precedent," and your local courts don't have to follow it. It may still support a legal argument for what your rights should be (e.g., how a court may or should rule if the matter ends up in court), but it won't determine what your rights are, and the bottom line is, a court could rule contrary to that precedent -- against you -- if it felt that doing so was the more just outcome in your particular case (and as you might well imagine, arguments favoring immunization often have the advantage).
Most of the federal precedent pertaining to vaccine religious exemptions comes from cases that arose in federal courts in New York State. Those precedent-setting cases were in federal district courts and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which jurisdiction encompasses the states of New York, Vermont and Connecticut). If you live outside of New York (with regard to those court opinions from New York District Courts), or outside of NY, VT and CT (with regard to the opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals), this precedent is not binding on the courts in your jurisdiction and serves only as a legal argument in support of a desired outcome. Sometimes, that argument is enough to get the exemption without having to take the case to court (though as a matter of practical reality, the argument may need to be made by an attorney); other times, it isn't.
One frequent question concerns those states with laws that require one to be a member of an organized religion with tenets in opposition to immunizations in order to qualify for a religious exemption. Such laws have been ruled unconstitutional in some state and federal courts. But that doesn't mean that similar laws in other states that have not been challenged in court are presently unconstitutional -- it only means that if such present laws in those other states were challenged in court, they may be ruled unconstitutional at that time. So, if you live in a state that has these requirements, you are legally bound by them unless and until the laws are changed, despite the likelihood that if challenged, those laws would be ruled unconstitutional. This doesn't mean there's no possibility of exercising a religious exemption in those states if you don't belong to the right kind of church, but if you did succeed, it would probably be because local officials chose not to spend the time and money defending a case they were likely to lose, and not because there was any uncertainty about the enforceability of the law as it currently stands.
Another common complication to exercising a vaccine religious exemption is the "practical reality" aspect. Even if you are clear about your rights under state and federal law and know the strengths and weaknesses of your position, you still have to deal with local authorities that may or may not know your legal rights, and who may or may not cooperate with you even if they do. Sometimes, exercising an exemption is very straightforward and proceeds without incident. Other times, local officials resist efforts to exercise a valid legal exemption. They have sometimes reportedly been rude, uncooperative, and even coercive or confrontational in their efforts to thwart efforts to exercise a valid, legal vaccine exemption.
Most of the time, these folks are genuinely concerned about the health and safety of you, your children and your community, but sometimes they overstep their boundaries in their zealousness to "protect" those concerned. But even those people who successfully exercise a religious exemption on their own inadvertently leave themselves susceptible to challenge, because of what they "don't know that they don't know" about the law on exemptions. For these reasons, and because of the many inherent legal complexities associated with vaccine religious exemptions generally, many people wisely choose to consult a knowledgeable attorney before declaring and exercising a vaccine religious exemption.

Some of this post is taken from http://chetday.com/vaccineexemption.htm

John Lennon's Death

Was John Lennon's murderer really just an insane fan, or was Mark David Chapman being controlled by the government to kill John Lennon, a dangerous extremist who threatened to bring peace to the world.



The Assassination of John Lennon

The scene outside New York's spooky old Dakota apartment building on the evening of December 8, 1980, was as surreal as it was horrifying. John Lennon, probably the world's most famous rock star, lay semiconscious, hemorrhaging from four flat-tipped bullets blasted into his back. His wife Yoko O-No held his head in her arms and screamed (just like on her early albums).

A few yards away a pudgy young man stood eerily still, peering down into a paperback book. Moments earlier he had dropped into a military firing stance - legs spread for maximum balance, two hands gripping his .38 revolver to steady his aim - and blown away the very best Beatle. Now he leafed lazily through the pages of the one novel even the most chronically stoned and voided-out ninth grader will actually read, J. D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye.

The Dakota doorman shouted at the shooter, Mark David Chapman, "Do you know what you've done?"

"I just shot John Lennon," Chapman replied, accurately enough.

It was a tragedy of Kerkegaardian pointlessness. There was only one apparent way to squeeze any sense from it; write it off as random violence by a "wacko."

"He walked past me and then I heard in my head, 'Do it, do it, do it,' over and over again, saying 'Do it, do it, do it,' like that," Chapman, preternaturally serene, recalled in a BBC documentary several years after going to prison. "I don't remember aiming. I must have done, but I don't remember drawing a bead or whatever you call it. And I just pulled the trigger steady five times."

