McCain bill threatens access to vitamins and supplements

Friday, February 26, 2010 by: Ethan Huffposted at Natural News

NaturalNews) Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) has introduced a new bill called The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) of 2010 (S. 3002), that, if enacted, would severely curtail free access to dietary supplements. Cosponsored by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), the bill would essentially give the FDA full control over the supplement industry.

Most of the industrialized world has incredibly restrictive laws governing supplements. People worldwide often purchase supplements from the U.S. because they are freely available at low costs.

All of this could change, however, if DSSA passes. DSSA would change key sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), undoing protections in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, effectively eliminating free access to supplements.

The importance of DSHEA
The passage of DSHEA resulted from millions of Americans who worked hard to reinforce their freedom to buy and sell supplements. At the time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was alleging that nutrients like CoQ10 and selenium were dangerous and should be pulled from the market.

Though weak in some areas, DSHEA established a foundation upon which free access to dietary supplements would be protected from attacks by drug companies and the FDA.

What prompted DSSA?
McCain's DSSA bill emerged in response to illegal steroid use among Major League Baseball players. Likely instigated by pharmaceutical interests, the bill is being posited as necessary to prevent supplement adulteration.

The FDA already has the power to pull supplements from the market that are contaminated but it has not been doing its job. DSSA is not only unnecessary, but it would actually reward the FDA for its failures. DSSA would also strip DSHEA and give full control of the supplement industry to the FDA.

Registration requirements
DSSA would mandate that all supplement companies register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the FDA. Any company that refuses to register and comply with HHS would be subject to hefty fines, the classification of its products as "adulterated", and their removal from the market. The new system would burden manufacturers with significant new costs that would cause supplement prices to increase. A new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy would also be created to conduct inspections and oversee compliance.

Reporting requirements
DSSA would require all "non-serious adverse events" received by supplement companies to be reported to the government, regardless of whether or not the events are related to the supplements for which they are submitted. Pharmaceutical companies would have access to these reports which they could use to petition the FDA to have supplements removed from the market. The FDA could also arbitrarily pull supplements from the market if it believes it has "reasonable probability" that there may be a problem.

FDA would decide which supplements are legal
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of DSSA is that it would allow the HHS Secretary to establish a list of permitted supplements. Reversing common law, which assumes all is legal unless restricted, DSSA would allow only what is permitted to be legal.

In a nutshell, DSSA would increase supplement costs for consumers, grant incredible new power over the supplement industry to the FDA, and drastically limit the availability of supplements. Drug companies could also use the bill to remove supplements from the market, patent them, and sell them as drugs!

It is absolutely critical to contact your Congressmen and oppose this bill. IMMEDIATLEY!!!!

It's All Greek to Me

By Peter Schiff posted at LRC
February 25, 2010

If the global economy were a three-ring circus, then the center ring attraction would be the currency and debt battle quietly and slowly building between the United States and China. But for the past month the world's attention has been distracted by a much more entertaining sideshow in which European unity, and the ongoing viability of the euro, is being tested by the Greek debt crisis.

I believe the short-term problems in Europe are being overblown and the potential demise of the euro highly exaggerated. For those who can connect the dots however, the Greek drama throws some much-needed light on the far more daunting problems unfolding within our own fiscal house.

The scenario that is eliciting the greatest fears is that resentment from the more solvent EU members (Germany, France, et al.) will prevent a bailout. If the Greek government then fails to adopt austerity measures that will bring it back in line with EU debt requirements, an expulsion, or withdrawal, from the Union becomes a possibility. This could set off a domino effect that will bring down larger European political or monetary union. On the other hand, if Greece does receive a bailout, a moral hazard will be created that will encourage other indebted countries (Portugal, Spain, etc.) to press for equal benefits.

Both scenarios would destroy confidence in the euro, remove the biggest rival of the U.S. dollar, and give a shot in the arm to the dollar's global status.
However, there is a third more likely alternative that few are considering. My gut is that Greek politicians will find the prospect of being forced out of the union and re-creating their own currency, formerly called the drachma, even more unpalatable then swallowing the bitter pill of fiscal austerity.

Even if defying the EU might seem like good politics now for Greek leaders, the risks associated with economic independence could be so daunting that politicians will refuse to roll the dice.

America - were is your soul?

I used to wonder how an entire country, a civilized country, could be walked off a cliff. A cliff is what Germany followed adolf hitler off, willingly. I used to wonder how people could have gone along. Not any more. I am witnessing my country walk off the cliff; aggressive wars, torture, secret prisons, kidnapping and imprisonment without charges. This is happening in our country and people do not seem to care - it appears, our souls have been lost.

Remembering The Alamo

By Chuck Baldwin
February 23, 2010

February 23 marks the anniversary of the beginning of the battle of the Alamo back in 1836. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna's seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.

It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally known frontiersman and former congressman), Will Travis (only 23 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do.
There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.

Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are
inseparable: destroy one and all will die.

Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: "Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. . . . The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword . . . I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. . . . VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side. . . ."

As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., People for the un-American Way, and the National Education Association telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As schoolchildren, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks.

The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was "the land of the free and the home of the brave." They believed God was on their side and that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.

By today's standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish.
After all, they had no chance of winning--none. However, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, "Victory or death!"

Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political and religious leaders surrender to globalism, corporatism, and political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.

One thing is certain: those courageous champions at the Alamo did not die for a political party or for some "lesser of two evils" mantra. They fought and died for a principle, and that principle was liberty and independence.
So did the men at Lexington and Concord. That is our heritage.

Today, however, our national leaders are in the process of turning America over to the very forces that the Alamo defenders gave their lives resisting.
On second thought, do they look foolish, or do we?
Read the Rest

Jan’10 Layoffs a Bite of Reality

Charts Sourced from ZERO HEDGE

The American economy has been ill for years and thanks to the Feds easy money policies we enjoyed the illusion of prosperity. At the end of 2007, it all came crashing down.

What the District Criminals Washington do? Bailed out banks that made losing bets, they didn’t want to do it; it was only for our benefit. They also bought almost 2trillion in toxic assets at par. They hated to do it but they had to, for our sake. This is really just one big theft facilitated by our loving big brother.

The reality is government cannot create jobs in the private sector. The can grow an already bloated public payroll which they are happy to do in all economic times, but bring growth to the private sector? No can do.

