Monday, August 31, 2009

In a Flu Pandemic, What Can the Government Do to You?

Will government overreact? What has this 'crisis' been if not an overreaction? They're hoping that you overreact as well, and patriotically line up for your mercury and squalene. The fear mongering is in full effect. What will they do in October?

    ABC News -

    What might life be like during the kind of major swine flu pandemic predicted by the White House to hit the U.S. this fall?

    The worst-case scenarios percolate on the edges of thought: bans on public gatherings, restricting the movement of afflicted individuals, and compelled vaccinations. Conspiracy theorists go farther, suggesting that the World Health Organization is behind a secret plan to inoculate Americans at gunpoint with immune-system depleting vaccines to depopulate the globe.

    The CDC's report, released Monday, may well create some level of hysteria. It said 1.8 million Americans could become seriously ill this fall and as many as 90,000 could die.

    In truth, America's national pandemic response plan has been shaped by lessons from the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, which killed millions globally and did include gun-point quarantines. If the circumstances are deemed dire enough, the government's "Pandemic Influenza Plan" allows for strong measures, such as banning public gatherings and calling in the military to help with law enforcement.

    Yet the far greater concern for public-health officials right now is more mundane: trying to make sure that there is enough vaccine to meet demand – and that there are enough healthcare professionals on hand to handle a potential influx of patients.

    The Department of Health and Human Services has fast-tracked production of a vaccine, but it will not have 120 million doses ready by the expected peak of the season, as it had hoped. Forty-five million doses will be available in mid-October, with 20 million more available each week afterward.

    Yet the far greater concern for public-health officials right now is more mundane: trying to make sure that there is enough vaccine to meet demand – and that there are enough healthcare professionals on hand to handle a potential influx of patients.

    The Department of Health and Human Services has fast-tracked production of a vaccine, but it will not have 120 million doses ready by the expected peak of the season, as it had hoped. Forty-five million doses will be available in mid-October, with 20 million more available each week afterward.

    Massachusetts public-health officials, for instance, are urging nearly 90 percent of residents to get vaccinated.

    The Government's Powers

    In the event of a health crisis, the federal government has broad powers. New rules enacted by the Bush administration include swine flu among quarantinable communicable diseases. For its part, the Obama administration is also reportedly reviewing proposals to strengthen three-decade-old federal quarantine policies, including, according to some reports, presidential power to impose a six-day quarantine on those affected by swine flu. The Department of Health and Human Services has asked the Pentagon to assist local health officials in the event of a pandemic.

    But these are clear attempts at preparing for the worst.

    "There's not going to be compulsory vaccination," says Jennifer Nuzzo, an analyst at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "But what you may be picking up on is that the military does have a lot of healthcare professionals, so [the government] may be enlisting some of the extra hands that are out there."

They keep insisting it won't be compulsory. Where would they ever get the idea that we think it's going to be compulsory? Read more...

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Federal Reserve made $14 bln on turmoil loans: report

This PRIVATE banking cartel loans us our own money, at interest, and reaps obscene profits, while the rest of the country has the life sucked out of it. How much longer are we going to allow this criminal institution to enslave us?

    Reuters -

    The Federal Reserve has made $14 billion in profits on loans made in the last two years, The Financial Times reported on Monday, citing officials close to the matter.

    The U.S. central bank also earned about $19 billion from interest and fees charged to institutions that tapped liquidity facilities during the global financial crisis, the report said.

    If the Fed had invested the same amounted loaned out in three-month Treasury bills since August 2007, it would have earned $5 billion in interest, the FT said.

    This estimate excludes company bailouts and purchases of long-term assets as well as unrealized gains or losses on the Fed's portfolio of mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries purchased as part of the $1.75 trillion asset purchase program.

    The Fed was not immediately available for comment on the report.

Burn, Hollywood burn

Can't help but be reminded of a classic Public Enemy song of the same title, as wildfires approach Los Angeles and threaten to burn down its media towers.

57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress

I wonder if the other 43% said no because they wouldn't want to get rid of Ron Paul. But this is encouraging, and an outstanding idea.

    Rasmussen -

    If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.

    Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.

    While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.

There has been a bit of a partisan shift since last fall. With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, it's not surprising to find that the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today. In fact, a modest plurality of Democrats would now vote to keep the legislators. Last fall, a plurality of Democrats were ready to throw them all out.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

High hurdles to prosecute CIA prison abuses: experts

The question of course, which isn't explored in this article, is why? Why high hurdles? How hard can it be? Even if they followed the guidelines given to them by their superiors, they still tortured, and the Nuremberg defense doesn't apply. Yet these thugs went above and beyond even the torture they were allowed to afflict. But they can't be prosecuted? Why?

    Reuters -

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A decision by the U.S. attorney general to probe deeper into alleged CIA abuse of captured terrorism suspects may not land anyone in jail, and it could just produce more headaches for President Barack Obama who wants to move on.

    A report issued by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general this week offered a possible road map for building cases.

    It gave graphic details about interrogations going beyond approved techniques, recounting threats to kill prisoners' families, a fake execution, a use of a power drill to scare a prisoner and the fact that accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "waterboarded" 183 times.

    But legal experts say special prosecutor John Durham, named by Attorney General Eric Holder to lead the investigation, will face high hurdles to sending anyone to jail.

