Friday, March 27, 2009

Nervous? North Korea Launching a Ballistic Missile!

US ready for possible NKorean missile launch to Hawaii: Gates
18 June 2009 WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States has concerns about a possible North Korean missile launch towards Hawaii and has taken steps to ensure the protection of US territory, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday.
"We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile ... in the direction of Hawaii," Gates told a news conference.
Gates said he had approved the deployment of THAAD missile defense weaponry to the US state and radar "to provide support" in case of a possible North Korean missile attack.
And he said that ground-based defenses in Alaska were also at the ready.
"I would just say I think we are in a good position should it become necessary to protect American territory," he said.
The Theatre High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) weaponry is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.
US and South Korean officials have said North Korea might be readying another ballistic missile test after three previous launches in 1998, 2006 and this year.
Pyongyang said its latest April 5 launch put a satellite into orbit, while the United States and its allies labeled it a disguised test of a Taepodong-2 missile theoretically capable of reaching Alaska. Tensions on the Korean peninsula have mounted after Pyongyang carried out its second nuclear test last month.
US media reported on Thursday that the US military was tracking a flagged North Korean ship suspected of ferrying banned weapons cargo in violation of a UN Security Council resolution adopted last week.
The ship, the Kang Nam, departed a port in North Korea on Wednesday and appears to be heading toward Singapore, according to media reports.
The latest UN financial and shipping sanctions are designed to choke off revenue and disrupt transfers of arms and nuclear technology in and out of North Korea.
The measures do not authorize military force to board North Korean ships, but allow for the US Navy and its allies to ask to inspect North Korean vessels and ships flagged from other countries suspected of carrying banned cargo.
"We intend to vigorously enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874," said Admiral Mike Mullen, the top US military officer, at a joint news conference with Gates.
Mullen sidestepped a question as to whether the military was tracking the North Korean vessel.
Analysts say North Korea could get around the shipping measures by transporting banned cargo by air. However they said that the financial sanctions could prove much more effective.
On Saturday, the North vowed to build more atomic bombs and start enriching uranium for a new nuclear weapons program, in response to the UN sanctions.
The Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun meanwhile reported on Thursday that Tokyo's defense ministry believes that North Korea might now be planning to launch a two-stage or three-stage Taepodong-2 missile towards either Japan's Okinawa island, Guam or Hawaii.
But the ministry said launches toward Okinawa or Guam were "extremely unlikely" because the first-stage booster could drop into waters off China, agitating Beijing, or hit western Japanese territory, the report said.
If the missile were fired in the direction of Hawaii, the booster could drop in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) well before the missile's remaining part flies over northern Japan and towards North America.
NKorea boots inspectors, vows to restart reactorBy Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer
Tue, Apr 14, 2009
SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea said Tuesday it was restarting its rogue nuclear program, booting U.N. inspectors and pulling out of disarmament talks in an angry reaction to U.N. Security Council condemnation of its April 5 rocket launch. Pyongyang ordered U.N. nuclear inspectors to remove seals and cameras from its Yongbyon nuclear site and leave the country as quickly as possible, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.
North Korea told the IAEA it was "immediately ceasing all cooperation" and "has decided to reactivate all facilities and go ahead with the reprocessing of spent fuel," according to a statement from the U.N. agency.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs condemned the decision, saying the international community will not accept North Korea until it abandons what Washington calls its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The North must "cease its provocative threats," he said.
Russia also deplored the move and urged its neighbor to rejoin six-nation talks, which have been held since 2003 in an attempt to get Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and other concessions. Britain's Foreign Office said the break with the IAEA was "completely unjustified."
China — Pyongyang's main ally and the host of the talks — called for calm on all sides.
Despite its defiance, analysts say North Korea, one of the poorest countries in the world, is unlikely to abandon the talks altogether. They suggested North Korea could be trying to draw the United States into direct negotiations, which it has long sought.
Hajime Izumi, a North Korea expert at the University of Shizuoka in Japan, said the North Korean reaction was designed to "bring the United States to the negotiating table and squeeze maximum concessions from it."
All 15 members of the Security Council, including China and Russia, agreed Monday to condemn the April 5 launch as a violation of U.N. resolutions and to tighten sanctions against the regime. The U.N. statement was weaker than the resolution Japan and the United States had pursued.
North Korea claims it launched a communications satellite as part of a peaceful bid to develop its space program as Kim Jong Il embarked on his third term as leader. The U.S. and others call the launch an illicit test of the technology used to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile, even one eventually destined for the U.S.
A Security Council resolution passed in 2006, days after North Korea carried out an underground nuclear test, prohibits Pyongyang from engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity — including launching rockets that use the same delivery technology as missiles mounted with warheads, Washington and other nations say.
Under a 2007 six-party deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. In June 2008, North Korea famously blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.
But disablement came to halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its 18,000-page account of past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.
On Tuesday, North Korea said it would restart nuclear facilities, an apparent reference to its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea already is believed to have enough plutonium to produce at least a half dozen atomic bombs.
But David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected secret proliferators, said restarting a reactor isn't so simple, and kicking out the inspectors could be posturing.
"Worse things have happened. It's the easiest thing North Korea can do to express its anger," he said.
"You can't just turn on a reactor in a couple weeks. They could test a nuclear device, but it would be such an escalation that the parties-that-be internationally would have to respond negatively. Kicking out the monitors is something that easily can be reversed and not cause that much harm."
He said it would take fuel-deficient North Korea six months to a year to restart the reactor.
Nuclear expert Whang Joo-ho of Kyung Hee University in South Korea estimated it could take even longer to get Yongbyon's reactor and reprocessing facilities running again. He described the Soviet-designed reactor as "functionally outdated," saying it may not even pose a security threat if fully restored.
However, the threats could be enough to get President Barack Obama's attention, especially with two American reporters — Euna Lee and Laura Ling of Current TV — still in North Korean custody since last month. Pyongyang has threatened to put them on trial for illegal entry and "hostile acts."
Japan says ready to shoot down NKorea missile
by Kyoko Hasegawa Kyoko Hasegawa – Thu Mar 26, 11:45 pm ET;_ylt=AtveAC3SQifc3HoHaQkeQhHZn414 TOKYO (AFP) – Japan gave its military the green light on Friday to shoot down any incoming North Korean rocket, with tensions high ahead of a planned launch that the US and allies say will be an illegal missile test.
Japanese and US warships have already deployed ahead of the April 4-8 window, when the secretive North has said it will launch a communications satellite.
Pyongyang has said any move to shoot it down would be an act of war.
But South Korea, Japan and the United States have all warned the North that any launch would be unacceptable, amid fears the regime is actually intending to test a long-range missile that could reach North America.
The security council in Japan, where pacificism has been official policy since the end of World War II, decided ahead of time to shoot down any incoming missile that could hit its territory rather than wait until a launch.
"The security council this morning decided to issue a destruction order in advance," said Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada.
"We will do our best to handle any flying object from North Korea."
The North said Thursday that even referring a launch to the United Nations would ruin the long-running and erratic six-nation nuclear disarmament talks, during which North Korea has already tested one missile and an atomic bomb.
US National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said the North wanted to show it had the technology to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile.
The North is believed to be preparing to test a Taepodong-2 that could hit Alaska.
"North Korea is attempting to demonstrate an ICBM capability through a space launch," Blair said. "That's what they are up to."