We are assured that government is the answer by politicians, media idiots, and of course by the big Wall Street players. It is all a lie, a big fat smelly lie and unfortunately we are going to see what the truth is and it will not be pleasant.

The BLS (Bureau of Lying Statistics) reported mass layoffs in January. The number of MLE (mass layoff events) rose to 2,860, form 2310 in January of last year. The low water mark in 2009 was September with only 1,371 MLEs. An MLE is defined of 50 or more people being laid off.
This is a Jan. Y-o-Y 24% increase. Jan is also a 109% increase over the September ’09low.

Green shoots?
See the charts below to see the MLE data and also first time UI claims.

ZERO HEDGE is must read daily

Nullification Starts with the county of Canyon in Idaho

From KIVITV.com

Canyon County Commissioners are furious with the Department of Environmental Quality's plan for vehicle emission testing. They're questioning what the DEQ will do with about $750-thousand dollars they would generate from the testing.

Canyon County Commissioners said they are planning on an act of "civil disobedience," which means they will not test 200 of their vehicles. They said they are hoping this act will show the DEQ how they are strongly against the vehicle emission testing program.

"Canyon County tried to negotiate that with the DEQ and I feel like we were stiffed armed," said Canyon County Commissioner Steve Rule.

The DEQ's emission testing program will charge motorists no more than $11-dollars every other year and $3-dollars will go directly to the DEQ.

The DEQ said that money will be used for an Air Quality Education fund. But Commissioners said that money should help motorists who can't afford to fix their cars to pass the emissions test.

"Something doesn't smell right here and I guarantee it's not the air in Canyon County," said Rule.
Read the rest of the Article

Campaign for Liberty –“Why real Conservatives are against the War on Terror” P2

CPAC 2010: "Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism, Part 2" from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

Campaign for Liberty –“ Why real Conservatives are against the War on Terror” P1

CPAC 2010: "Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism, Part 1" from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

The Brownshirt Sheriff of Mercer County, NJ

Feb 20,2010
By William Norman Grigg posted at Lew Rockwell.com
Mr. Grigg has an excellent blog, worth a visit, called “Pro Libertate”

Like many others in the By fraternity of armed tax-feeders ,
Mercer County, New Jersey Sheriff Kevin Larkin is “double-dipping” : He is drawing a salary and a pension for the same job, sucking down money earned by productive people to the tune of $215,000 a year.

Recently Larkin removed his snout from the public trough long enough to engage
in Brownshirt-style classroom intimidation of a professor who dared to speak his
name in a tone other than that of chastened reverence.

During a February 1 political science class, Michael Glass, an associate
professor at Mercer County Community College, “was conducting a discussion of
what changes students would propose to the state budget to avoid the expected $2
billion shortfall,” reported By Dmirty Gurvits in the college newspaper. “Some students suggested cutting the salaries of what they felt were overpaid [sic]
state administrators.”

After Glass mentioned officials who “double-dip,” the students asked for an
example. He cited “several law enforcement officers, including Sheriff Larkin,
who collects a Police and Fire Retirement System Pension as well as a government
salary” — an $85,000 annual “retirement” pay-out, as well as a $129,634 salary.

When one of his students commented that he didn’t know what he would do with
that much money, Glass reportedly commented: “In the case of the Sheriff, it’s
not that much. He has [to pay] child support and alimonies.” (Of course, many
people in the productive sector deal with similar problems without getting more
than 200K in money plundered from others at gunpoint.)

Glass wasn’t aware that one of his students, a Mercer County Clerk named
26-year-old Brooke Seidl, had — in the fashion of a secret police informant —
relayed the Sheriff of Glass’s comments via text message.

Shortly thereafter, campus security received a message from Larkin saying that
he needed “to reach Prof. Michael Glass.” When the note was delivered to the
instructor during class break, he dismissed it as a joke and returned to his
lecture.

About a half-hour before the class ended, “Sheriff Kevin C. Larkin, dressed in a
trenchcoat, opened the door to Prof. Glass’s classroom,” continues Gurvits’s
account. The Sheriff, accompanied by a female aide, summoned the teacher to a
brief conversation outside the classroom.

When they returned to the room, the professor — with the Sheriff looming no more
than “six inches from him,” according to one eyewitness — apologized for “making
disparaging comments” about the stainless public servant who had barged into his
class.

“This isn’t over,” growled Larkin as his swaggered from the classroom, leaving the choking stench of bullying arrogance in his wake. Just before the doors shut,
the sheriff fired off a parting contemptuous salvo: “You’re a terrible teacher,
you should get your facts from a book.”

Not content to pollute Glass’s classroom, Larkin on the following day made a
phone call to Jose Fernandez, executive director of the college’s Human
Resources department, to complain about Glass’s “conduct.”

Dr. Robin Schire, Dean of the Liberal Arts Division at Mercer Community College,
offered an apt summary of the episode: “The idea of having a police presence
challenging a professor and taking him out of class is something seen in a
police state.”

It is also a likely harbinger of what we can expect from the coercive caste as
it protects its perquisites amid an accelerating economic collapse.

Socialist Bankruptcy in Greece

By Jacob Hornberger
Published at By Campaign of Liberty2.19.2010

How long have European socialists been telling us how successful European welfare-statism has been? The governments in Europe's socialist countries, they tell us, take care of their people with pensions, social security, free health care and education, and job security. And everything, they say, is just hunky dory.

But as we libertarians have been telling American socialists for decades, it's just a matter of time before socialist systems start cracking apart, which of course has now occurred in Greece.

A system in which the government doles out money to people presupposes one important factor: that there are people in the private sector with income and wealth to take the money away from, so that government officials can turn around and give it away to others.

That fact oftentimes shocks statists. They live their lives under the pretense that the government operates just like a private business. That is, they think that the government is providing valuable goods and services that people are willingly paying for, a like a private business does. Then, they figure that when the government is doling out its fruits in the form of welfare, it's doing it with its own hard-earned money, just as a private business might use some of its profits to give to charity.

Not so! The government gets its money by force, by simply seizing it from people in the private sector. The process is called taxation. The government finds people with money and takes a portion of it. It retains a percentage of that money to pay its own expenses -- government salaries, overhead, etc. -- and then doles out the rest to the recipients of welfare (or warfare) largess.