    "I think it's going to be pretty challenging because if you look at the torture statute it is very narrowly drafted," said Thomas McDonnell, a law professor at Pace University in New York.

    "Even using the drill as a threat, according to the torture statute, there was no physical harm so there has to be severe mental harm. But the statute then defines as it having to be prolonged mental harm," he said. "So unless you can show that it produced severe and long mental harm, it may not even fit."

This is a complete lie, and he knows it. The torture statute clearly states that threatening a prisoner with imminent death is torture. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men?

    The American Civil Liberties Union sued for the CIA report to be made public in the hopes of showing that the Bush administration engaged in torture to coerce information from terrorism suspects in violation of U.S. and international law.

    The group has pushed for the prosecution of interrogators and those who authorized the techniques.

    But regardless of whether charges are filed or not, Obama will likely face criticism from more liberal Democratic supporters who want former Bush officials prosecuted.

    Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have criticized the investigation as undermining national security.


    "It's almost a no-win," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "This is bound to be a moderate-sized to massive controversy depending on what the recommendations are."

The truth is the truth. Read all of it...

Doctors Scrutinize WHO's Severe Swine Flu Warning

I say this, probably, way too often (maybe I should anagram it), but it really is a testament to how dumbed down we are (TTHDDWA) that the "health" ministry of this eugenics cult tells us a virus most aggressively attacks people who are young and healthy, and nobody bats an eyelash. THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. And don't bother to think when they tell you this could be like 1918; don't let it occur to you that that was almost 100 years ago and our diet, hygiene, and technology are slightly more advanced today. Shut off your brain, and "defer to the experts", even when they spout complete nonsense. If you're healthy, if your immune system is strong, you are obviously better equipped to fight off disease. And that just won't do. Get your shot, fry your nervous system, and wreck your body with autoimmune disorders.

    ABC News -

    The World Health Organization warned Friday that doctors around the world are now reporting a severe form of swine flu that goes straight to the lungs of otherwise healthy young people -- but some infectious disease experts said the alarm could be unwarranted.

    WHO Warns of Severe Form of Swine Flu
    A nurse carries test for H1N1 influenza on a woman on Aug. 21, 2009 at the Noumea flu treatment... Expand
    (MARC LE CHELARD/AFP/Getty Images)

    The WHO update comes in the wake of reports from some countries that as many as 15 percent of patients infected with the new H1N1 pandemic virus require extensive -- and expensive -- hospital care.

    "During the winter season in the southern hemisphere, several countries have viewed the need for intensive care as the greatest burden on health services," the report said. "Preparedness measures need to anticipate this increased demand on intensive care units, which could be overwhelmed by a sudden surge in the number of severe cases."

    But infectious disease experts from both inside and outside the government say that the phrasing used by WHO raises some questions -- particularly because the existence of such a form of the disease is not a new development.

    "WHO is certainly putting the fear of [God] in people with this type of release," said William Muraskin, a professor of urban studies at Queens College in New York, who is a specialist in international health. "The description by the WHO is similar to lung infections that claimed so many young people during the 1918 pandemic."

    Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted, "Severe pneumonia occurred in 1918 too, but we cannot confirm the pathophysiology is the exactly the same."

    And Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, one of the government's preeminent figures on swine flu, told ABC News' Brian Hartman, "The severity should not be anything near what we saw in 1918 -- again, underscoring that things can change.

    "But if what we're seeing now is predictive of what we'll be seeing in the fall and the winter this looks like a mild to moderate, not a very severe, pandemic.

Continue reading...

Friday, August 28, 2009

Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

New research shows here seems to be something in pot that actually undermines cancer, instead of causing it. -- and the media are doing their best to ignore it.

    Alternet -

    One in three Americans will be afflicted with cancer, we are told by the government (as if it’s our immutable fate and somehow acceptable). Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the U.S. and lung cancer the leading killer among cancers.

    You’d think it would have been very big news in June 2005 when UCLA medical school professor Donald Tashkin reported that components of marijuana smoke -- although they damage cells in respiratory tissue -- somehow prevent them from becoming malignant. In other words, something in marijuana exerts an anti-cancer effect!

    Tashkin has special credibility. He was the lead investigator on studies dating back to the 1970s that identified the components in marijuana smoke that are toxic. It was Tashkin et al. who published photomicrographs showing that marijuana smoke damages cells lining the upper airways. It was the Tashkin lab’s finding that benzpyrene -- a component of tobacco smoke that plays a role in most lung cancers -- is especially prevalent in marijuana smoke. It was Tashkin’s data showing that marijuana smokers are more likely than non-smokers to cough, wheeze, and produce sputum.

    Tashkin reviewed his findings in April 2008, at a conference organized by “Patients Out of Time,” a reform group devoted to educating doctors and the public (as opposed to lobbying politicians). Some 30 MDs and nurses got continuing medical education credits for attending the event, which was held at Asilomar, on the Monterey Peninsula.

    The National Institute on Drug Abuse, which supported Tashkin’s marijuana-related research over the decades, readily gave him a grant in 2002 to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers.

    What Tashkin and his colleagues found, however, disproved their hypothesis. (Tashkin is to marijuana as a cause of lung cancer what Hans Blix was to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction -- an honest investigator who set out to find something, concluded that it wasn’t there, and reported his results.)

    Tashkin’s team interviewed 1,212 cancer patients from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program, matched for age, gender, and neighborhood with 1,040 cancer-free controls. Marijuana use was measured in “joint years” (number of years smoked times number of joints per day).

