Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Video Lecture about Stossel's new book

John Stossel: Why Government Fails—But Free Individuals Succeed‬ Recorded: Thursday, April 19, 2012
Part One Video:

Part Two Video:


Transcript: http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=156

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Dr. Mercola issues WARNING

Double-Whammy! Doctors Demonize Vaccine Choices as FDA Licenses New Combo Vaccine       
Dr. Mercola - July 24 2012
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/24/new-vaccines-for-babies.aspx?e_cid=20120724_DNL_artNew_2

Story at-a-glance

  • A study by the Oregon Health Authority and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control concluded that about 10 percent of parents in Portland, Oregon are making independent decisions about how many vaccines their babies should get and when they should get them. Public health doctors refer to such parents as “shot limiters,” and it has become fashionable in medical journals and media circles to demonize these parents
  • On June 14, the FDA awarded GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) a license to sell MenHibrix, a new vaccine that combines two meningitis vaccines into one shot, without asking the agency’s own vaccine advisory committee for an opinion, despite the fact the FDA had rejected the license in 2010 and 2011 because GSK had trouble proving the vaccine actually worked
  • The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is rumored to vote on a recommendation for the MenHibrix in October

Drugs vs. Supplements - new data proves the "safest" one

Pharmaceutical Drugs are 62,000 Times More Likely to Kill You than Supplements    
 Dr. Mercola - July 24 2012 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/24/pharmaceutical-drugs-vs-nutritional-supplements.aspx?e_cid=20120724_DNL_artNew_1          

Story at-a-glance

  • Official UK and EU data reveals that you are 900 times more likely to die from food poisoning than nutritional supplements, and compared to supplements, you’re 300,000 times more likely to die from a preventable medical injury during a hospital stay in the UK
  • Adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times more likely to kill you than food supplements, and 7,750 times more likely to kill you than herbal remedies
  • You’re also more likely to die from being struck by lightning or drowning in your bathtub than having a lethal reaction to herbs or supplements
  • Based on the data showing supplements and herbal remedies are in the ‘super-safe’ category of individual risk, UK, European, and American authorities are completely out of line in their assertion that supplements are dangerous and need to be more heavily regulated                                                                                                                        

Monday, July 23, 2012

"Big Pharma" Merck Caught Lying about MMR Vaccinations??

Why Did the Wall Street Journal Bury the Merck Fraud Story?       
July 23 2012

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/23/merck-vaccine-fraud-story-buried.aspx?e_cid=20120723_DNL_artNew_1

Story at-a-glance

  • Two virologists have filed a federal lawsuit against Merck, their former employer, alleging the vaccine maker lied about the effectiveness of their mumps vaccine. They claim they witnessed “firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings”
  • The Wall Street Journal published the story on June 22, 2012, but within days, it was scrubbed from the internet. Was the story erased as a result of discussions at the Wall Street Journal’s “elite” CFO network on June 25, which includes Merck?
  • Other censored vaccine news include the Italian Health Ministry conceding the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year old boy, which was not covered by US media
  • Chatom Primary Care has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Merck, alleging Merck went to great lengths manipulating test procedures and falsifying results to prop up fraudulent efficacy claims, thereby maintaining its monopoly on the MMR vaccine

Political and Media - Rhetoric Tricks of the Trade

Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies
YourLogicalFallacy.com

What do you think about this?  Somebody named "Jesse" created a webpage with a downloadable poster for free. It's going viral, being touted on several websites.  "Jesse" works in the advertising business, and wanted to teach his own two children the "dark side" of advertising so that they wouldn't fall for it.  His website claims that as he put it together into a simple format for his own children to understand, the idea was born to put it out there for everybody to have--parents of other children, teachers, college students, etc.  He even gives the "rights" to print it off and sell it, saying that if you're willing to put out the money and time to do it, then you may as well earn the money for doing it.  He just wants it out there!

What are rhetoric tricks that can be called "Logical Fallacies?"  Quote from website:  "A logical fallacy is usually what has happened when someone is wrong about something. It's a flaw in reasoning. They're like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people.  Don't be fooled! This website and poster have been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy logic wherever it may raise its ugly, incoherent head." 

One EXAMPLE from poster:  strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid. This kind of dishonesty not only undermines rational discourse, it also harms one's own position because it brings your credibility into question - if you're willing to misrepresent your opponent's argument in the negative, might you also be willing to exaggerate your own in the positive?
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

As you move the curser over the "Logical Fallacies" 24 buttons, it will bring up a short definition. But if you click on the button, it will give a more detailed explanation as well as an example sentence for that particular "fallacy," such as copy/pasted above for one of them.  You will have to click the return arrow in the upper left-hand corner to get back to the main page. 




Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Opps! "Big Pharma" caught in fraud and other criminal behavior

Exclusive: Glaxo whistleblower goes public with shocking details of bribery, marketing fraud and other pharma crimes

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036499_Glaxo_whistleblower_bribery.html#ixzz211bZ10kz


"As you probably already know, NaturalNews is on the forefront of exposing the fraud and criminality of the pharma industry, and today we bring you a groundbreaking new interview from one of the key GlaxoSmithKline whistleblowers who provided evidence to the U.S. government that led to the stunning $3 billion criminal fraud settlement.

"His name is Blair Hamrick, and his recent interview on the Health Ranger Report reveals some truly shocking details of bribing doctors, marketing fraud, off-label prescribing and more.
Read some of the highlights of the interview (and see a related court document) here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036499_Glaxo_whistleblower_bribery.html

Watch the full interview on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_RJ9QPG70U

Monday, July 16, 2012

Dr. Gary Null's Video on ObamaCare

"WAR ON HEALTH - The FDA's Cult of Tyranny"
Complete 2 hour film is posted below>>
by Gary Null, PhD., International Expert in Nutrition and Health Sciences  http://www.garynull.com/
"New York City, June 15, 2012 - If you can't watch the whole video, you need to watch at least the first 30 minute talk of Gary Null.

"'War on Health' is the first documentary detailing and challenging the FDA agenda and its allegiance with the international Codex
Alimentarius, which hopes to establish a monolithic food and health regime. Betraying its founding mandate to assure drug, food and
chemical safety in the interests of public health, the FDA today is a repressive bureaucracy serving pharmaceutical and agricultural greed and profits. Vaccines, medical devices, prescription drugs are fast
tracked at alarming rates through the FDA at the expense of scientific oversight to assure their efficacy and safety. The result is hundreds of thousands of premature deaths annually from pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines and medical devices and an epidemic of medical incompetence and fraud sanctioned by federal health officials.

"Featuring many pioneering American and European attorneys, physicians, medical researchers and advocates of health freedom, War on Health lifts the veil on FDA's militaristic operations against organic food providers and alternative physicians. The film's conclusion is
perfectly clear: the FDA is a tyrannical cult founded upon the denial of sound medical science with little intention to improve the nation's health and prevent disease."

Written and Directed by Gary Null
Produced by Valerie Van Cleve
Associate Producer: Richard Gale
Editor: Richie Williamson

Offline Editing: Valerie Van Cleve, L.A. Jones
Camera Operators: Marcello Coppuchino, Peter Bonilla, David Grier, L.A. Jones, Gregory Jason Russ, Jake Hammer Mesmire, Edson Tanakae, Valerie Van Cleve, Richie Williamson
<

Dr. Mercola Video - Banks Control Alternative Health Care??

Ellen Brown on the Drug Industry's Health Politics


Now We Have Proof of How Banking Can Be Dangerous to Your Health Hardly anyone knows about the connections between these two "cartels." Learn how dangerous this connection is to your health and finances... and what you can do to help.

Story at-a-glance

  • The suppression of natural health treatments can be traced back to the corrupting influences of our private banking system, and the cancer- and drug industries are directly linked to the banking cartel
  • Prosperity can be restored, according to the Public Banking Institute, by instituting a system of publicly owned banks
  • The tyrannical financial structure we’re currently under is supported by the interest siphoned by banks into private coffers, bleeding society dry. The remedy is to replace the privately owned banking system with a public one, where interest is fed right back to the state or local community
  • Currently, 40 percent of the cost of everything you buy is interest. At every stage of development of a product, interest is paid on loans taken out to conduct business. If the state owns the bank and gives out the loans to local businesses, that interest comes back to the citizens of the state

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"ObamaCare is the NEW New Deal" - Oliver DeMille

Oliver DeMille, founder and former president of the Constitutional-based George Wythe College (in Cedar City, Utah--now called George Wythe University) has this wonderfully written article below about the new health care plan as seen not from a political viewpoint, but from a Constitutional and historical perspective ("Fifty Steps of Crisis Periods")One of my staff members attended several workshops with President DeMille as the main lecturer, and based on all that was presented, she said that she vowed to earn the GWU's "Thomas Jefferson Education Degree" from them as her second master's degree someday because the lectures were that good.  This article was written by President DeMille in 2010, on his website when the health care plan was first introduced, but is now being circulated by other sites on the Internet:


What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?