Since the government gets its money by taking it away from people who have money, it's obvious then that the whole system depends on people in the private sector having money. If everyone in society is penniless, obviously a welfare state cannot work because the government has no one to tax in order to get its welfare money.

So, in order for a welfare state to exist, the private sector must first build up a base of income and wealth. Ironically, the best way to do that is for government to leave people free to accumulate wealth. As people begin accumulating wealth by selling goods and services to others, they tend to save a portion of their income. That savings goes into capital -- tools and equipment -- which then makes people more productive, which then tends to raise real incomes. Over time, the overall base of wealth begins growing exponentially.

Enter the socialists. They see this gigantic base of wealth and go nutso. They simply cannot help themselves. They just want to take, take, and take. And they're never satisfied. They always want more and more and more.

For a while their welfare system seems to work. The socialists pluck the golden goose but the goose is still able and willing to lay eggs. But inevitably, out of their insatiable thirst for more resources, the socialists over-pluck, which causes the goose to lay less eggs. Ultimately, the goose starts getting thinner and weaker, until it finally dies.

And that's precisely what has happened in the beloved socialist paradise of Greece. They taxed and taxed and spent and spent on their socialist schemes. In fact, not satisfied with the amount of money the taxes were bringing in, the socialists went on a borrowing spree, one similar to that which U.S. officials have embarked upon to pay for their socialist and imperialist schemes.

Of course, no one cared about all that rising debt. ֻNo need to worry. We owe it to ourselvesֻ the Greek Keynesian professors undoubtedly instructed their students. Financial data was even falsified in the hopes that people would never discover what was going on.

But finally, the ever-growing spending, debt, and taxes got so inordinately high that the private sector was no longer able to bear the burden of it all. The beloved Greek welfare state cracked. Bankrupt. Busted. Another socialist success story, just like the one in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

How are they resolving the welfare-state crisis in Greece? By taxing the private sector in other EU welfare-state countries in order to provide a government-to-government welfare dole to the Greek government.

But it's just a matter of time before the same crisis strikes other European welfare states. Who will bail them out? Don't count on the U.S. government. It's following the same road as Greece.

The Breath of GOD Exercise

Assume a relaxed comfortable position. Now slowly draw in a deep breath from the abdomen holding the thought as you do so: "I WILL DRAW IN THE OMNIPOTENT BREATH OF GOD."

Retain the breath for five seconds as you hold the thought: "I SEND THE BREATH OF GOD THROUGHOUT MY ENTIRE BEING TO HEALL AND TO STRENGTHEN."

Lastly, as you slowly exhale, and with all the feeling and dedication you can muster, hold these thought vibrations: "I SEND OUT LOVE AND PEACE TO ALL HUMANITY."

The entire exercise may be repeated several times a day if you desire, but to begin with do not force yourself or overdo. Practice no more than three minutes at a time.

The power and results possible from following this procedure are incalculable, and its value and benefits will be quickly proven if you but give it a TRY. After you have completed the practice, be at peace with complete trust in your effort, knowing that even though the world may appear to be on the brink of disaster, WITH THE BREATH OF GOD THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY.

Our atmosphere contains a force known as THE BREATH OF GOD. When that BREATH is consciously inhaled, it can bring health and strength to those who make use of it in the right spirit.

When this BREATH is sent out, with thoughts of love and peace, the resulting vibrations will change the world.

We invite you to work with us in the practice of THE BREATH OF GOD, to help yourself and those around you, bringing true peace and brotherhood to all of God's creation. Will you help?

While THE BREATH OF GOD may be used several times a day, one of those times should be at 12:00 each noon EACH DAY. As we ALL do this, a powerful wave of love and peace vibrations will immediately sweep around the world from time zone to time zone.

HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY
Box 77
Quakertown, PA 18951
215-536-7048

I Wish Joe Stack Had Not Killed Himself!

By Chuck Baldwin
February 19, 2010

All of us are now aware of the Texas man who yesterday flew his private plane into a 7-story Austin office building. Apparently, he intentionally crashed his plane into the building to target the IRS offices that were housed inside the facility.

As I am writing this column just hours after the event took place, there has not yet been a lot of time for the major news media talking heads to spin the story. By the time this column is released on Friday, however, I'm sure we will all have been inundated with copious references to this man, Joe Stack, as being "off his rocker," or similar assertions. Perhaps our friends at DHS will label Stack a "right-wing domestic terrorist." However, Mr.
Stack apparently left behind a "suicide manifesto" explaining his actions.
After carefully reading Stack's manifesto, I am quite convinced that he was not crazy, and he was not a "terrorist." However, he was angry.

A lot of us are angry--and for many of the same reasons that Mr. Stack was angry! While I would certainly take exception to some of the things Stack says in his manifesto, he said things that many of us are feeling.

Stack began his manifesto by saying, "If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, 'Why did this have to happen?' The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time."

He goes on to say, "Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble [principles] represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was 'no taxation without representation' . .
.
These days anyone who really stands up for that [principle] is promptly labeled a 'crackpot,' traitor and worse."

For the most part, he's right about that, of course. It has been a long time since the average hardworking American has been represented in Washington, D.C. By and large, the politicians in DC represent only Big Money interests.
Just try talking with your congressman or senator and see how much personal interest he or she takes in anything you have to say. As for emails, letters, and faxes, unless they number in the tens of thousands, they are mostly used as kindling for the fireplace.

Obviously, Mr. Stack had long felt the frustration of being ignored by these pimps in Washington that we know as congressmen. He wrote, "While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say."

I suppose that just about every American could say the same thing.

Then, regarding our current tax system, Stack wrote, "Here we have a [tax] system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly 'holds accountable' its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law 'requires' a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not 'duress' [then] what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is."

He also wrote, "However, this is where I learned that there are two 'interpretations' for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us."

However, I think a better way of putting his statement would have been, "There are two interpretations for every law; one for the GOVERNMENT, and one for the rest of us." And only the most naïve among us would not understand that statement.

According to Stack's manifesto, he earned an engineering degree with the goal of becoming an "independent engineer." He said this about working his way through college: "I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time."

I know that feeling! My wife and I married between my sophomore and junior years of college, and for months we had a grand total of $15 a week to spend on groceries. And believe me: that did not go very far--not even in 1974.
How many politicians on Capitol Hill do you think could even remotely relate to Mr. Stack?

Stack later said, "I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself."