    It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer, whereas tobacco smokers were at greater risk the more they smoked. Tobacco smokers who also smoked marijuana were at slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than tobacco-only smokers.

    These findings were not deemed worthy of publication in “NIDA Notes.” Tashkin reported them at the 2005 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. They were published in the October 2006 issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

    Without a press release from NIDA calling attention to its significance, the assignment editors of America had no idea that “Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study” by Mia Hashibe1, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack and Sander Greenland was a blockbuster story.

Continue reading...

Will Biometric Passports Lead to a State of Constant Surveillance?

Of course. The RFID chip in passports is a segueway into future intrusions on our privacy, such as REALID and PASS acts, and eventual injections of RFID modules into our bodies.

    Alternet -

    The protection of privacy and personal data is vital for any democratic society, and should be respected as much as freedom of expression or movement.

    One of life’s sweet pleasures is to travel. Thanks to the increasing number of low-cost flights, traveling abroad is no longer a luxury reserved for the privileged few. At the same time, however, there is an alarming increase in the demand of personal data from tourists and no clear transatlantic legal framework on personal data exchange. Though third parties such as airlines and airport operators have the right to read this data, we don’t know what happens with it afterwards.

    Under legislation introduced after the September 11th attacks, the United States has tightened security measures for foreign tourists entering its country. The latest measure requires that by 2012, every traveler entering the United States who is part of the visa-waiver program must have a biometric passport or be forced to apply for a visa.

    The biometric passport – which contains an embedded chip with personal data, facial images and fingerprints – is on its way to becoming a global travel prerequisite. Current passports will remain valid for travel to most countries until then. Germany, France and the Netherlands have already started issuing the new documents. EU parliamentarians approved the US’ demand and passed a ruling at the end of 2005 saying that its goal is to combat illegal immigration, terrorism and organized crime. But the excuse that the new passports will help prevent international terrorism is questionable since security agents will need to know whose face or fingerprints they are looking for in the first place.

    Initially, Washington gave a 2006 deadline for the 27 countries in the EU and other visa-waiver countries such as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, but then pushed the date back to June of this year to give these countries more time to prepare the technology needed to issue the biometric passports. The US State Department started introducing e-passports in 2006 and every passport holder in the US is projected to have one by 2017.

    In the meantime, there is little enthusiasm for these new requirements. Data watchdogs and human rights activists argue that this regulation treats everyone as a potential criminal, thus violating the protection of citizens’ personal data and imposing a state of constant surveillance.

    Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, said in a press conference on the implementation of biometric passports in 2007 that security measures aimed at preventing terrorism are often stepped up at the expense of privacy. Hustinx is in charge of giving governments and EU bodies advice on data security standards and acts independently of EU institutions. He warned that the EU was “rushing in a new era” of using biometric identifiers for security checks while standards for data protection were still not clear.

    “It is very important that the biometric data is only saved in the passport and not in external databanks. Until now there are no international regulations which guarantee this,” said Peter Schaar, German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection, at a conference on data protection held in March of this year in Berlin.

Continue reading...

How big pharma gets our children hooked on their drugs

By Allen Jones
Former Investigator, Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General

As human beings we have a strong natural impulse to protect our kids from harm. As a society we create norms, laws and institutions to protect, educate and nurture our young. Consciously and instinctively we safeguard our children.

(story continues below video embed)

Teen Screen is a bitter and cynical betrayal of this noble human impulse. Promoted as an aid to preventing suicide and identifying so-called mental disorders, Teen Screen is in fact a nefarious effort to recruit our children into the quagmire of biological psychiatry.

I believe the majority of parents who support Teen Screen are well meaning and genuinely have the best interests of children at heart. I believe they have been duped and beguiled by slick marketing that appealed to their better instincts while simultaneously defeating those instincts.

Teen Screen was developed and promoted by persons with deep financial ties to makers of psychiatric drugs. These drug companies have a profit-driven incentive to maximize the use of their drugs. Teen Screen furthers this corporate goal by following a psychiatric model intended to translate normal human experience into symptoms of mental illness.

Teen Screen’s centerpiece is a survey which claims to identify signs of mental illness and suicidality in children and adolescents. How does it do this? Teen Screen identifies feelings and emotions experienced by children and adolescents. It then translates these feelings and emotions into “symptoms” of mental illness. In this way, Teen Screen is in lock-step with modern psychiatry.

The field of psychiatry has attached clinical pathology to the presence or absence of literally every mood or feeling in the normal range of human emotions. The diagnostic criteria outlined in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) essentially identify the presence or absence of feelings and subjectively determine if these feelings are “normal” or “abnormal.” If the feeling or emotion is considered inappropriate in intensity or context, that feeling becomes a “symptom” of “mental illness,” treatable by medication. After all, psychiatric drugs are designed to treat “symptoms” not cure illness.

Any child who lives life fully and freely will experience a full range of human emotions. They will experience sadness, gladness, apathy, energy, optimism, pessimism, fear, fearlessness, love, hate, suspicion, trust and myriad other feelings. Experiencing these feelings and learning to be guided appropriately by them is a vital part of growth and maturation. Teen Screen identifies these feelings, subtlety manipulates or ignores context and labels the feelings as possible “symptoms” of mental illness.