March 27th, 2010 // 1:28 pm @


If you listen to conservative leaders or Fox News, the passage of the Health Care bill that President Obama signed into law is, and I quote, “the apocalypse.”
Democrats and MSNBC, on the other hand, are hailing it as everything from the greatest legislative accomplishment since Civil Rights to a modest first step in a long line of needed government interventions in our society.
Pundits from the right are calling it the advent of a new era of worsened socialism, while liberal icons like Al Sharpton say that if it is socialism, then we voted for socialism in the last election—because the Obama Administration is simply delivering what Candidate Obama promised.
jefham What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?
The sides are as furiously divided as when Jefferson and Hamilton laid into one another or when Nixon left office.
Liberals announce that Republicans hate children and families (or they would have supported the Health Care Bill) while Tea Parties urge their supporters, “Don’t Retreat; Reload!” Weekly network and cable news shows are full of experts heatedly or rapturously speaking in extreme terms—depending on which party they support.
As for the official political parties, they are vocally gearing up for the 2010 mid-term elections. One side claims the momentum of victory, while the other promises to “Repeal and Replace” the new Health Care law—and both provide long anecdotal lists of offenses as they protest the lack of civility.
But what does this all mean for the regular people, citizens, families, entrepreneurs, small businesses and workers of America? News reports, periodicals and websites from both sides of the aisle and numerous other organizations give answers to this question. Again, those that lean left tend to expound the great benefits of the new law while those that tend right outline its failures and even perils.

A Different Viewpoint

trees 1 What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?I’m coming at this from a totally different outlook. I’m hoping that all of us, whatever our political views, will realize that the passing of the Health Care law signals something much bigger than political parties. It is even bigger than the future of our economy, or of liberalism or conservatism.
It isn’t Armageddon, and it’s not the end of our challenges and time to wildly celebrate. It’s something different, something very real, and something every American should know about.
One of the great imperatives of a classical leadership education is innoculation against the political or expedient fury of the moment, to acclimatize the individual to a broader view in the context of history and principle—because as important as any event may be, it is best understood in the larger perspective of broad historical flows, patterns, waves and cycles. The passage of Health Care is no exception.
Indeed, the one thing that both sides and pretty much all independents and moderates agree upon is that passage of the Health Care law is incredibly important. This is true. It becomes even more significant to us when we see its real place in the patterns of history. So, what are the broader patterns and trends that point to the real significance of this law?

The Fourth Turning

fourthTurning What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?For well over a decade I have been recommending a modern classic by the name of The Fourth Turning What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?. If you’re familiar with it, feel free to skip down to the next section.
For those who have never read it: authors William Strauss and Neil Howe describe a historical cycle where periods of Crisis are followed by a new Founding, then an Awakening where people challenge the principles of the Founding, then an Unraveling where two sides engage in culture wars, and finally another Crisis....

Then the pattern repeats—again and again for centuries of recorded history, and likely before.
Strauss and Howe call each phase of the cycle a “turning,” with Founding eras as first turning, Awakening and then Unraveling periods as second and third turnings, and Crisis eras as fourth turnings. Each era, as they documented, typically lasts about 15 – 25 years.
Thus the Civil War crisis was followed by Reconstruction (first turning), the Progressive era (second turning), the Roaring Twenties (third turning), and then the crisis-era fourth turning of the 1929 stock market crash, the descent into the Great Depression, and World War II.
Then (as cycles do), the pattern repeated: first-turning founding in the late 1940s and through the 1950s, second-turning awakening in the 1960s and 1970s, third-turning culture wars of the 1980s and Roaring Nineties, and an impending crisis. The pattern is quite persuasively established, and offers insight into our present circumstances.

The Fifty Steps of Crisis Eras

Pearl Harbor What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?Strauss and Howe’s book, written before 9/11, was a warning that a new fourth turning was imminent. They predicted that it would start with a major catalyst event that would shock everyone—just like Pearl Harbor, the election of Lincoln, and the Boston Tea Party started the last several fourth turnings in American history.
They went so far as to predict the kind of catalyst events that could start a new crisis era—one of which was a global terrorist group using an airplane as a weapon.
Remember, they wrote this in 1996.
In 2008 I taught a three-day seminar at George Wythe University on the Fifty Steps of Crisis Periods—from the catalyst event (like Pearl Harbor or 9/11) all the way through 15 – 25 years of challenges, and up to the new legal structures which always signal the end of crisis and the start of a new founding period (e.g. the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, or the establishment of the IMF, World Bank, GATT, and United Nations in 1944-1945).
These broad historical patterns teach us a lot about current political developments and challenges. Those who focus solely on the (admittedly important) issues can tend to miss the forest for the trees.
For example, many of today’s Democrats blame the economic crisis on President Bush’s deficient leadership, while many Republicans point to Clinton Administration pressure on banks and lenders to lower mortgage standards so the lower income buyers could buy homes.
downturn 1 What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?Actually: a larger historical perspective clarifies that a major economic downturn—whichever policies and presidents followed patterns and contributed to the progression—was probably unavoidable, given the societal and historical factors that were in play.
One definition of modernism is the arrogance to believe that we can control everything in our world—that economists, bankers and Presidents can control the economy, fix its problems, and keep everything always growing without waves, cycles or economic recession. We want the economic graphs of history to be up, up, up—never down.
Put simply, this has never happened in history and likely never will.
Indeed, the greatest advances of history come during founding eras; and founding eras only come after crisis periods have reshaped the economic, philosophical and institutional landscape so that the people are prepared to accept and work toward real, positive change.
The delight of summer is sweeter after winter and spring; regions with nothing but cloudless, warm and sunny days are called deserts with good reason.
In that 2008 seminar, I outlined and discussed the fifty predictable steps of crisis eras one-by-one. This dry approach admittedly didn’t drastically alter the way our national leaders responded to events; though, hopefully, it was valuable to those who attended and deeply considered the content.
They were less surprised by the advent of the Great Recession, bailouts, election results and subsequent path pursued by the Obama Administration. Events are closely, almost exactly, following the steps.