Wow! What a revolutionary idea: taking responsibility for yourself! Now I know that practically no one on Capitol Hill can relate to Mr. Stack!

After quoting a portion of the tax law relating to Section 1706 (Treatment of Certain Technical Personnel), Stack wrote, "The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave."

His manifesto clearly reveals bitterness and resentment toward the IRS, the tax system, the banker and Big Business government bailouts, and the emergence of police-state attitudes and actions in the aftermath of 9/11. He expressed disdain for "the monsters of organized religion." He talked about his move from California to Texas. He referred to a divorce and the way his savings and retirement had been wiped out after a career of working "100-hour workweeks."

Stack also noted, "The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government." I can say "Amen" to that.

Stack's conclusion: "I have had all I can stand."

In what was obviously a reference to what he was about to do, he wrote, "Nothing changes unless there is a body count."

Then, later he said, "But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at 'big brother' while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won't continue; I have just had enough."

Stack wrapped up his manifesto by saying, "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

See Joe Stack's manifesto here

My heart goes out to Joe Stack! The sentiments expressed above are shared by millions of Americans who are also fed up with Big Brother. We are fed up with our country being turned into a burgeoning police state, under the rubric of "national security." We are fed up with the harassments of the IRS. We know the "war on drugs" is merely the government's way of cutting out the competition (this is exactly what more than one retired federal law enforcement agent--employed in the drug war--told me). We know the "war on terror" is nothing but an excuse to trample our constitutional liberties. We are fed up with the voracious vampires known as the Federal Reserve sucking the lifeblood out of the veins of America's hardworking Middle Class. We are tired of the CFR, CIA, and America's State Department manufacturing perpetual wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives for the benefit of the global elite. We are fed up with an arrogant and oppressive federal government that is strangling the life and freedom out of our states. We all share Joe Stack's pain!

I really wish Joe Stack had not killed himself, however. We need each other.
By taking his life, he reduced our strength. The global elites delight in our demise. As we grow weaker, they grow stronger.

But the fight is not over; the battle is not lost! Rumblings of freedom's revival can be felt across the length and breadth of this nation. The clanging of liberty's resolve can be heard in hamlets and villages from Montana to South Carolina. There are still millions of us--from virtually every walk of life--who will not surrender our liberties without a fight!
And we have not yet begun to fight!

So, to the rest of us Joe Stacks out there: let's not fly our planes into buildings. Let's not end our lives prematurely. Instead, get mad; get organized; get educated; start equipping your heart, mind, and body for the battle ahead. Let's fight; let's study; let's prepare; let's make every would-be tyrant on Capitol Hill and Wall Street know that we are not going to sit back and let them steal our country. Let's send a message, in no uncertain terms, that if they want our pound of flesh, they are going to have to come and get it--and if they do, it's going to cost them a whole lot more than a pound of theirs!

Oh, Joe! I wish you had not killed yourself.

Mr. Baldwin archives all his columns HERE .

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

(NaturalNews) It's being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer's speakers' bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as "proof" that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There's only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn't the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben's faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 "scientific" papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100...)

Business as usual in Big Pharma

What's notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It's not the fact that so-called "scientific" medical journals published his fabricated studies. It's not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Reuben's actions really aren't that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn't operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben's faked studies even though this journal claims to be a "scientific" medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn't it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.

Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on "good science." It's all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being "woo woo" wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that's based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.

You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is "scientific" while natural medicine is "unproven." Sure it's scientific -- about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a "let's play doctor" gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.

For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on "scientific evidence," just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.

Drug companies support fraudulent research

Don't forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben's research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.

The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben's research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to "prove" that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). "Here's another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink)."

And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to "prove" exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don't believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician's wand and chanting, "Abra cadabra... let there be RESEARCH DATA!"

Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a "scientific" paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.

I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little "research magic" conveniently fills the void.

The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever "scientific evidence" they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.

What is "Evidence-Based Medicine?"

The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what's really behind "evidence-based medicine."

The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as "fact!"

When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting "evidence-based medicine" as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on "real science," what they really mean is that it's based on fraudulent science but they've all secretly agreed to call it "real science." When they claim to have "scientific facts" supporting their position, what they really mean is that those "facts" were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.

"Evidence-based medicine," it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals -- without getting caught by his peers -- then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?

Here's what is says: "Scientific medicine" is a total fraud.

And this fraud isn't limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven't yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in "scientific" medical journals. They've been quoted in the popular press. They've been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as "safe and effective" for widespread use.

And yet underneath all this, there's nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?

How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?
Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben
Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable "scientific" journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.

Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I'm sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more "scientific" studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.

You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you're a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!

Because if there's one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it's in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.

Sources for Article:
NBC Connecticut
Wall Street Journal Blogs
Med Page Today
The Day.com

Is India Leasing its IMF Gold Purchase?!

By Michael J. Kosares at USA Gold

What puzzles me about the Reuters report (IMF gold sale may lure Asian central banks, immediately below) and Mr. Nitsure’s logic is why these same Asian central banks didn’t buy previously? What difference does it make now that the IMF is going to sell in smaller increments “on market?” What is the difference between “on-market” and “off-market” anyway? If a central bank awash in dollars wants to buy official sector gold, why demarcate between on and off-market?

Watching all this happen raises an old concern of mine, i.e. that most of these sales are directed for purposes we do not completely understand. Was China, for example, locked out of bidding on the IMF gold because it could not be relied upon to lease the metal back to the market? It seems odd to me that we haven’t seen an announcement of a purchase from the IMF by China, for example, when we know that both its sovereign fund and central bank have announced an interest in buying and could lay out the cash for a tranche this size without even blinking.

I recall that after India’s purchase from the IMF on 11/3/09 the price rose on a wave of euphoria that peaked in early December. From there, the price dropped into the $1050s by February. This is the sort of market action those of us who attended this market in the 1990s and early 2000s might recognize as a familiar pattern. Did the Reserve Bank of India take-in the IMF gold and then lease it back out? Is that why the price dropped? Has China been rebuffed in an effort to buy the IMF gold and India favored because it is a “player?”