Chapman described his feeling at the time of the shooting as "no emotion, no anger…dead silence in the brain."

His unnatural tone sounded all-too-familiar. British lawyer/journalist Fenton Bresler took it as a tip-off. Chapman was a brainwashed hit man carrying out someone else's contract.

"Mark David Chapman," writes Bresler, "is in many ways as much the victim of those who wanted to kill John Lennon as Lennon himself."

Prosecutors, as a loss for motive, opted for the cliché: Chapman did it for the attention- the troublesome American preoccupation with grabbing that elusive fifteen minutes of propels many a daily-newspaper-journalist-cum-pop-sociologist into raptures of sanctimony. But Arthur O'Connor, the detective who spent more time with Chapman immediately following the murder than anyone else, saw it another way.

"It is definitely illogical to say that Mark Committed the murder to make himself famous. He did not want to talk to the press from the very start….It's possible Mark could have been used by somebody. I saw him the night of the murder. I studied him intensely. He looked as if he could have been programmed."

O'Connor was speaking to Bresler, and publicly for the first time. Bresler's book Who Killed John Lennon? Offers the most cogent argument that Lennon's murder was not the work of yet another "lone nut."

Conspiracy theories abounded after the Lennon assassination, many rather cruelly fingering Yoko as the mastermind. Another focused on Paul who, by this line of reasoning, blamed Yoko for engineering his arrest in Japan on reefer charges. The Lennon conspiracy turns up on radio talk shows with some frequency, where hosts fend off callers with the "Why bother to kill that guy?" defense.

Only Bresler's thesis, that Chapman was a mind-controlled assassin manipulated by some right-wing element possibly connected to the newly elected (and not even inaugurated) Reagan apparatus of reaction, transcends the confines of pure speculation, extending into the realm of actual investigation.

Even so, Bresler's book a little too often substitutes rhetorical questions ("What does that steady repetition of a voice saying 'Do it, do it, do it,' over and over again in Mark's head sound like to you?") for evidentiary argument. We can forgive him for that failing. Bresler tracked the case for eight years, conducted unprecedented interviews, and extracted a ream of previously unreleased government documents. But unlike researchers into the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, he did not have volumes of evidence gathered by any official investigation, even a flawed one, to fall back on. The New York police had their man, the case was closed the very night of the murder - and, anyway, what political reason could possibly exist for gunning down the composer of "I Am the Walrus"?

In building his case, Bresler established some key points that put the lie to any "Who would want to kill an aging rock star?" brush-off.

Richard Nixon, his administration and other right-wing politicians (including ultraconservative ancient Senator Strom Thurmond, who personally memoed Attorney Gerneral John Mitcell on the matter) were fixated on what they saw as the Lennon problem. To them, the politically outspoken singer-songwriter was an insidious subversive of the worst kind, the famous and beloved kind.

J. Edgar Hoover shared their concerns. One page of Lennon's FBI file bears the handwritten, block-lettered, under lined words, ALL EXTREMISTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS.

The government went all-out to deny Lennon his longed-for permanent U.S. residency, and more than that, to deport him altogether (that was the subject of Thurmond's memo).

Lennon's FBI file - at nearly three hundred pages as chubby as Hoover himself - reveals that he was under "constant surveillance." Nor did the G-men keep a particularly low profile around the ex-Beatle, apparently attempting to harass him into silence or at least drive him nuts, similar to the tactic they had used on Martin Luther King, Jr., a few short but eventful years earlier.

In late 1972, when the "surveillance" was at its peak, Lennon told humorist Paul Krassner, "Listen, if anything happens to Yoko and me, it was not an accident."

The FBI and the CIA tracked Lennon at least from his "Free John Sinclair" concert in 1969 until 1976 - even though by then Lennon had won his immigration battle and dropped out of not only political activism but public life altogether into what turned out to be a five-year period of seclusion. His apartment was watched, he was followed, his phone was tapped.

Placing a person under "constant surveillance" and ordering that person executed are admittedly two different things. Nevertheless, Bresler's point is that the government did not consider John Lennon a harmless rock 'n' roller whose awkward entrance into the world of political activism often carried a high cringe factor (as in his Montreal "bed-in").