I believe we would be following the steps no matter who had won the election. Perhaps we would have varied in the details, but I do not think we would have disrupted the pattern.
Most importantly, those who understand the steps know what to expect in the decade ahead, and how it differs from party-line predictions.
For example, we have arrived at steps 15 – 19:
15. Increased regulation of business (supply your own examples here)

16. Many foreign conflicts (again—these are obvious)

17. Many government scandals (cynicism is so high on this point that these are hardly news anymore)

18. Widely increased stress among citizens across the nation

19. An economic downturn which looks bad, but seems to bounce back for a brief time
Steps 25, 26 and 43 are still ahead, along with many others:
25. Major economic downturn (likely to reach depression levels as in the 1780s, 1860s and 1930s)

26. A major war begins (replacing smaller conflicts with a war against a truly dangerous enemy like the British in the 1780s, the North and South in the 1860s, and Germany and Japan in the 1940s)

43. Leaders establish a new social contract (with a mixture of government and private institutions such as schools, health care, insurance, technology, arts, etc.)
Whatever the specifics, clearly great challenges and opportunities are still ahead in the next fifteen years—give or take. (You can get a pdf download of this article, including a complete list of The Fifty Steps of Crisis Eras, by completing the request form on the right.)

Health Care is the New New Deal

20080116 The%20New%20Deal What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?In short, whatever your political views, there is at least one non-partisan way to analyze the Health Care law: The passage of Health Care is the New Deal of our time.
If you tend to celebrate the legacy of the Roosevelt’s New Deal, you are probably glad Health Care passed.
If you dislike the New Deal, you probably object to the Health Care law.
In either case, it gives us a correlative benchmark in the pattern of history, and may indicate our place in the cycles or turnings.
If you are happy for the new law, note that history suggests that major changes are ahead and that the whole system will be revisited and revised in the next fifteen years. And by “the whole system,” I mean The Whole System, not just health care. A major remodeling of the economy, politics, views on morals, and general societal goals takes place by the end of a crisis era.
Now: for those who are frustrated, scared, or even downright furious about the new law, note that major changes are ahead and The Whole System will be revisited and revised in the next fifteen years.
Whatever your feelings about the current political climate and issues, the real battle is ahead. Indeed, as far as the steps of crisis periods go, the passage of the Health Care law signals the beginning, not the end, of the major domestic debates and internal conflicts of our time.
 What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?With the assumption that 9/11 was the catalyst event to a present fourth turning, we are only 9 years into a 15 – 25 year period of crisis.
Of course, I do have strong opinions about the Health Care law. But I hope that in the name of such sentiments I do not fail to recognize and illustrate the bigger picture.
From here on, the stakes will continue to rise and the challenges will increase. The battles ahead are much bigger than those we’ve just witnessed.
The patterns of history are belligerent on this point.
Those who care about the future of freedom would do well not to burn bridges by depending too much on the current two-party monopoly. As the challenges increase, the parties will scream louder and louder but the solutions will become less and less party affairs.
There will probably come a point when anti-partisan cooperation will be essential and even critical to the outcomes for our future.

Freedom Shift Needed!