In considering these possibilities, I recalled coming across a speech while researching another topic by Dr. Y.V. Reddy Governor, Reserve Bank of India on Gold Banking in India, delivered some years ago to a meeting in India sponsored by the World Gold Council. I revisited that speech this morning because there is something about the IMF sales and what is going on at present that doesn’t add up. Perhaps the Reserve Bank of India isn’t as pro-gold as we might have hoped, or, at the least, its seemingly public pro-gold stance might have some soft spots in it from the gold owner’s perspective.

Here is what Dr. Reddy said in that speech:

“What should be the possible objectives of NGP (India’s New Gold Policy)? The review of our policy so far and the rationale for NGP that we considered indicate clearly the desirable objec tives of NGP. The major objectives should perhaps be to:
a. recognise the importance of gold in the Indian economic system and enable gold to play a transparent and positive role in the industrial development, employment and export sectors of the economy,
b. ensure orderly development of gold related industry in India in terms of physical standards and consumer protection,
c. create and nurture appropriate official regulatory framework and self-regulatory trade bodies,
d. exploit the scope for generating revenues to the central, state and local governments,
e. align the regulatory framework and institutional capabilities in the financial sector – especially banking sector – to enable the above, including gold banking, and
f. enable fuller integration of gold with other areas of domestic economy and closer integration with world gold economy, consistent with our economic reform policies.”

Later in the same speech in ticking off his “To-Do” list, Dr. Reddy said:

“Eighth: how should the banks equip themselves to do gold banking – immediately with the present legal and policy frame – and soon to exploit the opportunities under a possible NGP?

Ninth: and this is critical from the RBI’s point of view – what is expected of the RBI in the context of developing gold banking now, and under a possible NGP?”

(Link: Address by Dr. Y.V. Reddy Governor, Reserve Bank of India on Gold Banking in India )

(My emphasis. To the best of my knowledge this speech was delivered at a World Gold Council meeting in 1996, the copy I have seen -linked above – is not clearly dated. However, lest you begin to think that these ideas are dated, in 2006 Dr. Reddy delivered another speech to the International Monetary Fund in which he said “Perhaps, it is possible to illustrate, with a bit of lack of modesty, how this has been done, with a quote from Mr. S. S. Tarapore, my predecessor as Deputy Governor: ‘While I have been assigned the task of talking about gold and capital account convertibility, before doing so I would, for a moment, like to refer to some developments prior to the setting up of the committee on Capital Account Convertibility (CAC). When the definitive history of India’s policy on gold is written up, the speech by Dr. Y. V. Reddy, Deputy Governor, Reserve bank of India, at the World Gold Council Conference on 28 November 1996 will stand out as a watershed as it is perhaps the only speech by a senior Indian official which squarely takes on issues on gold policy and it will be appropriately recorded as a forerunner of major policy change. It is by raising pertinent issues that Dr. Reddy has paved the way for the committee to come up with specific recommendations on India’s policy on gold.’”

Link: Central Bank Communications : Some Random Thoughts by Dr. YV Reddy, Governor, Reserve Bank of India

As you might already know, this same Dr. Reddy was governor of the Bank of India from 2003 to 2008. He has been succeeded by a veteran of India’s finance ministry, Duvvuru Subbarrao. I was unable to pin down whether or not Mr. Subbarrao would follow in Dr. Reddy’s footsteps with respect to India’s gold policy, but clearly, it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility that the Reserve Bank of India would be a gold lessor given these pronouncements.

Please note, dear reader: I should emphasize that all the above is a speculation, and, a sketchy one at that. It could be that India has no interest whatsoever in leasing its gold. Likewise, China might very well have little or no interest in purchasing IMF gold. If the Reserve Bank of India wishes to lease, or in any way mobilize its gold, it is certainly within its rights and purview. At the same time, it would be interesting to know whether or not it is mobilizing its gold, if for no other reason, than to live up to the “transparent and positive role” for RBI outlined by Dr. Reddy in that same speech in 1996. Short of an admission (or denial) from the Reserve Bank of India, the reality on the RBI’s role in the gold market will be difficult to pin down.

What does all of this mean to the average gold investor?

Once again we are trying to ascertain what might be going on in what is still an opaque market despite the public pronouncements to the contrary by the official sector – Dr. Reddy’s included. It would be interesting to know whether or not India is leasing the gold it has purchased from the IMF, but in the end it doesn’t really matter. These considerations are academic as far as the market itself is concerned. They may interest people like me who follow the politics of gold, but in the end they will only have a passing effect on the market price itself.

In times like these when the rush to physical gold by the investors globally, including by some highly capitalized hedge fund managers like George Soros and John Paulson, is the dominant feature, physical demand is clearly a more powerful force than the meager tonnages the official sector is able to muster whether it be by sale, swap or lease. Just as the various machinations of the central banks did little more than apply a relatively ineffective harness to the gold price in the past, so would the machinations of the Indian central bank in the present (if it were in fact proven that it is indeed buying gold from the IMF and then leasing it). If, in fact, the gold price is temporarily driven down like it has been early in 2010, it should be viewed a buying opportunity just as the British sales at the turn of the millennium were taken by the astute investor as a buying opportunity. Somehow, though, I believe we are far beyond the kind of market we had back then. If India is leasing its IMF gold, the market will likely take it as a small matter and go about its business without so much as look over its shoulder.

Michael J. Kosares
Author: The ABCs of Gold Investing: How to Protect and Build Your Wealth with Gold
Founder: USAGOLD-Centennial Precious Metals

Students Spied On With School Issued Laptops

Federal lawsuit brought against district for covertly monitoring students and families in their homes

By Steve Watson at INFOWARS.NET

A school district in Philadelphia faces a class action lawsuit after it allegedly issued laptop computers to 1,800 students across two high schools and then used concealed cameras within the machines to spy on students and their parents without their knowledge or consent.

Lower Merion School District in the suburbs of Philadelphia faces charges of invasion of privacy, theft of private information, and unlawful interception for providing computers with webcams that were remotely and covertly turned on by administrators.

The suit was brought on behalf of all the students and their parents after it was revealed that the computers had been used to monitor students both at school and at home.

The case, Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (PDF), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

According to the filing, the actions of the school district were exposed when one of the school’s vice principals disciplined Mr Robbins’ son for “improper behavior in his home,” and used a photo taken from the computer camera as evidence.
"Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through Ms. Matsko, (an assistant principal) that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer." the complaint states.

"Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the school district, the webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it." it continues.