Pyongyang has reportedly already put a rocket onto one of its launch pads, raising the stakes in a delicate diplomatic stand-off that has come just two months into the new US administration of President Barack Obama.
Enigmatic North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il was reported to have suffered a stroke in August, and some analysts speculate he is trying to demonstrate he remains firmly in control of the country.
Though a recent photo showed him looking thin, the North's official media have reported more than three times as many public appearances by Kim so far this year than over the same period in the previous year.
The six-nation talks -- grouping North and South Korea, the United States, China, Russia and Japan -- have offered the North aid and security guarantees in exchange for dismantling its nuclear programme.
North Korea said Thursday that bringing any launch to the United Nations would be a "hostile action" that would end the negotiations.
The United States, which says the launch would violate a UN Security Council resolution, has vowed to do so.
"The six-party talks will become non-existent," a spokesman for the North's foreign ministry told official media.
Senior US, Japanese and South Korean negotiators were to meet in Washington later Friday to discuss the situation. Japan's order for a shoot-down is the first since the nation revised its defence law in 2005.
Asked whether Japan was capable of such an intercept, Defence Minister Hamada said: "We have obviously prepared to be able to do it. I have no doubt we can do it."
North Korea readies missile, makes new threat
By Jonathan Thatcher Jonathan Thatcher – Thu Mar 26, 9:48 am ET
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea said on Thursday that if the international community punishes it for next month's planned missile launch it will restart a nuclear plant that makes weapons grade plutonium.
The secretive state this week put a long-range missile in place for a launch the United States warned would violate U.N. sanctions imposed on Pyongyang for past weapons tests.
The planned launch, seen by some countries as a disguised military exercise, is the first big test for U.S. President Barack Obama in dealing with the prickly North, whose efforts to build a nuclear arsenal have long plagued ties with Washington.
North Korea warned that any action by the U.N. Security Council to punish it would be a "hostile act."
" ... All the processes for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula ... will be brought back to what used to be before their start and necessary strong measures will be taken," the North's foreign ministry spokesman said in comments carried by the official KCNA news agency.
North Korea has frozen its aging nuclear reactor and started to take apart its Yongbyon atomic plant under a deal signed by regional powers in 2005 that called for economic aid and better diplomatic standing for the isolated North in return. Despite the agreement, the North carried out a nuclear test in 2006.
The South Korean daily Chosun Ilbo quoted a diplomatic source as saying the North could fire its Taepodong-2 missile, which has the range to hit U.S. territory, by the weekend.
This is earlier than the April 4-8 timeframe Pyongyang announced for what it says is the launch of a satellite.
"Technically a launch is possible within three to four days," the Chosun Ilbo quoted a diplomatic source in Seoul as saying.
South Korea said the launch would be a serious challenge to security in north Asia, which accounts for one sixth of the global economy. Japan urged North Korea to refrain from action that would destabilize the region.
"We strongly urge the North to immediately stop the launch of a long-range missile, which would be a clear violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution 1718," South Korean Defense Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae told reporters.
Rocket on the PadOn Wednesday, a U.S. counter-proliferation official told Reuters that North Korea appeared to have positioned the rocket on its launch pad.
Another U.S. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said North Korea had placed together two stages of what is expected to be a three-stage rocket.
Once it has been positioned, North Korea will need several days to fuel the rocket which could, in theory, carry a warhead as far as Alaska. The only previous test of the rocket in 2006 ended in failure when it blew apart seconds after lift-off.
South Korea plans to dispatch an advanced destroyer capable of tracking and shooting down missiles to waters off the east coast, Yonhap news agency quoted government sources as saying.
The planned launch and growing tension on the Korean peninsula are beginning to worry financial markets in the South, although so far there has been only minor impact.
"If they really fire something, it would definitely shake the financial markets, but only briefly, as has been the case in many previous cases of provocation and clashes," said Jung Sung-min, a fixed-income analyst at Eugene Futures.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to Mexico, said the launch would deal a blow to six-party talks to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.
Those talks sputtered to a halt in December over disagreement on how to check the North was disabling its nuclear facilities.
"This provocative action ... will not go unnoticed and there will be consequences," she told reporters, repeating earlier warnings it could put the issue before the U.N. Security Council for additional sanctions.
Pyongyang repeated its threat on Thursday to quit the six-party talks, which also involve South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and China, if it was punished.
China to Block More Sanctions?North Korea faces a range of U.N. sanctions and many analysts doubt new ones would get past China -- the nearest Pyongyang has to a powerful ally -- in the Security Council.
China, sticking to its low-key approach, said it hoped all "relevant parties will remain restrained and calm."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cautioned the international community against making rash decisions.
"Do not try to make evaluations before events have occurred," he said in Moscow, while noting U.N. Security Council resolutions should be adhered to.
A successful launch would be a huge boost at home to leader Kim Jong-il, whose illness last year -- widely thought to have been a stroke -- has raised questions over his grip on power.
North Korea has given international agencies notice of the rocket's planned trajectory that would take it over Japan, dropping booster stages to its east and west.
The U.S. military has said it could with "high probability" intercept any North Korean missile heading for U.S. territory, if ordered to do so. Pyongyang says any attempt to shoot down the rocket would be an act of war.
(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen and Paul Eckert in Washington, Arshad Mohammed in Mexico City, and Jack Kim, Jon Herskovitz, Yoo Choonsik and Seo Eun-kyung in Seoul; Editing by Dean Yates)
U.S. Ready to Respond to N.Korea MissileAdmiral Keating Tells ABC News U.S. Prepared to Shoot Down Missile If Obama Gives OK
By Martha Raddatz and Lauren Sher
Feb. 26, 2009
In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Martha Raddatz, Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Commands, said that the military is prepared to shoot down any North Korean ballistic missile -- if President Obama should give the order.
"If a missile leaves the launch pad we'll be prepared to respond upon direction of the president," Keating told ABC News. "I'm not a betting man but I'd go like 60/40, 70/30 that it will, they will attempt to launch a satellite. There's equipment moving up there that would indicate the preliminary stages of preparation for a launch. So I'd say it's more than less likely."
"Should it look like it's not a satellite launch -- that it's something other than a satellite launch -- we'll be ready to respond."
Intelligence reports suggest that North Korea is preparing a long-range missile test. Earlier this week, North Korea announced its plans to send a satellite into orbit as part of its space program.
However, many in the international community assert that North Korea's satellite test is simply a means of concealing a long-range missile test -- a move that would flare existing tension in the region.
Keating said that the military is ready to respond with at least five different systems: destroyer, Aegis cruiser, radar, space-based system and ground-based interceptor. All of these work in conjunction with one another to protect against any missile threat.
Destroyers are fast, multi-purpose warships that can be used in almost any type of naval operation. They would likely play a defensive role, helping to repel an air attack and offering a platform for gunfire and missiles to hit airborne objects.
The Aegis cruiser is part of the Navy's computer-based command and control system that integrates radar and missiles to fight against land, air and sea attacks. For Keating, the Aegis combat system can tracks threats and counter any short- or medium-range missiles.
Radars vary in type and design, but the military would likely employ a range of sea-based and early warning radars to detect the presence of a North Korean missile, track warheads' movement and more easily home in on the position of a missile to knock it down.
Space-based infrared system is a defense system that provides warning of any missile launches, detecting the threat and employing other tools to obliterate it.