Imagine the emotional states experienced by a child before, during and after a major life event such as playing in the “Big Game” with an archrival school. The child might be distracted by excited anticipation for days before the event. He might have difficulty sleeping the night before the game. He might be unable to think of anything else on game day, even during classes. He will likely be very highly energized during the event. Depending on the game outcome, the child might be elated or saddened for days afterwards.

Now imagine the child later being asked questions such as these:

Have you ever felt so full of energy that it was difficult to sit still?

Have you ever felt anxious when you had to say or do something in front of people?

Have you ever been so concerned about something that you could not sleep?

Have you ever felt so happy that you could not concentrate?

Have you ever felt so sad that you could not focus on your school work?

The participant in the big game and the spectators of the big game might answer “yes” to most or all of the above questions. Following the creed of modern psychiatry, Teen Screen would determine the child to be at risk of mania, social anxiety disorder, depression and possibly bipolar disorder. The child would be flagged for further psychiatric evaluation.

The above scenario is not far-fetched. Things like this are happening every day. Teen Screen has been proven to have “false positive” rates as high as 84%.

Teen Screen is a device to distill “symptoms” from normal life experience and generate unlimited referrals to mental health professionals whose primary method of treatment involves drugging. Please do not be duped by this ferocious, Pharma-friendly wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Leaked e-mail shows how GE puts the government to work for GE

    Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

    The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever. - General Electric Vice Chairman John G. Rice

People need to get it through their heads that there is more to fascism than rabid nationalism and mass murder. Unlike socialism, which is massive government intervention in business, fascism involves massive corporate control over government. This leaked email spells this out clearly. The story continues...

    Rice was calling on his co-workers to join the General Electric Political Action Committee. "GEPAC is an important tool that enables GE employees to collectively help support candidates who share the values and goals of GE."

    The full letter suggests that "share the values and goals of GE" really means "support policies that profit the company."

    Steve Milloy, a pro-free market investor at the Free Enterprise Action Fund, obtained this e-mail and says it reveals General Electric for what it really is. "GE is lobbying to become the biggest rent seeker this country has ever seen," Milloy told this column. Rent seeking is using government legislation or regulation to generate private profits the free market wouldn't provide.

    "On climate change," Rice wrote, "we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses."

    Most of all, Waxman-Markey would profit a GE joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which deals in greenhouse gas credits, products that have value only if a cap-and-trade bill like Waxman-Markey passes.

    The leaked e-mail shows how tightly GE connects PAC contributions and lobbying efforts. "Our Company is heavily impacted by a number of issues pending in Washington this fall," Rice wrote.

    GE spent more on lobbying in the second quarter of this year than did any other company, according to federal lobbying files. Since 1998, GE has been the king of lobbying expenditures, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outpacing its runner-up by 40 percent.

    Last election, GEPAC spent $2.4 million, with a slim majority going to Democrats. So far this year, two-thirds of GEPAC money has gone to Democrats.

    Rice's description of how PAC contributions help the company ("we must also make sure that candidates who share GE's values and goals get elected to office") belies the true dynamic in political giving, as the rest of the e-mail suggests.

    By calling for PAC contributions in the context of GE's lobbying efforts in coming weeks, Rice is clearly not talking about electing pro-GE candidates in November 2010. He is talking about making current congressman more pro-GE.

    If GEPAC was just trying to "make sure that candidates who share GE's values and goals get elected to office," why would the PAC give $15,000 each to the Republican and Democratic senatorial campaign committees? Those contributions cancel each other out if they are considered ammunition for allies in electoral battles. But they complement one another if they are considered the ticket price to access with lawmakers.

    The recipient list of GEPAC cash also suggests the PAC is more about access to power brokers than support for friendly politicians.

    Rep. Charlie Rangel of Harlem received $2,000 from GEPAC. He is not in electoral danger, but he is chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Henry Waxman of Hollywood also doesn't need GE's help getting elected, but the $1,000 from GEPAC might make Waxman, who's chairman of the Commerce Committee, more amenable to a GE-friendly climate bill or health care reform bill.

    Of the six House members who have received more than $4,000 from GEPAC this cycle -- all Democrats -- only Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., faces a tough re-election next year, thanks to accusations that he has used his chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to benefit donors and patrons. GE is a top defense contractor.

    The other top recipients are all safe incumbents in powerful positions: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, Ways and Means member Richard Neal, who chairs the subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, and key appropriator Norm Dicks.

    The "intersection between GE's interests and the government's actions" is plenty crowded. GE is betting on climate change legislation, high-speed rail funding, electric car subsidies, embryonic stem cell grants, expanded federal health care spending, subsidies for renewable energy, defense contracts and continued financial bailouts.

    GEPAC pays the tolls to make sure all this traffic gets through.

General Electric also owns NBC and MSNBC.

Where Will You Get Your H1N1 Vaccine?

If you're smart, you won't, of course. And because of this the media continues to turn up the propaganda. Fox News doesn't bother to question whether we'll even want a vaccine, it tricks the untrained reader into thinking, of course you want the vaccine, but, *gasp*, you may have trouble getting your hands on one! This is the same type of psy-op the military is using, drilling scenarios depicting rioting Americans desperate for access to a vaccine that supposedly will save them from a relatively benign virus. Of course, this will never happen, but it puts the idea into the plugged-in mind that these vaccines will be scarce, so make it a point to do all you can to get one.