Nowhere in any "written documentation accompanying the laptop," or in any "documentation appearing on any Web site or handed out to students or parents concerning the use of the laptop," was any reference made "to the fact that the school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded webcam at any time the school district wished to intercept images from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera," the complaint also states.

The computers were provided via an initiative funded by state and federal grants to the students at Harriton High School in Rosemont, PA and Lower Merion High School in Ardmore, PA.

According to comments by the district's Superintendent , Christopher McGinley, the initiative "enhances opportunities for ongoing collaboration, and ensures that all students have 24/7 access to school based resources and the ability to seamlessly work on projects and research at school and at home."

What McGinley failed to add was that it also provided the school with 24/7 access to the students and their families.

The plaintiffs also note in their complaint that "the laptops at issue were routinely used by students and family members while at home," and that "many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stage of dress or undress."

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in respect of not only a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also a host of other federal and state privacy laws, including the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and Pennsylvania common law.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By J Jonathan Petre in the Mail On-line

• Data for the “Hockey Stick” graph gone missing
• There has been no warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened in the past – but NOT due to man made changes

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made
Read the Rest of Article

The Most Liberating Word

Friday, February 12, 2010 by William Norman Grigg
at Pro Libertate

"Let your `yes' be `yes,' and your `no' be `no'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."
Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 5:37

Years ago, somebody coined the aphorism, "`No' is a complete sentence." While some grammarians might disagree with that conclusion, "no" is incontrovertibly the most powerful word that a freedom-focused individual can utter -- assuming, of course, that he has the fortitude to let it be his final answer.

To say "no" in reply to an offer, suggestion, or demand is to assert authority. The same can be said of "yes," but only when it is said in particular circumstances. "Yes" can signify either honorable agreement or craven submission. Saying "no," on the other hand, is a way of claiming one's sovereignty and demanding that it be respected.

Refusing consent is an assertion of the most elemental property right. Saying "no" during a business negotiation may abort a transaction, or it may facilitate a mutually agreeable arrangement on slightly different terms. In either case, parties involved in such a conversation understand and respect the sovereignty of each other, and agreement doesn't occur until and unless both sovereign actors are satisfied with the terms.

When "yes" is said in this context, the rights and interests of both parties are protected, assuming that both follow the admonition from the Sermon on the Mount that they will make good on the promises they freely made.

We are routinely told that the government ruling us rests on the "consent" of the governed. "Submission" is a more appropriate term.

Think of it for a second: How often does the State recognize our right to withhold consent? Are those in the State's employ generally willing to accept "no" as a final answer, or do they generally treat it as an act of criminal rebellion?

In myriad ways, from the smallest imposition to the most grotesque mass murder, agents of the State treat non-compliance as justification for the use of potentially lethal force. If an armed stranger in a state-issued costume demands that you submit to an abduction called an "arrest" despite the fact that you've done nothing to injure anybody, what will happen to you if you refuse to cooperate?
Read the Rest of the Article

Jeff Knaebel Walks With Gandhi

Feb. 9, 2010 by REED

“I destroyed my passport and renounced US citizenship, out of reverence and respect for the Mahatma’s inspiration –I courted arrest and imprisonment in India,” writes the 71-year old Knaebel, “…to demonstrate to the world the truth of Gandhi’s statement: ‘The State is a soulless machine that can never be weaned from the violence to which it owes its very existence.’” Further, “We cannot (work for the good of mankind and do no harm) so long as we vote for and pay taxes to a government which engages in criminal activities…” Those activities he defines as war abroad, use of force and plunder of citizens at home.

In his letter to India’s National Human Rights Commission, Knaebel writes, “It is your moral choice. It is on you whether I be granted to live as a dignified human being dedicated to the cause of peace and brotherhood, or else to die as a hunted slave or in jail.”

Jeff Knaebel expresses his philosophy of peace, love, and freedom at his website, www.freeofstate.org. His logo is among the peace-freedom symbols gathered in CW’s right column. A thoughtful explanation of its symbolism can be seen at his site under the heading, “A Nonviolent World Is Possible. Let Us Build It.”

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert

By James Delingpole Telegraph UK

Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. His post’s so delightful there’s no need for embellishment. Here it is in full: (Hat tip: R. Campbell/P.Keane)

While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.

Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.

Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

When the Military Serves as Police

From Campaign for Liberty by Jacob Hornberger

What happens when the military is used in a police capacity? You get a "war on terrorism," one in which people think that the laws of war now apply to the situation. But in actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. What you actually get is a criminal-justice problem that inevitably goes horribly awry, causing the problem to escalate into a deadly and destructive horror story.

Consider the war on drugs. Most everyone concedes that drug dealing and drug possession are federal criminal offenses. Drug offenses are listed as crimes in the U.S. Code. People who are caught violating them are arrested, indicted by a federal grand jury, and prosecuted in U.S. District Court. The Bill of Rights requires the government to accord drug defendants all the rights and guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including trial by jury and due process of law. Incompetent, irrelevant, and illegally acquired evidence is excluded from the trial. The defendant is presumed innocent and must be found not guilty unless the government provides sufficient evidence to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. Cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited. The defendant has the right to remain completely silent, before, during, and after the proceeding.

Now, consider the following scenario. In a concerted effort, a couple thousand members of powerful Latin American drug cartels cross the Mexican border into the United States. Employing automatic weapons, bombs, and grenades, they begin killing DEA agents, federal judges, and local cops and blowing up federal buildings in retaliation for U.S. military actions against drug cartels in Colombia and DEA actions in Mexico. The drug gangsters slip back into the populace, only to engage in more assaults in the following weeks.

The local cops take on the drug gangs, but they are clearly outgunned. The state governors ask the president to send the U.S. military to help them out. The president persuades Congress to suspend the posse comitatus law, and he reassigns U.S. military forces fighting the drug war in Colombia to the U.S. southern border.

Question: Does the military's participation in the drug war automatically change the drug war into a real war, like World Wars I and II and the Vietnam War?

Answer: No. The matter continues to remain one of criminal-justice. The gangsters are violating laws against murder, mayhem, drug dealing, illegal entry, and no doubt dozens of other criminal laws on the books. But the fact that the military is being employed to assist the police doesn't mean that the matter is now governed by the laws of war. The gangsters do not become enemy combatants. They remain criminal suspects.
Read the Rest of the Article by Jacob Hornberger

Journalist calls for euthanasia of disabled newborns

(c2084-the world eugenics program will lead to this end as long as the world are atheists, hence the removal and marginalization of God from society. God and religion is not the same thing)

From Russia Today

The article titled “Finish it off so it doesn’t suffer,” which calls for the euthanasia of disabled newborn children, has caused public outrage in Russia and has led to fierce debates in the blogging community.