Ground-based interceptor is a weapon that seeks and destroys incoming ballistic missiles outside of the earth's atmosphere. Its sensors give the military the ability to locate and obliterate a North Korean missile.
"We will be fully prepared to respond as the president directs," Keating said. "Everything that we need to be ready is ready. So that's ready twice in one sentence, but we're not kidding, it doesn't take much for us to be fully postured to respond."
In the U.S. arsenal is a "very sophisticated and complex, but effective ballistic missile-defense system," Keating says, which would provide a line of attack against any kind of ballistic missile or warhead that springs from a North Korean launch pad.
Ground-based interceptors, he says, will be able to take down an object other than a satellite. And while they have not moved ships into place yet, Keating says he is prepared to do so at a moment's notice.
Experts say that North Korea's announcement of its satellite launch is an attempt to put Pyongyang on President Obama's radar.
"It's a fairly stern test early of President Obama and his administration," Keating said.
Members of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of [North] Korea, a state body, chastised critics Thursday, saying it would retaliate against those who attempt to disrupt its satellite plan. Keating says the U.S. military is keeping a close eye on the launch pad, but does not want to jump the gun.
"We're intentionally being a little more cautious and a little more reserved as to not stimulate unnecessary activity in North Korea," he said. "We want to do no harm, if you will."
Nevertheless, Keating says that his priority first and foremost is defending the United States.
"If that means we detect a missile that is a threat to U.S. territory, then we are going to defend U.S. territory. And [if] we hit what we're aiming at that should be a source of great confidence and reassurance to our allies and partners."

Thursday, March 26, 2009

How Safe Is Our Food? (Part 2)

Farmed Fish Could Give Humans Mad Cow DiseaseTuesday, July 21, 2009 by: S. L. Baker
(NaturalNews) There is probably no illness that has more terrifying symptoms, or a more ghastly outcome, than variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) -- best known as mad cow disease. Abnormal proteins called prions found in brain tissue of cows suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) can cause vCJD in humans who eat meat from the animals. These mad cow disease-causing prions can literally result in people losing their minds because the infectious particles eat away at the brain, leaving tiny sponge-like holes. There is no treatment available and death always follows.
With government regulations notoriously lax when it comes to testing for BSE in the food supply, many people have given up eating beef in hopes of protecting themselves from exposure to mad cow disease. But an article just published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease suggests there may be another ticking time bomb source of vCJD -- farmed fish.
In a paper entitled Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Aquaculture, University of Kentucky neurologist Robert P. Friedland and colleagues point out that fish consumption is widely recommended because omega-3 fatty acids are known to reduce the risks of cardiovascular and Alzheimer's diseases. However, the scientists have doubts that the health benefits of farmed fish outweigh a potentially deadly danger. "We are concerned that consumption of farmed fish may provide a means of transmission of infectious prions from cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, causing variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease," they stated.
Dr. Friedland and his team point out that farmed fish are fed byproducts rendered from cows -- a totally unnatural source of food for fish. The risk of transmission of mad cow disease to humans who eat farmed fish would seem to be slim because there are often barriers between species that help prevent infections. But, according to the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease article, there are several reasons to be concerned about fish spreading mad cow to humans. First, fish could be carriers of the disease from eating infected meat products, even though the fish themselves are not obviously infected or sick. In addition, it is possible that eating prion-infected cow parts could result in fish experiencing pathological changes that permit the prion infection to be transmitted between the two species. Based on these worrisome possibilities, the scientists are calling for government regulators to ban feeding cow meat or bone meal to fish until this common practice can be shown to be safe."We have not proven that it's possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited. Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows," Friedland said in an interview with the Kentucky Post newspaper. "The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe. The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult. Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public," Friedland stated.
Regarding Our July 1, 2009 President’s Choice Fresh Beef Recall
(Updated July 3rd @ 08:20PM)
To Our Valued Customers:We apologize for any concern our President’s Choice beef product recall may have caused you. The health and safety of our customers is paramount to us and we are committed to providing our customers with a clean and safe store environment and offering products that are produced, sourced and handled responsibly.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has issued a warning to not consume certain President’s Choice branded fresh beef products (not frozen), bearing best before dates April 29 to June 16, 2009 inclusive (please see list below). This recall of beef products is related to the expanded recall of beef products in the USA by JBS Swift Beef Company, Greeley, Colorado due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.
The affected products are no longer available on store shelves. Consumers are advised not to consume the affected product. They are advised to check their freezers and return affected products to their local store at the customer service desk for a full refund. We encourage our customers who have any questions about products and our refund policy to please contact President’s Choice Customer Service at 1-888-495-5111 or
The recall involves 24 beef items sold in our stores, not all beef products, as has been reported by some media outlets. Affected products were distributed in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. No affected products were sold in Western Canada. The affected products represent approximately 0.16 per cent of our overall average weekly volume of beef shipped in these regions.
·5 cases of potentially impacted PC Tender and Tasty Beef were distributed in Atlantic Canada, which represents approximately 0.05% of our weekly beef shipment volume
·4 cases of potentially impacted PC Certified Angus Beef were distributed in Quebec, which represents approximately 0.01% of our weekly beef shipment volume
·90 cases of potentially impacted PC Certified Angus Beef were distributed in Ontario, which represents approximately 0.6% of our weekly beef shipment volume
Customers can be assured that Loblaw follows strict health and safety standards for all our products and works closely with vendors and the CFIA to mitigate health risks.
Bakers furious at 'mass medication' of NZ's bread
By David Fisher
May 17, 2009
Supermarket suppliers and bakers want the Government to protect them from lawsuits as questions grow about the health impact of a food additive about to be introduced to all bread.
In four months, bakers will be forced to begin putting a synthetic form of folic acid into almost every loaf made in New Zealand.
This is despite a market research survey carried out by the Government that shows 87 per cent of New Zealanders oppose the move.
The plan aims to reduce the number of brain-damaged babies, although the fall may be a few as four a year.
But new research shows folic acid may cause an increase in colon cancer cases. And another study suggests it may cause colon cancer to grow faster.
The Bakers' Association has labelled the compulsory introduction "mass medication" of the population, and warned that bread containing folic acid will be less safe than it is now.
While about 50 countries already have voluntary schemes, the September introduction would put New Zealand among select few that make it mandatory, or are planning to do so.
The United Kingdom is among them, but it has put plans on hold while it awaits new research.
Ireland canned plans to make adding folic acid mandatory after a voluntary scheme was shown to raise women's folate levels.
New Zealand Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson said the Government was concerned about the scheme, which it had "inherited" from Labour.
"We need to make sure the health benefits outweigh the risk," she said. "We have to make sure the evidence is science-based and not emotion-based. We are concerned and we are looking at it."
Wilkinson said Food Safety Authority officials were preparing advice on the latest research. She expected to take it to Cabinet before the end of the month, when a "course of action" would be decided.
"We have to take into account 87 per cent of New Zealanders didn't want mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid," she said.
The scheme was a favourite of former Health Minister Annette King but never went before Parliament. It was passed under special rules which do not allow the same level of public scrutiny.
The mandatory scheme was developed after it was decided the current scheme - in which specific brands are fortified with folic acid - was unsuccessful.
Neither the Food Safety Authority nor the Ministry of Health could say if any money had been spent on a public education campaign to promote the voluntary scheme.
Papers released under the Official Information Act show the authority told Wilkinson that "research on the health effects of folic acid, both positive and negative, is a rapidly developing area".