MSNBC joins in, in a pep rally-type piece totally devoid of any objectivity or insight. MSNBC, which, out of all the media outlets, is by far the most corporate/government controlled, never bothers to question exactly why more than half of health care workers refuse to get seasonal flu vaccines. The vaccines are perfectly harmless, right? And effective, correct? Why not get yourself stabbed, for the common good? As I mentioned in a recent post, how are you supposed to "defer to the experts" when half of the experts are willing to be vaccinated, while the other half refuse, even under great pressure from the government and establishment?

Perhaps you are not as stupid as they would have you believe, and the "experts" don't really know so much afterall, despite their impressive credentials, purchased at considerable expenditures of wealth. Fire up your search engine, and do your own research. THINK. It's not that difficult. Honestly. It doesn't cost you a dime, and it won't make you sick. No matter what they tell you.

Students' take-home assignment: Census kits

Being a slave is fun and interactive!

    USA Today -

    Anyone tempted to ignore the 2010 Census will have a tough time doing it — especially if they have kids in school.

    The government has launched Census in Schools, an all-out campaign targeting superintendents, principals, teachers, students and, indirectly, parents, as schools open across the nation this month and next. The message: The Census is coming and here's why everyone should care.

    The goal is to send posters, teaching guides, maps and lesson plans to every school in the nation, Puerto Rico and U.S. island territories to encourage everyone to participate in the national count. The materials will land in more than 118,000 schools and reach 56 million students.

    "It's great to reach the children because children are such strong voices in their homes," says Renee Jefferson-Copeland, chief of the Census schools program. "In households that are linguistically isolated, they can express the information to their parents."

    The school effort is more ambitious than in 2000, the last time the government set out to count everyone. At that time, teachers had to request the material and it was available only in print. Now, the kits and lessons will arrive in every school and lesson plans can be downloaded online, where they will be available in 28 languages.

    The Constitution mandates a complete population count every 10 years. The tally — down to the city block — helps redraw political boundaries and determine states' representation in Congress and the distribution of more than $400 billion in federal funds to state and local governments every year.

    "It's extremely important for us," says Michael McGrady, associate director for partnership development at the National Head Start Association, which promotes school readiness for low-income children and their families. "Historically, Head Start families have been undercounted and that has a negative effect on their communities."

    Between January and March, the Census Bureau will help plan a week of Census education in schools. During Census Week, teachers will devote 15 minutes every day for five days to the topic by discussing such things as civic participation, confidentiality or geography. Beginning in mid-March, more than 120 million Census questionnaires will be delivered to residential addresses.

    The Census Bureau is partnering with Sesame Street to extend the 2010 Census message to preschoolers and adult caregivers. Under consideration: Using Sesame Street characters on Census materials and having characters participate in school events and public service announcements.

Another race pimp tries to cast legitimate criticism of Obama as racist

This is why they put a black man in office: so that when he tries to shaft us, when he tries to rob us, when he tries to kill us, when he lies to us, and we call him out on it, they can just dismiss us all as racists. They know we're not racist, of course, but they know that many people are dependent and addicted to their white guilt, and they will do anything to show they are not racists, even when accused of being racists by real racists, like Louisiana congresswoman Diane Watson.

Fluoride Linked to Arthritis, Study Shows

Voxy News
Friday, August 28, 2009

A 52-year-old American (New York) man’s arthritic-like joint pain and immobility went away after he stopped brushing his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, according to a study in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (1).

There’s no scientific dispute that large fluoride doses cause crippling skeletal fluorosis over time. (See. But, “less well-known causes of chronic fluoride toxicity include fluoride supplements, certain teas and wine and some toothpastes,” report researchers Kurland, et al. (1)

Skeletal fluorosis often results in abnormal bone hardening and thickening (osteosclerosis) with painful and impaired neck and spine mobility, spine curvature, and/or painful lower extremities ultimately causing crippling and incapacitation, report the researchers.

In this case, the only obvious fluoride exposure was toothpaste. The patient drank no fluoridated water, tea or wine; had no occupational fluoride exposure; did not chew tobacco, inhale snuff, cook with Teflon pots, use fluoridated mouthwash or get fluoride treatments at twice-yearly dentist visits. But he brushed before and after all meals (minimum 6 times daily) with fluoridated toothpaste.

Fluoride was elevated in his serum, urine and iliac crest (bone), the researchers report.

Within 8 months of eliminating all obvious fluoride sources, the patient’s urinary and blood fluoride levels dropped and bone function markers showed clear cut improvement, the researchers report.

“By approximately two years after diagnosis and apparent elimination of excess fluoride exposure, the patient had complete resolution of his neck immobility and no longer required analgesics,” the researchers write.

Roos, et al. documents a woman whose painful swollen fingers healed after she ceased eating fluoridated toothpaste.(2)

Whyte, et al. report a woman’s fluoride-caused debilitating joint pains disappeared when her two-gallon-a-day iced tea habit stopped.(3)

Eichmiller, et al. report a patient’s leg and joint pains from a dentist-prescribed high-concentration fluoride product.(4)

Osteoarthritis is linked to water fluoride in a Turkish study.(6)

A 2009 Brazilian study shows that, after brushing with a fluoridated dentifrice, a substantial amount of fluoride is ingested by children. (7)

“Fluoride at any level accumulates in the body,” says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “So even water fluoridation will cause arthritic-like symptoms in susceptible individuals which is compounded by U.S. physicians’and dentists’ lack of training to diagnose fluoride toxicity.” (See:

“We know US schoolchildren are fluoride-overdosed (5). What’s it doing to their bones?” asks Beeber.