ctrl shift key lamp 1 What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?From medical professionals to skilled laborers, much of our society’s most important work is done in shifts; these shifts often also represent a considered, organized division of labor.
In a broader perspective, the cycles of history, or turnings, are also “work shifts,” and a society’s choices and response to their current events and historical trends represent the labor of a generation in building that society’s future. In America today, a Freedom Shift—with a double entendre implied—is needed in this moment of history.
Citizens, families, communities, entrepreneurs, small businesses and leaders will have to solve things more and more in non-governmental ways. We are reaching the point where the government is overwhelming itself, and if major war arrives during the next decade (as it has virtually every other time in recorded history), government will have its hands more than full.
It will be up to us “regular people” to lead out in reforming societal views and ideas and creating and staffing a powerful and desperately needed FreedomShift.
In each major era of history (each first, second, third and fourth turning), there is a general leaning either away from freedom or toward it. And during fourth turnings, the freedomshift or forceshift, whichever wins out, drastically impacts the focus of the next sixty years. Right now we need a FreedomShift to ensure that the 21st century leans toward freedom instead of force. That decision will be made in the next fifteen-or-so years.
It will be made by you and me and others like us. It will be made by the regular people in our nation. Are we ready for such a choice?
If it were made today, I fear many of us would select any government-compelled program that promised to take care of all our needs—without consideration of the cost to freedom.
As our crises deepen and escalate, the world, our society and our minds will change, and we will have the chance to rethink this view.
Leaders are needed—thoughtful, articulate, visionary and prepared—to make sure our generation shows up for its Freedom Shift, and that a FreedomShift occurs.
If we are indeed following the historical pattern, as have thirty generations before us, we are at a banner point in history: We have now adopted our “New Deal.” This means it is time to prepare for leadership in the depression, war and societal reformation ahead in the next fifteen years.
These predictions may sound as extreme right now as predicting a 9/11 catalyst or a major economic recession did in 1999 or 2005. But the pattern predicted both; and depression, pandemic or war, and a significant societal restructure are coming.
What remains to be seen is whether we will turn these events into a Forceshift or a FreedomShift. It is up to us, and our future hangs in the balance.
***********************************
odemille 133x195 custom What Does the Health Care Law Really Mean?Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.





Thomas Andrews Drake, Whistle Blower and Patriot

Thomas Andrews Drake is a former National Security Agency senior executive in the United States who sacrificed his career to blow the whistle on criminal wrong-doings inside the NSA. When asked why he became a whistle blower, Drake replied: "You can't put a price on freedom. My oath was to the Constitution. That took primacy to everything else."

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Videos Quoting Constitution - Against ObamaCare

Constitutional scholar and former law professor Rob Natelson addressed the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare. A tenured law professor and the top publisher on the University of Montana law faculty, where he taught, among other subjects, Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Advanced Constitutional Law, and First Amendment, Rob co-authored two briefs in the Supreme Court’s 2012 health care case that appear to have served as partial sources for the portions of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion addressing the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Medicaid extension. In this video, he's speaking to a group in Denver: Born and raised in St. Louis, MO., KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups - she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today. KrisAnne will connect the dots for you like no one else can! (www.krisannehall.com)

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/06/09/nullification-the-movie/

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/06/09/nullification-the-movie/

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

KSN-TV 3 Video - Groups debate over fluoridation of Wichita water

http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Groups-debate-over-fluoridation-of-Wichita-water/BLN1iwFe_EayHnfT6YRxhA.cspx
July 3, 2012

WICHITA, Kansas -- A familiar debate surrounding the fluoridation of Wichita water is back. Those for and against are raising awareness of the issue and want you to know more about your drinking water.

Nearly 500 medical professionals have joined together to raise awareness of what they see as benefits and the need for optimal level fluoride in Wichita's drinking water. "We believe the CDC says this is good for our community and we stand by the sound scientific research and feel it would be beneficial to all our citizens in the Wichita area," advocates Dr. Sara Meng, a dentist in Wichita.

"Everything else we put in our water is treated water to make the water safer. Putting fluoride in the water doesn't do that," says Michael Hicks, who is the executive director of Wichitans for Pure Water, a group opposed to fluoridation.

"Healthy diet and proper dental hygiene are the keys to preventing cavities in children and keeping this community safe," says Hicks. Medical professionals agree, but say that adding fluoridated water to that equation would save Kansans money.

"For example Kansas has about 58 percent of children experience dental decay by the third grade. In Sedgwick County that rate is around 71 percent and I believe we can do better by adding fluoride to strengthen their teeth," says Dr. Meng.

"It is a physical poison to the body and we need to stop it from being in our water," says Hicks.

To which Dr. Meng responded, "It is regulated by the EPA, standard 60 to regulate things that are added to the water so it is determined to be safe, therefore we are protected just as the EPA regulates anything else to protect our water."

Wichita is the fourth largest city that does not fluoridate its water. Wichitans for Healthy Teeth hopes to announce their plans to bring fluoridation to Wichita later this month. Nothing official has been proposed just yet, both groups are raising awareness of the issue.

Yahoo! headline - Lesser Known Truths about 4th of July


A divided nation? How very American of us.

As we commemorate the 236th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, revisiting our history helps remind us how far we've come — and just what still makes up the American character. For one thing, not all the 18th-century colonialists were keen on this whole independence thing: A good half-million were Loyalists to the British crown, and hung on to their royal connections in places like New York City, Long Island, and northern Georgia through the 1780s.

