View Single Post
Old 09-10-2019, 11:41 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by SanJoseTeacher View Post
Thanks for taking the time to write up that post. I read through the opinion piece and the quoted sections on Sproul's bio and and his consulting firm. I cannot come to the same conclusions as you, though. I have several acquaintances who are content and opinion writers and I have a bit of insight into how that system operates. It can be just as reasonable for him to have written the piece because it is a current controversy circulating around the internet and being promoted by Infowars. Therefore, either he, his agent, editor, ..ect, thought a newsgroup would buy it and make some money. Papers don't buy pieces from any Joe-Schmoe, it's almost always from someone who is established as a "leader" in some field. It is possible that "someone in the game" is floating a trial balloon through him but, how likely is that? What verifiable evidence exists to back up that claim? My explanation is just as valid as yours since neither has any evidence to back it up other than our own personal experience and opinions.
I really don't have a dog in the hunt on this one. Actually, your scenario fits Alex Jones/Infowars better than it does Sproul. In fact, Sproul's piece came out 3 days before the piece linked to in the OP. Insofar as the 'who' that is behind it, let's just say I'm highly doubtful much 'verifiable evidence' will ever be readily available. That's the nature of trial balloons or testing the winds in politics.

All I'm pointing out is that this has been out there for awhile; since, at least, the end of last year based on the links I provided to in Post #5. Somebody is pushing the idea and it's not Alex Jones and it's not Sproul. Most of the recent spate of articles reference a piece by The Washington Post from 22 August.

In that piece, it states...

The concept was advanced by the Suzanne Wright Foundation and first discussed by officials on the Domestic Policy Council and senior White House staffers in June 2017. But the idea has gained momentum in the wake of the latest mass shootings that killed 31 people in one weekend in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio.
So, we know it goes back as far as 2017. Who or what is the Suzanne Wright Foundation? If you click the link from The Washington Post quote, it's stated that the organization was founded in November 2016. The Founder and Chairman is Bob Wright; Suzanne's husband. Look to the announcement from 16 November 2016...

Bob Wright Launches The Suzanne Wright Foundation to Fight Pancreatic Cancer

Bob Wright, former Vice Chairman of General Electric, Chairman of NBC Universal... Bob Wright brings over 40 years of executive and philanthropic leadership to the fight against pancreatic cancer. During his tenure at NBC, Wright revolutionized network television, launching CNBC and MSNBC, and transforming the network into a media giant...
The President and Member of the Board of Directors is Liz Feld. Take a look at her bio...

...During her time in office, Liz became a member of Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns... Liz has worked as the Director of News Information at ABC News and Senior Vice President of Communications for Nickelodeon... Liz also served in the Reagan White House; first as a public affairs specialist at the Office of Management and Budget, and then as a press officer for then Vice President George H. W. Bush...
Okay. Not exactly our friends in terms of guns; though there are ties to Republicans. What is it they are pushing? HARPA?

Keeping it simple, let's look at who they say are their supporters...
  • Bob Wright
  • Dr. Geoffrey Ling
  • Dean Kamen
  • Dr. Herb Pardes
  • Jessica Morris
  • Dr. Matthew Weiss
  • Dick Gephardt
  • Dr. Steven Leach
  • Karen Reeves
  • Gary Mendell
  • Mike Stebbins

One of those names should immediately jump out at you - Dick Gephardt. We just looked at Bob Wright. Is there anything readily available on the others?

Mike Stebbins - served as Assistant Director for Biotechnology, at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy... Stebbins worked as a legislative fellow for U. S. Senator Harry Reid... Uh... More detail? According to The National Academy of Sciences...

He was one of the first science advisers to the 2008 Obama for President campaign and served on the White House transition team after the 2008 election.
So, thus far, we have ties to one of Bloomberg's anti-gun outfits, Dick Gephardt, Obama, Harry Reid, and the former Chair of NBC... And that's only looking at four of the people involved in this push. Of course, to be fair, one of those individuals also served in a Republican administration. What about HARPA itself?

According to their FAQ...