1) Recovery From Skeletal Fluorosis (An Enigmatic, American Case). Journal of Bone Mineral Research. October 2, 2006, by Kurland, et a.

(2) Osteofluorosis caused by excess use of toothpaste, Presse Med, 34:1518-20, by Roos et al November 2005

(3) Environ Health Perspect. 2005 August; 113(8): “Food Safety: A Tea-Time Mystery,” by Michael Szpir

(4) Journal of the American Dental Association, “Controlling the
fluoride dosage in a patient with compromised salivary function,”
Frederick C. Eichmiller, D.D.S.; Naomi Eidelman, Ph.D.; Clifton M.
Carey, PhD., Vol. 136, page 67 -70, January 2005

NYSCOF News Release:

(5) NYSCOF News release about

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of
Communication, 8/25/05


(7) Rev Esp Salud Publica 2009 May-Jun;83(3):415-25. [Demonstration of fluoride systemic absorption secondary to toothbrushing with fluoride dentifrice in children]

Insurers refuse to cover doctors who administer swine flu vaccine

Is there something that doctors and insurers know that the government's not telling us? You betcha.

    Sidney Morning Herald -

    THE Federal Government's plan to immunise the population against swine flu is in chaos because insurers may not cover doctors who administer the jab.

    Inadequate testing and the possibility of spreading other infections means there is too high a risk patients will sue, the insurers say.

    Despite weeks of crisis talks, the Government has refused to underwrite doctors' liability for the vaccinations and medical groups say the program - due to start as early as mid-September - cannot proceed unless doctors are insured.

    The president of the Australian Medical Association, Andrew Pesce, said: ''The indemnity issue needs to be sorted out or else the vaccination program won't go ahead … In the environment we're in, someone has to be held accountable for rare vaccine reactions that may occur …

    ''If the Government decides there is a priority need to roll out the vaccine, then it has a duty to indemnify the doctors who provide it.''

Read it all...

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

Up until about a week ago, I was convinced there would be enough of us refusing to be vaccinated, no matter what they threatened us with, to stop this eugenics program by the government. Now I'm not so sure. With the release of the Holdren fear mongering report claiming 90,000 people will die in America, people are, as hoped for, very afraid. We have our work cut out for us if we are going to stir up enough dissent to cause the government to back off. Stop preaching to the choir, and get out there and stir up discussion, and arm yourself with knowledge, not only on the relative weakness of this particular strain, but on the dangers presented by the government's vaccines - all vaccines.

    Mike Adams, Natural News -

    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.

    featured stories   Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory decontaminations

    featured stories   Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory decontaminations

    The entire population of the USA is now but one pen stroke away from being subjected to mandatory swine flu vaccinations at gunpoint.

    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:…

    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.


    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.


    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.

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

News and Views -

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, “conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.”

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.


“There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the world who were suspicious of the government’s story about what had happened at the Pentagon that day,” Ranke explains. “The doubts were initially fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a 757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had released fraudulent data, or both.”

“We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the dead-end theorizing that was taking place”, says Marquis of the project’s genesis. “We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and interviewed everyday people about what they saw.”

When these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing picture, say the researchers.

“To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers,” explains Ranke. “The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path.”

It wasn’t just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that the team spoke with, however.
“We’ve also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion”, says Marquis. “We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of confirmation.”

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that “More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that “criminal elements within the U.S. government” were complicit in the attacks.

“If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you,” reads a note on the front page of their website, “We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.”

Many people seem to be taking them up on this offer. Their video has already received almost 70,000 views online since it was first posted to their website a few weeks ago with only a grass roots promotional effort behind it.

Perhaps more notable than the size of the audience, however, is the caliber of some of the people in it. A newly-published compendium of endorsements on the website includes praise from a wide array of distinguished and well-respected Americans.

Emmy-award winning actor and former president of The Screen actors Guild, Ed Asner, calls the film a “reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th”.

Prolific non-ficition author Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley affirms that the film “successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon”.

”If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001”, says FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo.

Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé and many other titles, says he is “pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm”, while scholar, author, and radio host Dr. Kevin Barrett says that the film proves ”that the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamakaze crash of a hijacked commercial jet.”

Scott McKinsey, an award-winning network television director, says “The DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11”.

Architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (, a coalition of over 700 professional architects and engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11 (the third was World Trade Center 7), calls the film “long overdue, but worth waiting for” and says that it “deserves serious attention”.

Retired Navy Commander and aviator James R. Compton calls National Security Alert “the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time” and “a must see for every citizen in our country”.

”Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril”, warns Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired Marine pilot who has flown 303 combat missions.

The full quotes from these individuals and others can be read at:

National Security Alert can be viewed for free online at

Wayne Madsen: Vaccine manufacturers refuse to take their own medicine

If this could be independently verified, this would be a stab to the heart of the swine flu campaign. I have no doubt it's true, but we can't base an accusation on the allegations of a single journalist.

    Journalist Wayne Madsen tells Russia today scientists involved in creating previous vaccinations are telling family and friends not to take the H1N1 vaccine. Madsen also warns that the government may make the vaccination mandatory.