The Fourth of July is also a good time to give credit where credit's due, stamp out a few myths, and find out lesser-known truths that are even juicier than the folklore.

Neglected forefather? No argument -- founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams have name recognition (it helps that two became president). Lost in historical footnotes are the remaining members of the so-called Committee of Five in charge of drafting the Declaration: Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston. And, even more neglected, is the man who first proposed the motion for a breakout from Britain.

Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was the classical yeoman farmer and a justice of the peace. The Virginia-born aristocrat benefited from an English private school education. At first an "indifferent figure," he later rose to the radical occasion and became an admired orator who, according to Patrick Henry, "reasoned well, and declaimed freely and splendidly" with a "deep and melodious" voice. At the second Continental Congress, he put forth the motion to cut maternal ties with Britain.
"That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown; and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved... Let this happy day give birth to an American republic." ("Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence," 1856, via Colonial Hall)
As it was his proposal, Lee would have been chair of the Committee of Five and its likely scribe, but his wife's illness called him away. His sub: Jefferson.

Forget firecrackers -- let's burn some effigies: Pyrotechnics and pies are nice, but real Independence Day sticklers would fire off some muskets, burn some effigies of English royalty (sorry, Kate and William fans), ration out some rum, and declare war on England. Over the last 236 years, Americans have found extravagant ways to celebrate (many details courtesy of James R. Heintze, Librarian Emeritus of American University and author of "The Fourth of July Encyclopedia"):

—Pequoad Indians did a "wardance at their wigwam" in 1831 Virginia.
—Teetotalers threw a "Grand Total Abstinence Celebration" to commemorate temperance in 1842.
—An all-time record of 10,471 flags flew over the nation's capital for the 1976 Bicentennial.
—The shuttle Columbia unfurled the flag in space in 1992, but NASA outdid that in 2005 by deliberately crashing spacecraft Deep Impact into a comet.
—"The Star-Spangled Banner" is the acknowledged go-to tune but, as the Houston Chronicle points out, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" has become part of the musical salute. The ditty is actually about Russian forces vanquishing over Napoleon's at the Battle of Borodino. Credit the esteemed Arthur Fiedler and the Boston Pops for making the overture an adopted American anthem in their 1974 televised concert. Who's going to say no to 16 cannon blasts?

The occasion to fight for rights: Independence Day took on new meaning during the abolitionist fight: New York emancipated its slaves in 1827. Twenty-five years later, Frederick Douglass delivered his speech, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" In 1876, the 100th anniversary, the likes of Susan B. Anthony read the Declaration of Rights for Women at the Centennial Celebration.
During World War I, celebrations took on an international theme: In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson spoke of an "international Fourth of July celebration" and in New York, 40 nationalities were represented in the "pageant parade." That same year, about 100 ships launched to help Allied forces. Other fights for rights included the 1989 flag faceoffs, as Americans protested the Bush administration's proposal to ban flag burning.


Off by two days? Not that we Americans didn't wait for a government resolution as a reason to party since 1776. John Adams sent a letter to his wife extolling the "great anniversary Festival" that generations would celebrate with "Pomp and Parade...Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other." Except he had July 2 in mind, the date when the Continental Congress approved Lee's resolution. (And this year, July 2 would've fallen on a Monday and we wouldn't have all this should-we-take-a-vacation dithering.)

Other Fourth of July myths and truths:

— King George III did not write on July 4, 1776: "Dear Diary, Nothing of importance happened today."
—Adams and Jefferson did die July 4, 1826, the Declaration's 50th anniversary. James Monroe died on July 4, 1831, and Calvin Coolidge was born July 4, 1872.
—Paperwork took a lot longer in those days: The Declaration's signing didn't begin until August 2 and finished sometime in November.
—No, Nicolas Cage didn't find a map on the back of the Declaration of Independence, because if he did, he could pay off his debts and go back to doing good movies. The only thing on the back of the parchment is "Original Declaration of Independence dated 4th July 1776." There are, however, 26 copies (aka Dunlap broadsides) that do exist — all publicly owned saved one.
—Okay, if you really want a conspiracy coda, how's this: The Declaration's signatures are signed according to geography.
"John Hancock, the President of the Congress, was the first to sign the sheet of parchment measuring 24¼ by 29¾ inches. He used a bold signature centered below the text. In accordance with prevailing custom, the other delegates began to sign at the right below the text, their signatures arranged according to the geographic location of the states they represented. New Hampshire, the northernmost state, began the list, and Georgia, the southernmost, ended it." (National Archives)
Happy July 4th, Everybody!