He was viewed as a dangerous radical who needed to be stopped.

And in a way that official paranoia might have been justified, because as embarrassing as Lennon and Ono's political publicity stunts occasionally became, John Lennon was always capable of seizing the spotlight and speaking directly to millions of young people who venerated him.

With unfettered access to the media, his power was immense, at least potentially so, and recognized by more experienced radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, who linked themselves to Lennon, clinging to close that they made the rock star uncomfortable.

Lennon was killed just four years after the intense FBI/CIA surveillance ceased. In those intermittent years, Jimmy Carter was president - a Democrat who kept the two gestapo-ish agencies more or less in check.

But in December 1980, when John Lennon's first album in half a decade was high on the charts, Carter was a lame duck chief executive, having lost his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan. Reagan's campaign was managed by career secret agent William Casey, who under President Reagan became the CIA's most freewheeling chief since Allen Dulles. The new far-right administration would reassemble the intelligence services and grant them a cheerful carte blanche.

The forces that tried desperately to neutralize Lennon for at least seven years lost power in 1976. Lennon's government dossier ends in that year. In 1980, as those forces were preparing to retake control of the government, "dangerous extremist" John Lennon emerged from retirement. Within a few months he was murdered.

The paper trail that might support the conspiracy theory is a little thin, however. It doesn't extend much beyond the airline ticket found in Chapman's hotel room; a Hawaii-New York connection departing December 5. But Chapman had actually purchased a Hawaii-Chicago ticket to depart December 2, with no connecting flight. The ticket found after his arrest had apparently been altered. None of his friends knew that he traveled on to New York. They thought he went to Chicago for a three-day stay.

Bresler concludes that the Lennon assassination, which, as Chapman himself noted in a rare interview, "ended an era," bears similarities to another assassination that took place twelve years earlier: the murder of Robert F. Kennedy.

RFK's apparent lone killer, Sirhan Sirhan, and Chapman (coincidentally?) shared a defense psychiatrist. But while Dr. Bernard Diamond couldn't skirt the obvious fact that Sirhan was under hypnosis (Diamond wrote it off as self-hypnosis), he labeled Chapman a "paranoid schizophrenic."

The court disagreed. Chapman even now has never had more than routine psychiatric care since entering his guilty plea. He was not sent to a mental hospital, but to Attica State Prison. He was judged legally "rational."

Bresler clears up a few widely disseminated misconceptions about Mark David Chapman:

While any mention of his name is now accompanied by the phrase "deranged fan," Chapman was anything but. He was no more or less ardent a Beatles/Lennon fan than anyone of his generation. His real rock hero was Todd Rundgren, a cynical studio craftsman who could not be further from Lennon in artistic sensibility.

Notwithstanding Chapman's announcement months after the murder that he "killed Lennon to gain prominence to promote the reading of The Catcher in the Rye," Chapman never exhibited strong feelings about the novel until shortly before the shooting. (Catcher, Bresler muses, may have been used as a device to trigger Chapman's "programming.")

After the murder, major media ran bizarre stories of Chapman's supposed growing identification with John Lennon - at one point he even "re-baptized" himself as Lennon, according to Newsweek. These stories were all quite fascinating, but there was no evidence to back any of them up. (It is true that when Chapman quit his last job he signed out as "John Lennon," then crossed the name out, but Bresler interprets this, reasonably, as Chapman saying, "John Lennon, I am going to kill you," rather than "John Lennon, I am you."

Chapman was not a "loner." He was for most of his life a normally social individual and a camp counselor who had a special rapport with kids.

Bresler also notes that when Chapman signed up for a YMCA overseas program, he selected an odd destination: Beirut - a perfect place, says Bresler, for Chapman, a once gentle soul, to be "blooded," that is, desensitized to violence.

A final note to the mystery of Mark David Chapman: As he was ready to go to trial and his diligent public defender was winding up six months spent assembling Chapman's defense, the accused killer suddenly decided to change his plea to guilty. His lawyer was perplexed and more than a little perturbed. But Chapman was determined. He said he was acting on instructions from a "small male voice" that spoke to him in his cell.

Chapman interpreted it as the voice of God.


Thank you for reading, please subscribe for further information. Rest in peace John Lennon.

Thanks to: http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/lennon.html