Death (and Sterilization) By Government

This is finally starting to catch on, not exactly reaching mainstream news status, which might frighten and confuse the sheep who think government is relatively benign, but at least on websites that aren't generally considered to be "conspiracy theorist".

    Karen DeCoster (LRC) -

    Obama’s administration, even more so than Bush before him, has spent much time smearing people as “right-wing extremist terrorists” and politically-organized, “astroturf” right wingers whose only intention is to disrupt the administration’s attempt at policymaking. Yet so little is brought up about the unelected, unaccountable people that Obama (and his ultimate Masters within the entrenched establishment) has chosen to surround him.

    John P. Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, has, surprisingly, received little mainstream press on his crazed worldviews. Thus, every so often I like to post a reminder for people that may spur them to do some additional research on their own. Here’s a short editorial from the Washington Times to remind us of Holdren’s book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, that he co-wrote with Paul and Anne Ehrlich (the Times article commits a spelling error on the last name). From the Times editorial:

    In case compulsory abortion wasn’t enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men,” they wrote. “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.”

    It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” After noting that, well, yes, there were “very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems,” Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. “To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements,” they wrote. “It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock.”

    On the same day, the Times also ran this editorial on presidential health care advisor Ezekiel J. Emanuel, and they quote him saying:

    “When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago … I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care.” And: “I think that over the last five to seven years … I’ve come to the conclusion that in our system we are spending way more money than we need to, a lot of it on unnecessary care. If we got rid of that care we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases.”

    The editorial goes on to say:

    The reason people were wary of Dr. Emanuel in the first place is because of his writings from the 1990s in which (to quote one of them), he advocated giving younger people first dibs on medical care: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” In late 1996, he wrote that “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

    The American Spectator points to an executive summary of a paper published by Dr. Emanuel in January 2009 on the “principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” that reads, “We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.”

Oh No: Ron Paul Slips to #26

End the Fed is down to #26 on the Amazon non-fiction bestseller list, behind Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Teddy Kennedy, Mark Levin, and Bill O’Reilly! And Amazon may start shipping sooner than the official publication date, so we have our work cut out for us to debut at #1. But it can be done, and we cannot let Ron and the cause of sound money down. Please help spread the message of the book bomb. We can do it. We can support Ron Paul and liberty, and give Ben Bernanke a hotfoot!

Half of British doctors refuse swine flu vaccine

This is a shining example of what you should think about when someone tells you to defer to the "experts". In Britain, 50% of doctors refuse to take swine flu vaccines because they're unsafe, the other half trust in their safety. Which "experts" do you believe? Here's a radical idea: how about you quit thinking you're an imbecile just because you don't have a college degree in every subject known to man, and do your own research, and make your own determination? Think about the enormous amount of life choices and responsibilities we entrust into the hands of people and processes we have no idea about. How do we know the vaccines are safe? Because "experts" tell us? Well, experts are also telling us they're dangerous. Only 1% of Americans grow their own food. The FDA is infested with lobbyists for big pharma and Monsanto. How do we know the food we're eating is safe, when the so-called "experts" aren't really experts, but lobbyists who are only interested in their own profits, and, in the case of big pharma, actually have a vested interest in making you sick? Think that's a conspiracy theory? Think: how much money does big pharma make off of vibrant, healthy people?

For the love of God, THINK! Be your own person. I know you've been dumbed down. So have I. I know there are mind-altering poisons in our water, food, air, and vaccines. I know. But you're still capable of thinking. You're still free.

    Daily Mail UK -

    Up to half of family doctors do not want to be vaccinated against swine flu.

    GPs will be first in the line for the jabs when they become available but many will decline, even though they will be offering the vaccine to their patients.

    More than two thirds of those who will turn the jab down believe it has not been tested enough. Most also believe the flu has turned out to be so mild in the vast majority of cases that the vaccine is not needed.

    Last night Government experts criticised GPs who decide not to have the jab, saying they will put vulnerable patients needlessly at risk.

    A week ago, a poll of nurses showed that a third would turn down the opportunity of being vaccinated against swine flu.

    News that medics are unconvinced by the need for a vaccine will cause grave concern to patients who will be invited for the jab over the next few months.

    A poll of doctors for Pulse magazine found that 49 per cent would reject the vaccine with 9 per cent undecided.

    A separate survey for GP magazine found that 29 per cent would definitely opt out of having the jab, while a further 29 per cent were unsure. Just 41 per cent said they would definitely have the jab.

    Of those who said they did not want to jab, 71 per cent said it was because of safety concerns.

    Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse, said: 'The medical profession has yet to be convinced by the Government's whole approach to swine flu, with most GPs now feeling that the Department of Health overreacted in its policy on blanket use of Tamiflu.

    'Inevitably, that has coloured feelings about the planned immunisation campaign.

    'The view among many doctors is that the Government hasn't yet made its case for why such a huge vaccination programme needs to be rushed in for what seems to be an unusually mild illness.'

    But Professor David Salisbury, the Department of Health's director of immunisation, told GP magazine that frontline health workers had a duty to themselves regarding vaccination.

    'They have a duty to their patients not to infect their patients and they have a duty to their families,' he said.

    The Pulse survey questioned 15 doctors, while GP spoke to 216.

    The poll raised further questions over the Government's planned mass vaccination programme. The jab, currently being processed, will be fast tracked and will not be fully tested before it is administered to patients.

    There are also concerns the jab can spark cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome, which can lead to paralysis and even death.