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

BEST SUMMARY of SUPREME COURT RULING on OBAMACARE

Well, Dr. Douglass stated you could opt out of the mandated health care since there was nothing in writing within the pages forcing a person to do it.  Since then we've seen that the IRS would simply garnish your wages for not paying.  After researching many, many articles about what happened, the best summary we could find was with Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief, Friday, June 29, 2012.  You can click on this weblink and request a free copy of the entire summary:  editor@worldaffairsbrief.com



World Affairs Brief, June 29, 2012 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief--[his added comments are within brackets](http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)


THIS WEEK’S ANALYSIS:
Justice Roberts Betrays Conservatives on Obamacare
Supremes Strike Down Arizona Immigration Law
Rash of Dire Economic Collapse Predictions
Romney’s Neocon Retreat
Russia Betrays Assad
AG Holder Held in Contempt by House


JUSTICE ROBERTS BETRAYS CONSERVATIVES ON OBAMACARE
"Constitutional conservatives were devastated by Thursday’s ruling by the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare—the most draconian and expensive power grab since “The Great Society” legislation of the 1960s. Most analysts predicted Justice Kennedy would be the most likely swing vote on the court, but instead it was Chief Justice John Roberts that betrayed the conservative view of the constitution.

"Roberts was clearly setting out to find a way to make this huge federal power grab constitutional even though he admitted the individual mandate would not pass constitutional muster. Roberts correctly wrote, “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it,” and yet he found another novel way to view the mandate so as to evade declaring it unconstitutional.

"Even though the Act clearly called the new tax imposed on non participants a “penalty” Roberts chose to disregard the wordage and held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax. Roberts re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes. Congress, he said, is increasing taxes on those who choose to go uninsured. But this is a direct violation of Art 1, Section 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

"Roberts said, “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part.” But instead of finding the law unconstitutional based upon the mandate, he simply redefined the mandate as a tax so he could rule it legal. It was the worst kind of legal sophistry.

"Roberts continued “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” Income level has nothing to do with it, and it certainly isn’t reasonable or proper to increase taxes on those who choose to exercise their liberty by not buying an insurance product.

"The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.” It isn’t “just like” buying something. For the first time in history, Roberts is justifying the taxing of something NOT bought. There is no precedent for this in law or history.

"As further proof that Roberts is a deeply compromised justice, shilling for government, he said “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.” Yes, that was really stretching the law, but then he flat out admitted that he felt it his duty was to try to salvage anything Congress does. He said the Supreme Court precedent is that “every reasonable construction” of a law passed by Congress “must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Since when?

"It is the duty of the court to aggressively guard against any law that even hints of unconstitutionality. But Robert’s sophistry seemed to know no end. Roberts had the audacity to claim that “there’s no real compulsion here” since those who do not pay the penalty for not having insurance can’t be sent to jail. Really? Try not paying your taxes and see where you end up. This is a new form of taking that has no limits and certainly constitutes force.

"Roberts must be really proud of himself. Single handedly he pulled a rabbit out of the hat that no lower court had even thought of—saying the mandate functions as a tax, and therefore isn’t a mandate—a position that no lower court accepted. Roberts developed this novel and scurrilous interpretation on his own. He’s clearly no friend of liberty.

"The Dissent: Here are excerpts from the soft dissent of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. Had Roberts not betrayed these four, Obamacare would have gone down to defeat.

“Congress has set out to remedy the problem that the best health care is beyond the reach of many Americans who cannot afford it. It can assuredly do that, by exercising the powers accorded to it under the Constitution [absolutely not. This statement shows that none of these are strict constructionists, but simply think this particular version went too far]. The question in this case, however, is whether the complex structures and provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act or ACA) go beyond those powers. We conclude that they do.

"The difficult questions: “The first of those is whether failure to engage in economic activity (the purchase of health insurance) is subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. Failure to act does result in an effect on commerce, and hence might be said to come under this Court’s ‘affecting commerce’ criterion of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. But in none of its decisions has this Court extended the Clause that far [Right. This latest stretch of the Commerce Clause is without precedent].

“The second question is whether the congressional power to tax and spend, permits the conditioning of a State’s continued receipt of all funds under a massive state-administered federal welfare program upon its acceptance of an expansion to that program. Several of our opinions have suggested that the power to tax and spend cannot be used to coerce state administration of a federal program, but we have never found a law enacted under the spending power to be coercive. Those questions are difficult.

“The case is easy and straightforward, however, in another respect. What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

“That clear principle carries the day here. The striking [I would say horrendous] case of Wickard v. Filburn, (1942), which held that the economic activity of growing wheat, even for one’s own consumption, affected commerce sufficiently that it could be regulated, always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence. To go beyond that, and to say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activity at all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can be federally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.”