In the article under question, the author Aleksandr Nikonov argues that the birth of a disabled child for many families would be an unbearable tragedy, “a hell”, and that “the killing of the newborn is in fact the same as an abortion”. He states that depriving infants, who will never be able to take care of themselves, of life is “true humanism”. He also calls to give parents of such children a right to euthanize their newborns, like relatives of patients in a vegetative state can allow doctors to shut down life support.

The provocative text which described disabled newborns as “defective blanks” and “newborn idiots” naturally caused uproar among people who have mentally-challenged family members as well as human rights activists. The fiercest critics said Nikonov’s ideas paralleled those of the Nazis, who made euthanasia of mentally-ill part of state policy, killing tens of thousands of institutionalized people. Others pointed out that he was plainly wrong in his judgment of how disabled children are treated by their families.

“The author is not raising a disabled child – that is why his generalized conclusions about the life of disabled people and their families… are just speculations. As a mother of a disabled child, and based on my experience, I state that these speculations have nothing to do with the reality,” said Svetlana Shtarkova, who, along with another disabled child’s mother, Snezhana Mitina, has written a letter to the Board of the Union of Russian Journalists.

Following the complaint, the Union of Russian Journalists gathered an ad hoc session of a public board to discuss the article. The board accused the author of the article of breaching professional ethics, adding that he should have realized he was humiliating people who are already bringing up disabled kids. The newspaper where the controversial article was published was also criticized by the board for not presenting any material to balance Nikonov’s piece.

The author disagrees with the criticism and defends his position: “You make people suffer for the sake of ideologies and interpretations of humanism you have in your head. What we offer is choice, and you wrap it inside out, presenting it as if we call for killing of all those disabled people. Nothing like that! We don’t stand against wheel cart ramps or your right to bring up disabled children, we stand for the right to choose,” he told the board.

He says even his original headline read “Commander, finish me to spare the suffering,” is a well-recognized reference to a war-time model scenario, where a wounded soldier asks that he be sacrificed so as not to slow down his retreating squad.

Other people took a more neutral attitude to the article. For instance, famous Russian journalist Svetlana Sorokina, who was part of the board session, said that Nikonov’s scandalous article managed to draw much needed public attention to the problems of the disabled community. “It just happens that Aleksandr gave start to a discussion on the issue, made an opportunity for others to speak out or form their opinion,” she said.

In his article, Nikonov did what he does best, and over-performed, believes his colleague Pavel Shermet: “Now everyone is branding Nikonov for what he said. He always loved a provocative approach to journalism… The difference between a professional provocation and outright stupidity and offense is very thin. But I neither tolerate squeamish hypocrisy, nor the people, who demand ‘positive news’ and make face when they hear a profane word.”

According to statistics, there are 545,000 disabled kids in Russia. Only 12.2% of them live in foster homes, 23.6% of these children have various organ diseases and/or metabolic disorders, 23.1% have motor disabilities, and 21.3% have mental disabilities.

“More Empires Have Fallen Because Of Reckless Finances Than Invasion”

From Washington’s Blog

While Eric Margolis' entire comment in the Toronto Sun is a must-read, the following two quotes really hit the nail on the head:

More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion...

If Obama really were serious about restoring America’s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars and break up the nation’s giant Frankenbanks.

Margolis is right.

As I have repeatedly shown, war is bad for the economy. According to a Nobel prize-winning economist, the head of JP Morgan and others, the Iraq war and the war on terror in general were huge factors in destroying our economy.

America is a dying empire, destroying the last of its resources to fight unnecessary
wars. Instead of rebuilding our economy so that we can once again be a strong nation, we are wasting trillions fighting those unnecessary wars, thus guaranteeing that we do not have the economic resources to defend ourselves in the future from real threats.

Don't believe me?
Read the rest at Washington’s Blog

Super Bowl Sunday: Scientifically Crafted Mass Mental Illness

From Prison Planet

As the Roman Empire drew to a close, the poet and satirist Juvenal wrote about an infantilized populace that had surrendered its birthright of political involvement.

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties,” he wrote, “for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” The Latin phrase panem et circenses is often translated as “bread and games.”

In America, circa 2010, the phrase bread and circuses, or bread and games, has become what passes for our national anthem. The masses long ago abdicated their civic duties and have since forsaken the Constitution — and are in fact almost completely ignorant of it — and have abandoned their birthright of liberty in favor of mindless and indeed infantilized entertainment.

It is not merely the gladiatorial Super Bowl. It is an entire popular culture steeped in meaningless celebrity worship. Far too many Americans reject political involvement — their birthright — for a vicarious and perverse obsession with the minutiae of manufactured stars and starlets.

It is no mistake Aldous Huxley used the phrase in Brave New World Revisited as an example of one of the ideas he used as a theme in Brave New World.

Steve Bonta, in an article published in The New American, compares and contrasts Huxley and Orwell:

What Huxley understood more acutely than Orwell is that it is easier to enslave a people by seduction than by coercion. In the words of social critic Neil Postman, “what Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one…. As Huxley remarked…, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’ In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.”

The Super Bowl event is a scientifically created mass mental illness that exploits man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions. It is the bellwether of tyranny.

In the video below, Alex Jones calls on each of us to remember what really matters on this Super Bowl weekend. Forget the pizza, nachos and the half-time musicians and educate yourself, your family and your neighbors on what the globalists have done by design to our culture and our very humanity.

It is more than a football game. It is a primary example of the fact the future of humanity hangs in the balance.

Jim Grant On California And Greece

From Zero Hedge

With Greece getting all the imminent default attention, have we forgotten California? Jim Grant chimes in.
• Greece: 3% of Eurozone GDP
• California: 13% of USA GDP

Rate Curves:
Greece
• 3 year: 3.45%
• 30 year: 6.26%
• 5 Year CDS: 400+

California
• 3 year: 1.89%
• 30 year: 5.59%
• 5 Year CDS: 333

Grant points out Trichet's Jan 14 commentary: "belonging to the euro area, you have an easy means of financing your current account deficit. You share a currency that is credible, so that you have a quality of financing that corresponds to that of a credible currency." Further: "this should be borne in mind, compared with the share of CALIFORNIA, FOR INSTANCE, in the overall GDP of the USA."