    A mass swine flu vaccination programme in the U.S. in 1976 caused far more deaths than the disease it was designed to combat, and the Health Protection Agency watchdog has asked doctors to look out for cases of GBS when the vaccinations begin.

    Earlier this month, Chief Medical Officer Sir announced that the jab will be given to people in high-risk groups, such as those with asthma or diabetes, as well as health workers such as GPs and nurses.

    Some 14million people will be covered by the first wave of the vaccination programme, with everyone else following over the next few months.

    The BMA is still negotiating with doctors over how they should be paid to give out the jabs. The union is demanding £7 for every injection.

    A spokesman for the BMA said: 'The new vaccine has been thoroughly tested and we believe it should provide good protection against swine flu.

    'It is important that doctors are among the first to be offered the vaccine as it will not only protect them but the patients they care for.

    However, doctors like all individuals have the right to decide whether they are vaccinated or not.'

Inhofe: "We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."


    Chickasha News -

    Inhofe took the opportunity to blame Democrats for a bevy of issues. He lashed out at democrats for overtaking the government and spending billions of dollars on unpopular packages. He said government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries.

    "People are not buying these concepts that are completely foreign to America," Inhofe said. "We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."

    Many in the meeting agreed and were vocal about their disdain for the current climate in Washington.

    "No more compromise," Chickasha resident Ed Hicks said. "We're losing our country."

Smile! Your cash for clunkers rebate is taxable income!

You didn't really think the government was that generous, did you? Not to mention honest? Even when it was dealing with money it created out of thin air? -

    The Cash For Clunkers program is adding to the activity at treasurers' offices all around South Dakota. First, people were asking for proof of ownership, so they could show they owned their vehicle for a full year, allowing them to cash it in. Now, they'll be returning to register their new vehicle. And when they do, new owners need to bring every bit of paperwork provided to them by their dealer.

    "That means they need their title, their damage disclosure, their bill of sale and the dealers have 30 days to get that to them," Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam Nelson said.

    But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

    "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

    For now, the biggest impact of the program hasn't hit this office yet, as most of the paperwork is still in the hands of the dealers. But Nelson expects to see move activity in her office in the next month.

    "I'm anxious to see what it's going to be like. I have no idea how many people we're going to see. Hopefully the dealers can process their paperwork in 30 days," Nelson said.

    And that's when the line at this office will give some indication of how many cars the government program moved off of local lots.

    Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

This of course has nothing to do with national security, since the Pentagon maintains a separate network for secret information. This is really about culling free speech, since the internet is our source for real information; without it we would be extremely limited in our ability to know what's going on in the world, and most if not all information would be pre-approved by the government. This is the true goal; Senator Jay Rockefeller thinks we would be better off had the internet never been invented. This must be resisted, at all costs. Restricting our right to free speech and expression is as great a danger to our liberties as disarming us.

    CNET -

    Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

    They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

    The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

    "I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

    Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

    A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

    When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

    The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

    Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

    The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

    Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

    "The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

    Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

    The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Pacific Ocean garbage patch worries researchers

You won't hear environmental groups talking about real environmental issues, like the garbage in the oceans permanently contaminating our food supply. They're more concerned with flatulating livestock and cannibalism, and making the very air we breathe, which plants need to survive, a pollutant.

    Associated Press -

    LOS ANGELES — A tawny stuffed puppy bobs in cold sea water, his four stiff legs tangled in the green net of some nameless fisherman.

    It's one of the bigger pieces of trash in a sprawling mass of garbage-littered water, known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, where most of the plastic looks like snowy confetti against the deep blue of the north Pacific Ocean.

    Most of the trash has broken into bite-sized plastic bits, and scientists want to know whether it's sickening or killing the small fish, plankton and birds that ingest it.

    During their August fact-finding expedition, a group of University of California scientists found much more debris than they expected. The team announced their observations at a San Diego press conference Thursday.

    "It's pretty shocking — it's unusual to find exactly what you're looking for," said Miriam Goldstein, who led fellow researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego on the three-week voyage.

    While scientists have documented trash's harmful effects for coastal marine life, there's little research on garbage patches, which were first explored extensively by self-trained ocean researcher Charles Moore just a decade ago. There's also scant research on the marine life at the bottom of the food chain that inhabit the patch.

    But even the weather-beaten, sunbleached plastic flakes that are smaller than a thumbnail can be alarming.

    "They're the right size to be interacting with the food chain out there," Goldstein said.

    The team also netted occasional water bottles with barnacles clinging to the side. Some of the trash had labels written in Chinese and English, hints of the long journeys garbage takes to arrive mid-ocean.

    Plastic sea trash doesn't biodegrade and often floats at the surface. Bottlecaps, bags and wrappers that end up in the ocean from the wind or through overflowing sewage systems can then drift thousands of miles.

    The sheer quantity of plastic that accumulates in the North Pacific Gyre, a vortex formed by ocean and wind currents and located 1,000 miles off the California coast, has the scientists worried about how it might harm the sea creatures there.

    A study released earlier this month estimated that thousands of tons of plastic debris wind up in the oceans every year, and some of that has ended up in the swirling currents of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

    Katsuhiko Saido, a chemist at Nihon University, Chiba, Japan, told the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society last week that plastic actually does decompose, releasing potentially toxic chemicals that can disrupt the functioning of hormones in animals and marine life.