It said any "public health risk" would be "acted upon immediately" but New Zealand might not be able to pull out of the scheme without causing a diplomatic rift with Australia.
Both countries are subject to the transtasman Food Standards Australia New Zealand agency, which led compulsory introduction in both countries.
Wilkinson is the sole New Zealand minister on the group that runs the agency.
Briefing papers supplied to her before a meeting with supermarket and bakers' representatives last month warn that pulling out of the scheme "would be likely to have an undesirable effect on the Australia and New Zealand relationship".
Wilkinson said she had consulted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and had also raised her concerns at the latest meeting of the transtasman council.
Bakers' Association head Laurie Powell said it was difficult to address the issue because the industry did not want to put consumers off bread. "Our products are safe but probably not as safe with folic acid."He confirmed concerns about the scheme had led the association to ask the Government for legal indemnity.
"If it is found in 15 years' time this stuff is bad and it causes health problems, we would be sued," he said.
Powell was also concerned the industry could not regulate the amount of folic acid going into each individual loaf.
"It is a mass medication experiment that won't work," he said. "A trip to your baker should not be a trip to the pharmacy."
Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said there was no good reason to medicate an entire nation without clear benefits and known risks.
"They are embarking on a medical experiment of grand proportions," she said. "If there are long-term effects and the Government is keen on adding folic acid, they should indemnify."
Authority officials confirmed pregnant women would not get enough folic acid from fortified bread and would still need to take supplements.
They said it was not possible to eliminate risk from any food product, but thorough monitoring would pick up any health problems.
What's happening to bread?
From September, all producers will be forced to put folic acid into bread. The only exceptions will be loaves made from scratch by a small number of bakers, organic bread and unleavened bread.
Why is it being done?
Higher levels of folic acid in pregnant women reduce the number of babies born with neural tube defects, which result in serious brain damage. Compulsory fortification is expected to reduce numbers by 4-14 cases a year. It has other health benefits, with some studies suggesting it prevents premature births.
Is it safe?
Probably, although there are concerns over new research which shows folic acid at higher levels can accelerate the growth of cancer cells in the colon and prostate. Research has also shown that it causes fundamental changes in genes in the colon and liver.
What happens next?
Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson has asked her officials for a briefing on the latest research and plans taking the results to Cabinet. She may call on colleagues to can the scheme, although has been warned that doing so could harm diplomatic relations with Australia.
Fruit and Vegetable Allergies Soaring
Dr. Mercola
May 02 2009
Cases of oral allergies to fruit and vegetables are rapidly increasing, according to a specialist.
Dr. Pamela Ewan, an allergy consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, England, said the rise in cases appears to be outstripping even peanut allergies. Dr. Ewan, who sees more than 8,000 people with allergies a year, said that most patients with reactions to fruit and vegetables were youngsters.
Symptoms can include swelling in the mouth and throat, and breathing difficulties.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:According to Dr. Ewan in the article above, the UK has seen a big rise in the number of food allergy cases just in the past four to five years. But it’s been a rapidly rising trend for longer than that. One 2006 study published in the medical journal Thorax found a 400 percent increase in hospitalizations due to food allergies in the UK since 1990, and admissions for anaphylaxis had increased by 600 percent.
Some of the most allergenic foods include pasteurized milk, soy, and wheat (gluten), but fruit and vegetable allergies are on the rise and now rival peanuts in terms of allergic reactions.
What’s Causing the Rise in Fruit and Vegetable Allergies?Fruits and vegetables are typically considered to be very healthy foods, not to mention essential for optimal health, so what could be causing this dramatic rise in allergic reactions to them?
According to Dr Adam Fox, a consultant pediatric allergist at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital in London, there appears to be a cross-reactivity between the proteins in pollen, such as birch, and certain fruits, such as apples and pears. So if you’re allergic to pollen, you may be more prone to develop allergies to certain foods as well.
Other specialists agree with this hypothesis, adding that particles from diesel exhaust may be exacerbating the problem by making pollen even more allergenic.
Another possibility is the increase in genetically modified fruits and vegetables. No one knows the full extent of what happens to the end product when you splice in new genes, and then eat that product for several years, or generations.
The only thing that is guaranteed is that it will create surprise side effects, and perhaps the radical rise in food allergies we’re now seeing is only the beginning…
One thing we do know is that between 1994 and 2001 -- the same time that GMO’s flooded the market – food related illnesses DOUBLED.GMO foods can be:
• Allergenic• Toxic• Carcinogenic• Anti-nutritional
GMO’s may also create brand new diseases that we’ve never seen before, in addition to spurring on the disease rate of some we already have, such as cancer.Multiple Allergies Also on the Rise
Specialists are also reporting a significant rise in the number of people suffering from several allergies at once. Allergic symptoms are also becoming more severe, causing acute pain, and in some cases even death.
In another recent BBC article, Dr. Jonathan North, a consultant immunologist in Birmingham, stated that allergy cases in the UK have risen from 15 percent of the population to closer to 40 percent.
In the U.S., an estimated 55 percent of the population test positive to one or more allergens!
Many specialists believe the rise in eczema is a significant contributing factor to the allergy epidemic – a sort of “gateway” that can enable other allergies to develop. The broken, scaly skin that is a major symptom of eczema can allow other allergens to enter your body, prompting your immune system to react to it as an enemy invader.
However, eczema can also be caused by food allergies, so if you suffer from eczema, you may also have a hidden food allergy or sensitivity. For simple, effective strategies that can help you get this common skin condition under control, please review my recent article on this topic.
Airborne fungal spores released from mold, which are common in the air you breathe daily, can also increase your risk of multiple allergies according to a study by University of Cincinnati researchers.
Since molds can grow on any moist surface in your home, the high humidity of the summer season signals increased mold growth, and potentially more health problems for your entire family.
Along with obvious places such as shower stalls, air conditioners and damp basements, there can be many hidden sources of mold in your home. Particularly if you have had plumbing problems or leaks in your roof, mold may grow and release spores from places such as drywall, carpet or padding, even wood.
Mold spores are very difficult to destroy, even with cleaning agents such as hot water or bleach (which is itself toxic). The best way to reduce the problem is through smart preventive measures. Hands-down, the most effective and simple overall solution to fight all the sources of mold in your home is to use a superior-quality air purifier.
How to Figure Out What Foods You’re Allergic toOne of the easiest and most powerful actions you can take if you believe you are suffering from a food allergy is to do a diet elimination challenge. Simply remove all foods that contain what you believe you are allergic to and see if your symptoms improve over the next few days. You may need to go as long as five days to give it a full trial.
If the symptoms disappear in one day, of course you have your answer. The real clincher, though, is to reintroduce the food or drink (on an empty stomach). If the suspected food is the culprit you will generally be able to feel the symptoms return within an hour.
This can be difficult if you eat a lot of processed foods, as these often contain "hidden" ingredients like corn, milk, soy, wheat, yeast and artificial additives that are often problematic. The most suspect foods will be those eaten daily or more than once a week, as well as foods that you crave or eat at night.
In extreme cases where it is difficult to isolate the offending food, you may even need to go on a fast to see if your symptoms resolve.
Remember, you can also be sensitive to food additives like artificial colors, preservatives and flavor enhancers (MSG), so avoiding processed foods can also help. And, although the jury is still out on the health effects of cloned foods, I am willing to bet they’re not without ramifications.