... Bob Wright, was stunned to learn there are no early detection tests and no curative treatments for this disease... Bob Wright founded the Suzanne Wright Foundation in Suzanne's honor, and developed the proposal to create HARPA... There are more than 9,000 known diseases and we have treatments for only 500 of them. Two out of five Americans have a disease with no cure. It takes far too long for detection, treatments and cures to make the journey from the lab to the patients. HARPA would be devoted specifically to developing these capabilities... It's mission will be to develop capabilities that will have broad applicability for diseases that have not benefited from the current system... Through its $37B annual budget, the NIH funds research that is critical to building foundational knowledge. However, the current path from basic science to applied research to commercial viability is too slow... HARPA would leverage these existing federal research assets with advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data, and artificial intelligence to cure disease... HARPA must exist within HHS independent of the NIH and other agencies... HARPA could be established by the President of the United States through Executive Order, directing the HHS Secretary to develop a HARPA blueprint. Authorization and appropriation legislation are required by Congress.
Okay... So, the foundation for this got started in 2016 as part of Health research, during Obama's Administration, where some of the prominent players have ties to... uh... Left-leaning, big name players. Somewhere along the line, it came to the Trump Administration's attention in 2017 and, more recently, has, somehow, by someone, been proposed as a way to deal with 'gun violence.' We know this has been another part of the push; i.e., convince people that it is an health issue. In fact, just yesterday, USA Today had another opinion piece on the subject...

Gun violence is a health crisis, not a political football. It's time to act: Cardiologist

The recent spate of mass shootings across the United States has reignited the debate over gun violence prevention... From the perspective of the medical community, gun violence is not primarily a political or ideological issue... it’s a public health crisis. It’s an epidemic... The problem is multifaceted and so must be our approach. Any effective response to the gun violence epidemic will need to involve government, business, the nonprofit sector and other institutions... Trained health professionals are well positioned to identify and help at-risk patients by conducting routine screenings. In addition, empowering health professionals to engage in respectful conversations about safe gun ownership — or “lethal means counseling,” as it is known — has been shown to mitigate the risk of impulsive suicides. As a nation, we must also support robust access to mental health services... Since 1996, Congress has provided no dedicated funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for firearm morbidity and mortality prevention research. To make real progress against the gun violence epidemic, the medical community must rally together to secure the resources to act on the evidence we already have and continue to build new knowledge about the crisis... other steps that lawmakers can and must take to reverse the epidemic: passing universal background checks, reinstating an assault weapons ban, promoting extreme risk protection orders that identify at-risk individuals, and broadening safe storage laws that protect children from accessing guns. Many such ideas command wide public support but have yet to become law...
Doesn't that sound similar to what The Washington Post article was suggesting...

...The Suzanne Wright Foundation re-approached the administration last week and proposed that HARPA include a “Safe Home” — “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes” — project. Officials discussed the proposal at the White House last week, said two people familiar with the discussions. These people and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversations.

The attempt to use volunteer data to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act” would be a four-year project costing an estimated $40 million to $60 million...
Of course, The Daily Caller reported on this back in August, adding, what I guess they felt was a 'tasty' nugget...

President Donald Trump has a close relationship with Bob Wright, who founded the foundation after his wife died of cancer. Wright was a former chair of NBC and occupied that position while the president hosted “The Apprentice.”
Well... Let's just say, once again, that this has been "a thing" being discussed in certain circles, pushed by certain people, for several years now. It didn't just spring into being from 'nothing' as a conspiracy theory concocted by Alex Jones and InfoWars.

In other words, what began as, potentially, a true interest in disease and health has, in part, been 'twisted' in terms of what it could/should be applied to in the interest of agenda. That seems to be the very concern with UBC and "red-flag laws." It also seems to have been precisely why public funding for 'gun violence research' was severely curtailed; i.e., it became agenda driven/corrupted.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in the hunt. But, as I also said, don't be too dismissive of this simply because of the source someone used. Looking for specific, verifiable evidence in terms of Sproul, who is doing precisely what, et al. is beyond the limits of my time and resources. However, it isn't that big a leap based on the modicum of documented material I just presented to say that there are BIG names and, evidently, some big money involved and we know that at least some of those names are not, precisely, "friends of the 2nd Amendment" and other names are outright "enemies of the 2nd Amendment."

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-11-2019 at 12:10 AM..
Reply With Quote