"This is what I refer to in my legal writings as an “unlimited extension of lawmaking power” and is something that must never be allowed in law. People must be careful not to assent to a law because they think “people should do that for their own good.” Even if that were true, when you give government the power to mandate what is “good for people,” it permits an unlimited entrance of government into every aspect of people’s lives.

"The dissent continues: “As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers. Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system. That obstacle can be overcome by granting funds to the States, allowing them to administer the program. That is fair and constitutional enough [not at all] when the States freely agree to have their powers employed and their employees enlisted in the federal scheme [it is still an illegal taking of money from citizens for the federal government to force the payment of taxes when there is no constitutional federal purpose for those tax expenditures]. But it is a blatant violation of the constitutional structure when the States have no choice.

“The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non consenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have be enacted without them.

"The Individual Mandate: “The Individual Mandate in the Act commands that every ‘applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage.’ If this provision ‘regulates’ anything, it is the failure to maintain minimum essential coverage. One might argue that it regulates that failure by requiring it to be accompanied by payment of a penalty. But that failure—that abstention from commerce—is not ‘Commerce.’ To be sure, purchasing insurance is ‘Commerce;’ but one does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence.

“The Government presents the Individual Mandate as a unique feature of a complicated regulatory scheme governing many parties with countervailing incentives that must be carefully balanced. Congress has imposed an extensive set of regulations on the health insurance industry, and compliance with those regulations will likely cost the industry a great deal. If the industry does not respond by increasing premiums, it is not likely to survive. And if the industry does increase premiums, then there is a serious risk that its products—insurance plans—will become economically undesirable for many and prohibitively expensive for the rest.

“Here, however, Congress has impressed into service third parties, healthy individuals who could be but are not customers of the relevant industry, to offset the undesirable consequences of the regulation. Congress’ desire to force these individuals to purchase insurance is motivated by the fact that they are further removed from the market than unhealthy individuals with pre-existing conditions, because they are less likely to need extensive care in the near future [or never if they do not want the drug-oriented medical services insurance companies exclusively provide]. If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, [and] the Commerce Clause, even when supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, is not carte blanche for doing whatever will help achieve the ends Congress seeks by the regulation of commerce. [And yet, it has become just that.] “

"Where to from here? The individuals have totally lost their right to not buy insurance without monetary penalty, but States can still opt out of the increased and expensive Medicare provisions without being denied federal Medicare payments.

"As NBC said, “In a major victory for the states who challenged the law, the court said that the Obama administration cannot coerce states to go along with the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people. The financial pressure which the federal government puts on the states in the expansion of Medicaid “is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote. “A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it,” Roberts said.

“Congress cannot penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts said. The Medicaid provision is projected to add nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans -- but the court’s decision left states free to opt out of the expansion if they choose.”

"However, gone is the right of the states to shield individual state citizens from Obamacare by opting out. They can only opt out of the new increased and expensive provisions of Medicare.

"As for the nation, the only alternative now is to try and repeal Obamacare, or repeal certain portions like the penalty tax. That’s doable for the House of Representatives but probably not in the Senate. Much will depend on whether or not Romney gets elected. Given his damaging compromise on the individual mandate in Massachusetts, it is far from certain if he will be able to repeal the mandate and its associated tax.

"As the LA Times noted, Romney will ride the repeal effort to its maximum effect: “The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the individual mandate central to President Obama’s health care law carried immediate benefits for Mitt Romney, namely a newly energized Republican electorate and the ability to keep hammering his promise to repeal the law on ‘Day One.’ [That’s the easy part. He still has to get Congress to go along.]

“This is the time of choice for the American people,” the presumptive nominee said during an appearance in Washington D.C. on Thursday. “If you don't want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the Founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare.”

“But the Supreme Court’s decision also was a reminder of what Romney’s campaign would like Republican voters to forget — that he too embraced an individual mandate in his efforts to win universal healthcare for his state as governor of Massachusetts. The law that was once considered Romney’s signature achievement is one that he now rarely mentions.”

"The Republican Governor’s conference is pinning their hopes on Romney too. As the Washington examiner said, “Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold Obamacare hoping that the issue will drive voters to dump President Obama in favor of Mitt Romney who has vowed to kill the Affordable Care Act. After the decision, the Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform pushed through by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.”

"I personally think that, if elected, Romney will fail to repeal Obamacare. This is another of those causes so dear to the PTB that they won’t take no for an answer. That’s why they got Roberts to switch sides and write this deplorable court ruling.

"One thing is for sure: Obamacare will turn into the largest future deficit driver in history. Nothing will be solved in the health care industry and the benefit mentality of free health care will march forward inexorably adding to the total government control scheme."

Rob Schneider, actor/comedian, talks to camera as part of protester group

View Video here: Rob Schneider tells the truth about vaccines, parental rights, corporate greed and AB2109 - NaturalNews.tv