Why it is Vital to Address Your Food AllergiesIt’s important to realize that if you don't take measures to address your food allergies, you can end up with permanent, long-term damage. Allergies can put constant and unnecessary stress on your immune system that will weaken it over time, possibly leading to chronic or degenerative disease.
Once you’ve identified the foods you are allergic to, you will want to avoid them as much as possible. Your symptoms will likely disappear or improve once you reduce your exposure.
In terms of food sensitivities, a comprehensive nutritional approach is vital, and most people's sensitivities dramatically improve when they follow my nutrition plan. This includes avoiding sugar, fruit juices, most grains, pasteurized dairy products, and wheat gluten. Making sure you’re getting enough high quality animal-based omega-3 fats can also be helpful. I recommend krill oil as an optimal source of healthy omega-3s. Adding “good bacteria” to your gut by taking a high quality probiotic can also be beneficial when dealing with food sensitivities and allergies.
Spice recall expanded because of salmonella threat
By The Associated Press – Wed Apr 15, 2009;_ylt=ApcnY6J7o9UeGcHCqRNQXi0DW7oF Union International Food Co. is expanding a spice recall to include all Lian How brand and Uncle Chen brand sauces, oil and oil blends in various size packages because the products may be contaminated with salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections, especially in young children, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. The company had previously recalled Lian How brand and Uncle Chen brand dry spices.
California state health department officials say the salmonella outbreak has sickened 33 people throughout northern and central California, and nine others in Nevada, Oregon and Washington. No deaths have been reported. Officials say most of the people sickened appeared to have been exposed to salmonella while eating at Asian restaurants that used the company's spices.
The company said salmonella was isolated from an open container of Lian How white pepper.
The Uncle Chen and Lian How brand products were distributed to retailers, wholesalers, distributors, restaurant suppliers and restaurants. [For a complete list of spices, etc., go to;_ylt=ApcnY6J7o9UeGcHCqRNQXi0DW7oF]
Cocktail of Pharmaceuticals Found in the Fish Caught Near Major U.S. CitiesThursday, March 26, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Pharmaceutical pollution is out of control, polluting the waterways of our world to such a disturbing degree that now even the fish are carrying detectable levels of pharmaceuticals in their own bodies! A study conducted by Baylor University researcher Bryan Brooks, and published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, examined fish caught near Phoenix, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia and Orlando, testing them for residues of pharmaceuticals. And what did the results show? That fish are contaminated with a chemical cocktail of prescription medications!The research was funded by a $150,000 grant from the EPA, and it found the fish to be contaminated with:• Seven different pharmaceuticals, including cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, allergy drugs and psychiatric medications used to treat bipolar disorder and depression.• Two different chemicals used as artificial fragrance in soaps.These trace chemicals were found in fish near all of the sites tested... except for one: In order to establish a baseline reference of healthy, non-contaminated fish, researchers also caught fish in the Gila River Wilderness Area of New Mexico, which is far from any cities or developments. Care to guess what they found there? No pharmaceuticals contamination whatsoever.It is quite clear from this research that pharmaceuticals have become a widespread source of chemical pollution that has permeated delicate aquatic ecosystems and now poses a serious threat to our environment.
Big Pharma pollutes the world
Big Pharma's drugs pollute the world TWICE: First in the minds and bodies of those who take them, and then secondly in the rivers and oceans where toxic residues of the pharmaceuticals inevitably accumulate.Remember this: Every pill of every pharmaceutical that is manufactured for Big Pharma eventually ends up in the environment! Probably at least half of them are just flushed down the toilet or washed down the drains, which remains standard practice at hospitals.Strikingly, pharmaceuticals are not currently regulated by the EPA even though they pose a significant (and growing) risk to the environment. There is no question, for example, that pharmaceuticals are toxic to fish and aquatic mammals in much the same way they are toxic to humans.Pill-pushing apologists, of course, claim that the trace levels of pharmaceutical found in the fish are so low that they are of no concern whatsoever. To that ridiculous standard of safety, I say, "Prove it!"To date, there have been absolutely no safety tests conducted on the combinations of pharmaceuticals that are being found in public water supplies, waterways and oceans around the world. Anyone who says these chemicals are safe is merely taking a wild (and foolish) guess. They are also probably working for Big Pharma.It is not the responsibility of environmentalists to prove that such chemicals are toxic to the environment. Rather, it is the duty of drug companies to prove their chemicals are SAFE for the environment! And that, by the way, cannot be done, because these drugs are, in reality, toxic to virtually all life forms, even at low doses. The drug companies, bluntly stated, are killing the life on our planet.
Big Pharma is guilty of crimes against nature
The pharmaceutical residues found in fish aren't the only environmental problem with these drugs. Even the manufacture of pharmaceuticals is extremely toxic to the environment.
Read this story entitled India's Waterways A Toxic Stew of Pharmaceutical Chemicals Dumped from Big Pharma Factories ( It tells the true story of enormous quantities of antibiotics being dumped into India's rivers due to the manufacturing practices of American pharmaceutical companies.Furthermore, last year an Associated Press report revealed pharmaceutical contamination of the public water supplies of 24 major U.S. cities ( reality, the water supplies of virtually ALL cities are contaminated with pharmaceuticals. They just haven't done all the testing yet.As I stated in that article:The mass medication of America has now turned into a grand medical experiment that exposes infants, children, expectant mothers, senior citizens, voters, law enforcement officers, doctors and everybody else to a combination of drugs known to have extremely dangerous, mind-altering side effects when taken in full doses. And yet this mass medication of the population is being conducted with no doctor visits, no prescriptions, no consent and no medical assessment whatsoever. It is essentially a mandatory medication carpet-bombing of the entire population.
Big Pharma has become a threat to life on EarthThe drug companies are not merely a threat to your pocketbook and your own personal health; through the mass chemical contamination of the world's waterways, these drugs companies have actually become a threat to life on our planet.That's why I say it is within our rights as human beings living on this planet to call for the arrest and prosecution of Big Pharma's executives for their crimes against humanity and crimes against nature. They have polluted our planet with dangerous toxic chemicals, they have contaminated our public water supplies, and they have denied any responsibility whatsoever for their role in spreading their poisons and endangering the health of people who don't even take medications!I anxiously await the day that Big Pharma executives are marched through the streets, in handcuffs, on the way to their trials for crimes against humanity.That day is coming. And when these criminals are removed from society and prevented from doing further harm to our children, our family members, our water supply and our environment, the world will be a much healthier -- and safer -- place to live.Big Pharma is a danger to life on our planet, and the sooner this poisonous industry is stopped, the sooner we can see our personal and planetary health restored.
The Little-Known Secrets about Bleached Flour Dr. Mercola
March 26 2009
Nearly everyone knows that white flour is not healthy for you, but most people don’t know that when white flour is bleached, it can actually be FAR worse for you.
It’s generally understood that refining food destroys nutrients. With the most nutritious part of the grain removed, white flour essentially becomes a form of sugar. Consider what gets lost in the refining process:
Half of the beneficial unsaturated fatty acids
Virtually all of the vitamin E
Fifty percent of the calcium
Seventy percent of the phosphorus
Eighty percent of the iron
Ninety eight percent of the magnesium
Fifty to 80 percent of the B vitamins
And many more nutrients are destroyed -- simply too many to list.