Grants reviews CA's Baa1/A- rating as the worst in the US, the S&P downgrade and the structural not cyclical problem of California.
• State Revenue up 22% in decade debt service cost +143%.
• Interest expense to consume 10% of revenues by 2013.

Howerver Grant's notes that Californida's debt / gdp ratio of "perhaps 25% is dwarfed by Greece 113%"

Yet as Zero Hedge has pointed out how much does a standalone credit metric such as a state's GDP truly matter? We know CA's trust fund when it comes to funding unemployment benefits is now empty and every month sees greater borrowings from the Treasury.

Case in point, we present State Unemployment Benefits as seen from the Treasury's (outflow) perspective ($MM):
Jan-08 3966
Feb-08 3572
Mar-08 3673
Apr-08 3664
May-08 3123
Jun-08 3053
Jul-08 3885
Aug-08 4650
Sep-08 5146
Oct-08 4951
Nov-08 4341
Dec-08 7384
Jan-09 8513
Feb-09 8808
Mar-09 10607
Apr-09 10883
May-09 9998
Jun-09 11982
Jul-09 11979
Aug-09 11454
Sep-09 12102
Oct-09 10749
Nov-09 10869
Dec-09 14065

We expect once the rumored cabal of Goldman and Soros finish their toying with Greece, they will look into the US. Then again, for fears of retribution by the President once it becomes known that a "US bank" (or hedge fund) is actively pushing CA CDS wider, this may be one of the most mispriced securities currently available.

To those not fearing the wreath of the UAW, it may be worth the gamble on the short risk side.
From Zero Hedge

"Where Did That Come From?"

By Rob Sandwell
Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

A friend of mine was talking with his girlfriend about marijuana use recently. He doesn't use the product, but he was explaining why he is in favor of the elimination of drug prohibition on moral and practical grounds.

She was deeply and emotionally opposed to the very idea. Drugs are bad. Drugs hurt people. Drugs, and drug users, and drug dealers, are evil. He pointed out that they both drank alcohol, which is far more dangerous than marijuana, and attempted to press her on her position. He wanted to know what the difference was. He wanted to know why she felt the way she did. She quickly became defensive and simply stated that she didn't have a reason for feeling the way she did, she just felt that way.

Think about that.

She didn't have a reason for feeling that way, but she did, and she had a strong emotional attachment to the idea, and that was enough for her.

A young lady I work with the other day was trying to tell me that soldiers are moral. I asked her if it's right to hurt people who never hurt you. I asked her if it's right to do so if someone tells you to, or pays you to. She said no. I asked her what the difference was between that and soldiers. It was at that point that she started screaming at me and demanding to know why I "hated this country so much," and telling me that "people like me" were the problem with the world.

I didn't make any positive declarations. I only asked her questions the entire time, but when confronted with something she believed but had obviously never considered herself, she became extremely emotional and aggressive.

Think about that.

Imagine if you woke up in the morning and suddenly realized you hated some group of people. White, Black, Christian, Atheist, doesn't matter. But you knew you'd never hated them before today, in fact, you'd never even thought about it.

How terrifying would that be? You'd think space aliens had planted thoughts in your head, or some evil trickster had hypnotized you in your sleep. The implantation of thoughts in your brain without your consent is a terrifying thing even to contemplate. And yet it happens to people all the time. It happened to these two girls. And when they were faced with it, instead of reacting with horror, instead of trying to figure out where the ideas came from, they not only ignored the problem, they continued to advocate those positions.

Think about that.

It isn't just women, these two examples just happen to be. I've known people who argued that they felt legality is more important than morality, and even after I showed them how their own actions and lives contradicted that statement, they continued to hold it. I've talked to people who say things like, "there have always been governments," or, "without public schools no one would get an education." Of course, these statements aren't just false, they're also quite silly. It shouldn't take a moment's thought to realize that.

But that's just it. They haven't even given the ideas a single moment's thought, yet they are not only proclaiming them as patently obvious, they are deeply emotionally wedded to them.

When you realize that you hold a strong emotional belief that you have never considered, that you did not arrive at as the result of some scrutiny or process, it should be an immediate red flag. You are being brainwashed. By the schools, by the churches, by the news, by the culture. Every day, you are being bombarded with false morality designed specifically to foster blind obedience.

I had a person I work with try to convince me that God puts those in power over us in that position, and so their rule is divine. He carried this belief beyond politicians, even to slave owners, even to individuals who would simply overpower him by force of arms. But when I confronted him with a few simple rational questions, the belief fell completely apart. How long had he held a strong emotional belief in the divine right of slave masters? What would he have taught his children of that belief? What more might he teach them?

Think about that. Think about everything.

I believe there are three rules we must teach our children if we have any hope of humanity seeing freedom some day:

1. Question everything.

2. Never accept an answer just because it is presented by an authority figure.

3. Anyone who has a problem with rules one or two is immediately suspect.

Legitimate authority is fine, but we must never allow anyone to use their authority to stifle questions. "Because I said so" means "I don't know." A legitimate authority figure will give you answers, or admit to ignorance. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, it can be cured. But only if it is recognized within ourselves and others.

What we can't do is simply accept the beliefs being thrust upon us by our society. Our society is broken. Our society is sick. Our children are brainwashed for eight hours a day for thirteen years in the state gulags and then sent home to waste their time doing meaningless homework assignments and reading books and watching television programs which reinforce their indoctrination. Our adults are robbed, beaten, and preyed upon to feed the insatiable maw of the state, and told that the only virtue is obedience. Our young men and women are sent to die in endless wars and robbed of their humanity and given brutality in its place.

This world is not sane. And so it produces insanity in its victims. It churns out people who hear voices in their head telling them what to believe about things they've never considered before. The first steps towards curing that sickness is throwing out the ideas in our heads which come to us unbidden, and questioning everything we are told about reality.

Because the real problem isn't drug prohibition or war or false morality or corrupt religionists. The real problem is the theft of imagination. It is the theft of rational thought. It is the theft of that very thing without which we are merely dumb beasts to be herded, milked, and led to slaughter.

It is worth everything you are to think for yourself.
SOURCE