The Journey of the Wheat BerryHave you ever wondered how white flour is made?
The website Healthy Eating Politics has an interesting article about the process.
Most commercial wheat production is, unfortunately, a “study in pesticide application,” beginning with the seeds being treated with fungicide. Once they become wheat, they are sprayed with hormones and pesticides. Even the bins in which the harvested wheat is stored have been coated with insecticides. If bugs appear on the wheat in storage, they fumigate the grain.
A whole grain of wheat, sometimes called a wheat berry, is composed of three layers:
The bran
The germ
The endosperm
The bran is the layer where you’ll find most of the fiber, and it’s the hard outer shell of the kernel. The germ is the nutrient-rich embryo that will sprout into a new wheat plant. The endosperm is the largest part of the grain (83 percent), making up most of the kernel, and it’s mostly starch.
White flour is made from the endosperm only, whereas whole-wheat flour combines all three parts of the wheat berry.
Old time mills ground flour slowly, but today’s mills are designed for mass-production, using high-temperature, high-speed steel rollers. The resulting white flour is nearly all starch, and even much of today’s commercially processed whole wheat flour has lost a fair amount of nutritional value due to these aggressive processing methods.
White flour contains a small fraction of the nutrients of the original grain, with the heat of the steel rollers having destroyed what little nutrients remain. But then it is hit with another chemical insult--a chlorine gas bath (chlorine oxide). This serves as a whitener, as well as an “aging” agent.
Flour used to be aged with time, improving the gluten and thus improving the baking quality. Now, it is treated with chlorine to instantly produce similar qualities in the flour (with a disturbing lack of concern about adding another dose of chemicals to your food).
According to Jim Bair, Vice President of the North American Millers Association:
“Today, the US milling industry produces about 140 million pounds of flour each day, so there is no way to store the flour to allow it to age naturally. Plus, there is a shelf life issue.”
It has not been determined how many mills are bleaching flour with chorine oxide, but we do know the use of chlorides for bleaching flour is considered an industry standard.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines chlorine gas as a flour-bleaching, aging and oxidizing agent that is a powerful irritant, dangerous to inhale, and lethal. Other agents also used include oxides of nitrogen, nitrosyl, and benzoyl peroxide mixed with various chemical salts.
The chlorine gas undergoes an oxidizing chemical reaction with some of the proteins in the flour, producing alloxan as an unintended byproduct. Bair and other milling industry leaders claim that bleaching and oxidizing agents don’t leave behind harmful residues in flour, although they can cite no studies or published data to confirm this.
Why Bleaching Makes White Flour Even WorseIt has been shown that alloxan is a byproduct of the flour bleaching process, the process they use to make flour look so “clean” and -- well, white. No, they are technically not adding alloxan to the flour -- although you will read this bit of misinformation on the Internet. But, they are doing chemical treatments to the grain that result in the formation of alloxan in the flour.
With so little food value already in a piece of white bread, now there is potentially a chemical poison lurking in there as well.
So what is so bad about alloxan?Alloxan, or C4 H2O4N2, is a product of the decomposition of uric acid. It is a poison that is used to produce diabetes in healthy experimental animals (primarily rats and mice), so that researchers can then study diabetes “treatments” in the lab. Alloxan causes diabetes because it spins up enormous amounts of free radicals in pancreatic beta cells, thus destroying them.
Beta cells are the primary cell type in areas of your pancreas called islets of Langerhans, and they produce insulin; so if those are destroyed, you get diabetes.
There is no other commercial application for alloxan -- it is used exclusively in the medical research industry because it is so highly toxic.
Given the raging epidemic of diabetes and other chronic diseases in this country, can you afford to be complacent about a toxin such as this in your bread, even if it is present in small amounts?
Just How Much is Too Much?Similar to disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in water, alloxan is formed when the chlorine reacts with certain proteins remaining in the white flour after the bran and germ have been removed. Protein makes up between 5 percent and 15 percent of white flour, depending on whether it’s cake flour, or high-gluten flour, such as what’s used for pizza crust or bagels.
So, this would suggest that perhaps 5 to 15 grams of protein per 100 grams of flour could be contaminated.
However, according to Professor Joe Schwarcz, Director of the McGill University Office of Science and Society, alloxan is the byproduct of xantophyll oxidation only. Xantophylls are yellow compounds in wheat that react with oxygen, causing flour to turn white.
According to Mr. Schwarcz:
“One of the possible minor side products of xantophyll oxidation is alloxan. It may therefore be found in small amounts in flour. There is no available research that shows trace amounts are a problem or that alloxan builds up in the body. The amounts, if present at all, must be small because xantophylls themselves only occur to the extent of 1 microgram per gram of flour.”
Alloxan has not been studied in terms of human exposure, particularly long-term. There is just so much we don’t know, and you know what assumptions will get you.
Alloxan in Rats vs Alloxan in Humans
Scientists have long known that alloxan produces selective destruction of the beta cells of the pancreas, causing hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis in laboratory animals. Alloxan is structurally similar to glucose, which might explain why the pancreatic beta cells selectively take it up.
According to Dr. Hari Sharma’s Freedom from Disease, alloxan causes free radical damage to DNA in the beta cells of the pancreas, causing them to malfunction and die. When they fail to function normally, they no longer produce enough insulin.
Even though the toxic effect of alloxan is common scientific knowledge in the research community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still allows companies to use chemical processes in which the end result is toxic food. Until they unequivocally prove something is toxic by way of human deaths, severe side effects, or when the public screams loudly enough, the FDA is not likely to protect you.
Until then, it is you who must protect yourself.
If you have diabetes, or cancer, have a compromised immune system, or if you are in some other high-risk category as tens of millions of North Americans are, you need to know what foods contain hazardous ingredients so you can avoid them. But in the case of alloxan, there is no way to know, either by reading the ingredient list or by any other means, that it might be in your food!
History of Bleaching Flour -- Pillsbury and the FDAAn interesting sideline to this whole flour story lies in the origins of the FDA.
Bleaching and oxidizing agents weren’t developed to produce quick aging of wheat flour (within 48 hours) until the early 1900s. Prior to that, it required several months for oxygen to condition flour naturally.
When bleaching was introduced, it was vehemently opposed.
The first major consumer advocate was Harvey W. Wiley, MD, who eventually became known as the “Father of the Pure Food and Drugs Act” of 1906. Mr. Wiley was head of the Bureau of Chemistry, which was the precursor to the FDA. Wiley crusaded against benzoic acid, sulfites, saccharin, and bleached flour, among other food additives and adulterants.
Dr. Wiley felt so strongly about preventing the bleaching of flour that he took it all the way to the Supreme Court. They ruled that flour could not be bleached or “adulterated” in any way. However, it was never enforced.
Wiley believed that foods posed a greater risk to the public than adulterated or misbranded drugs. He constantly butted heads with Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson and President Roosevelt over food regulation.
Soon, Wiley’s personal administrative authority was undercut when Wilson created the Board of Food and Drug Inspection in 1907 and the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts in 1908, one of which was reportedly headed by someone who had been working at Pillsbury, although I have not been able to verify this addendum.
Finally, in 1912, Dr. Wiley quit as director out of frustration, although he continued as a vocal consumer advocate for many years.
The government replaced Dr. Wiley with Dr. Elmer Nelson. Dr. Nelson was the polar opposite to Wiley , and was quoted as saying:
”It is wholly unscientific to state that a well-fed body is more able to resist disease than a poorly fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove that dietary deficiencies make one susceptible to disease.”
Therein lies the foundation of the FDA. Since Dr. Wiley resigned, the FDA has continued to shift its focus on drugs, since Wiley was never able to convince the government of the dangers from chemicals in our foods. He was truly a pioneer and a century ahead of his time!
Food For Thought
The important point to take away is, beware of any processed food because chemicals are always used. And we simply don’t know what the long-term effects will be of ingesting chemicals, on top of chemicals, on top of more chemicals.
Strive to stick to whole unprocessed foods that are as close to their natural state as possible. If you’re going to eat grains, make sure they are at the least unbleached, whole, and organic, and eat them in the proportion that is best for your nutritional type.
Also See:
Unbleached FlourPosted by suburbanchef
July 10, 2007
I despise bleached flour, as it is a clever way to hide CLOROX or GASOLINE in your bread. Yes, the chemical compounds of the bleach that they use in preparing bleached flour are the same as that of clorox or gas. Think about that the next time you are biting into one of those fluffy hot dog buns.
However, this is not to say that all white flours are equally nutrient averse. While most white flours are seriously devoid of vitamins, fiber or any other good-for-you substance, UN-bleached white flour does not have the extra toxicity that bleached flour does.
The difference comes from the way that the flour is prepared. Unbleached flour has the germ and the bran removed from the wheat kernel, but the flour is then allowed to whiten naturally through exposure to air. Bleached flour is told not to wait, but to take a bath in bleach to speed up the process so that more flour goes out the door. Its a matter of modern industry verses nutritional value.
So what do I do? Well, look at the nutritional labels on the food which you purchase. Unless it clearly says “Unbleached flour” or “whole wheat flour,” it is bleached. Sad, I know. But that is the world we live in. Nature’s Own and most organic products are not made with bleached flour.
A note about UN-bleached white flour: Just because it is unbleached does not mean that it is good for you. White flour is made from the wheat kernel that has had the bran (fiber) and the germ (fiber, vitamins, good oils) removed. When your body processes white flour, it sees a simple sugar. That means that it is basically the same as you eating a slice of sugar. Your body will experience a sugar spike, and then drop (white flour has a high glycemic index). It will then turn into a sort of paste in your GI tract. In other words, white flour is like sugar which clogs your intestines. Not exactly a good thing.
The important thing is to avoid bleached flour as much as possible and to incorporate more whole grains and vegetables into your diet, not to completely nix white flour altogether. King Arthur Flour is a good brand to stick by, as I don’t think that they ever bleach their flour.
Top Ten Worst Foods
Top Ten Worst Drinks
The Shocking Dangers of MSG You Don’t KnowDr. Mercola
August 28 2007
A silent killer that’s worse than alcohol, nicotine, and drugs is likely lurking in your kitchen cabinets and even your child’s school cafeteria. It’s monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer that’s known widely as an addition to Chinese food, but that’s actually added to thousands of the foods you eat.
In this telling three-part video series, you’ll find out why Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board-certified neurosurgeon, describes MSG as a dangerous excitotoxin, and learn how this toxin could be making you fat.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
MSG is used in countless foods in your supermarket, local restaurants, school cafeterias, and more. Everything from soup to crackers to meats may contain it because MSG, as dangerous as it is, makes food taste good and it is dirt cheap, just like sugar.
Incredibly, even infant formulas and baby food contain this poison, even though babies and infants, who are four times more sensitive than adults to the toxic effects of this chemical, are the most at risk.
There are a couple of main reasons why MSG is one of the worst food additives on the market. First, as Dr. Blaylock, author of the highly recommended Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, says in the video, MSG is an excitotoxin, which means that it overexcites your cells to the point of damage, acting as a poison. The second part of the equation is that MSG can be literally hidden in food labels, under names like broth, casein, hydrolyzed, autolyzed, and more, making it extremely difficult to identify.
MSG is also a probable cause contributing to the obesity epidemic. As the FDA continues to vouch for its safety, scientists have known that MSG causes obesity since the 1960s! It is clearly not worth a few bites of tasty junk food to give your body the green light to produce visceral fat, the most dangerous type that surrounds your organs and increases your risk of heart attack, stroke, insomnia, type 2 diabetes, and more. Yet, that is exactly what you’re doing when you eat foods that contain MSG.
Eliminating MSG from your diet is a wise choice for everyone, including pregnant women. To do so, stick to natural, unprocessed foods. And, if you do eat processed foods, be on the lookout for the many hidden names for MSG on food labels. They include (but are far from limited to):
Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (HVP)
Yeast Extract
Malted Barley
Rice Syrup or Brown Rice Syrup
MSG Now Used to Spray CropsWednesday, April 29, 2009 by: Paul Louis Fassa
(NaturalNews) Just when many concerned, health conscious citizens have become aware of the dangers of MSG enough to avoid it, a large agricultural fertilizer and pesticide company, Emerald BioAgriculture, has an MSG tainted "growth enhancer," Auxigro, that has been used to spray on crops since the late 1990`s.
Emerald BioAgriclture`s sales and influence is spreading, and governmental protection agencies are simply stepping aside. Though the Emerald BioAgriculture`s PR promotes that their products are environmentally sound and safe, there is opposition and concern over that. Especially since a main ingredient is the essence of MSG itself.
So it seems to be another sneaky attempt at getting the human race dosed on MSG. Those sneaky attempts have included disguising MSG with labels on packaged foods that use terms like natural flavors, artificial flavorings, sodium caseinate, yeast extract, spices, plant protein, and several forms of hydrolyzed protein (to mention just a few of the forty or so euphemistic terms used to pass MSG our way). According to labeling legislation, if any additive containing the essential active ingredient of MSG, glutamic acid or free glutamate, is less than 78%, it doesn`t have to be labeled MSG! This is a deceptive technicality, because the product known as MSG contains over 78% free glutamate. But free glutamate itself is the danger. Whether there is 70% or 80% glutamate in any given ingredient, one is consuming a dangerous chemical.
An MSG Summary of HorrorsManufactured free glutamate, or glutamic acid, is a dangerous excitotoxin. Ironically, bound glutamate, which is still attached to protein, is benign in small quantities. But that benign glutamate is a minor byproduct of a body's or plant's metabolism. Synthetic glutamic acid or free glutamate is an excitotoxin that appears in larger, more difficult to metabolize quantities when used as a food additive. Additionally, sometimes carcinogenic chemicals are used in the process of manufacturing synthetic free glutamate.
According to Doctor Russel Blaylock MD, author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, excitotoxins literally excite brain cells to death! He has found that in addition to obesity, several neurological disorders come about as a result of long term aspartame or MSG excitotoxin consumption. The constant increase of MSG, or its essential active ingredient, over the past 60 years in our food chain has corresponded with the surge of type 2 diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer`s, Parkinson`s Disease, and other forms of neurological disorders. Even dementia, which is usually attributed to old age, can be traced to long term excitoxin exposure.
MSG is used liberally in all fast food places as well as in many better sit-down restaurants. All the snack foods and most packaged foods, even those found in health food stores, contain at least one form of disguised free glutamate - in other words, MSG with another name. So the wise, wary, and dedicated to preserving their health simply avoid processed foods and eating out too much. And they read labels carefully while buying organic vegetables, fruits, and bulk grains and beans as much as possible. Free at last from MSG? Not quite.
Spraying Crops With MSG
The agricultural and food industry has returned with another ploy to keep MSG in our food chain. And it`s completely sanctioned and endorsed by so-called protective governmental agencies. According to Truth In Labeling, an ambitious company called Auxein, now Emerald BioAgriculture, created the product called AuxiGro. It contains glutamate. It won`t go into processed and packaged foods. It simply goes into the plants that yield our fruits, vegetables, and nuts. It has been called a crop "growth enhancer" that increases plants' "natural defense systems" against insect infestation, according to Emerald BioAgriculture's website. AuxiGro is sprayed onto plants with excitotoxin glutamate or glutamic acid as a major ingredient. And Emerald BioAgriculture has managed to bully and buy its way. Beginning from the year 1999, it used AuxiGro on several types of vegetable, fruit, and nut crops. They are registered with the EPA for using AuxiGro in most states. They have even finagled their way into California crop spraying, a state that had originally restricted the use of AuxiGro on its crops. Oh those revolving big business/government doors!
And now it is beginning to get even worse. Emerald BioAgriculture is requesting permission to use AuxiGro on organic crops in all states! The fact that the USDA has lowered its standards for organic certification in the past few years gives Emerald BioAgriculture an opening to begin using AuxiGro on organic crops. USDA organic certification is already suspect. It may get worse. So trusting USDA certification as the sole criteria for organic foods may not be so wise.
There are other organic certifications to look for that have more integrity. Local farmers who are organic but not certified are worthy of health conscious consumer business. The Organic Consumers Association website has more information on true organic sources - Truth In Labeling has challenged the EPA on several valid issues. But the EPA has been deceptive while avoiding the queries directly from Truth In Labeling . If you want to be active on this issue, start by visiting their website at
MSG Part 1
MSG Part 2
MSG Part 3
The dangers surrounding MSG are, perhaps, most concerning for new moms who are unable to breastfeed, and are looking for an alternative to the MSG-laden infant formulas on the market. Fortunately, women who are unable to breastfeed can make an extremely nutritious, MSG-free infant formula for their baby using raw milk.
Related Links:The Danger of MSG and How it is Hidden in Vaccines
Why You do NOT Want to Eat Processed Foods
Eye Damage from MSG

Monday, March 23, 2009

When the Absurd Becomes Reality! (Part 1)

******* *******
Eco-'Nuttery' & Global Warming Overreaches (Part 1)By William Hunt, M.S.
August 3, 2009
I am concerned about some really crazy laws being introduced and even passed in our state legislatures and U. S. Federal legislative branch. We are having an epidemic of “do-badders” (thinking they are "do-gooders"), primarily in Federal circles and blue states, coming up with “creative” and very inexpensive ways to “stop” the non-problem of global warming. There are ridiculous predictions of global warming-caused scary Venus-like conditions with dry desert-like areas interspersed with storms causing death and destruction on a Diluvian scale. You would think this was a bad movie script if it were not based on educated yet delusional thinking.
I have detailed the causes of such mis-thinking in my recent book release, Global Warming Challenged, and the results of such illogical thinking are not only all related, but have the same end effect: the increase of costs to taxpayers and businesses, restrictions on freedoms, resulting in NO effectual changes to the climate for the intended results. In our legislative fervor, based on myth and not truth, we are at risk of tearing down our precious personal American freedoms and our powerful free-market society. Let's not let this happen...
Cows: Not Just for Dinner Anymore
Did you know that a punitive tax on cow burps and cow flatulence was lifted at the last moment in the House version of the Waxman-Markey bill - led by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) just prior to it being approved by the House of Representatives. The bill creates a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions— a massive tax increase on all forms of energy— and has a large number of amendments whose ink wasn’t dry before the final vote was taken. Prior to Midwest Democrat congressmen complaining about this tax on cattle emissions, it was revealed that a tax aimed at cutting methane from cows, presumably by reducing the number of cattle , would actually force us to eat other foods. Oh my!
The idea behind that part of the bill was that cows produce methane from both ends, via the action of bacteria. Methane has a higher heat capacity than carbon dioxide and thus the pseudo-environmentalists were complaining that it was X times worse (depends entirely upon the group) than carbon dioxide that affect Global Warming.
Fact: Methane is produced abundantly by natural mechanisms, both biologic and geologic, but makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmospheric gases. Methane is quickly and naturally removed from the atmosphere by several pathways, including atmospheric processes and microorganisms. The factual science of methane creation and removal from the air doesn’t matter to the environmental lobby (environmentalists and the politicians who produce this sort of chartreuse legislation). These gastric (no pun intended) provisions were just recently removed from the Waxman-Markey bill that would have laid a large burden on farmers, ranchers and consumers countrywide.
The proposed tax would have increased the price of milk and milk products, such as cheese, beef and leather goods. The tax was $175 per dairy cow per year and $ 87.50 per year for beef cattle. This would have to be passed along to the consumers by the farmers, but some consumers would buy less, which would result in some of the smaller farmers going out of business.
To give an idea of how silly this is, if the idea of taxing cow burps and cow plops is not silly enough, let’s compare some numbers. According to various sources, there are roughly a billion cows in the world, used for milk, meat and religion (India). The U.S. has approximately a tenth of them with less than one hundred million head. If methane from cows were a problem, what about the other 90% of the cows?
What about the other ruminants in the U.S.? They produce methane the same way. Is there any concern for the thirty million white deer? Several million mule deer? A million elk? A million pronghorns? Moose? Caribou? Some of the eastern U.S. states have more deer than cows.
Why stop there? Non-ruminant mammals produce methane from digestion. Several billion mice, rats, squirrels, rabbits, foxes and other animals in this scenario also could be the culprits.
A Scary Side Note: Some have claimed to reduce the amounts of methane produced by feeding a special diet to cows, but this is expensive, and it would be difficult to verify their claims. The bacterial colonies in intestines are benign and help with food digestion. They have existed as long as intestines have and given what happens when antibiotics kill them off, it’s probably not a very good thing to tamper with them. I’m sure someone will eventually try to come up with a genetically-modified cow that uses some other system, perhaps the alkaline digestive tract that butterflies and moths use to digest food? Given the failure rate for genetically-engineered plants in the lab and the innumerable side effects and failures of engineered plants that are marketed have been shown to possess, that too, would not be a good idea.
Thankfully this particular bit of taxing nonsense was removed from the Waxman-Markey bill at the last minute. It’s frightening that Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and company wanted it in the first place.Beware, as the Environmental Lobby and its groupies are assuming that this or that awful thing will happen as the world “warms.” If the world was actually warming up do to man’s actions, their zeal would be understandable. Yet the preponderance of our science says that Global Warming/Climate Change is 'make believe' and not verifiably scientifically based.
Can You Say 'Insane'?By Lynn Stuter
July 14, 2009
A nominee to replace a retiring Supreme Court Justice is named. What, exactly, are the nominee's qualifications to hold the office? One, the nominee is female; two, the nominee is Hispanic.
These are the sole qualifications upon which Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter! Sotomayor certainly was not nominated for her understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; or her understanding of the rule of law; Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate on appeal of decisions rendered.
Now liberals are quietly suggesting that the media go after the plaintiff in the most recent Supreme Court reversal of a Sotomayor decision; the suggestion being that his history of litigation be used to divert attention from Sotomayor's lack of judicial experience and lack of understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the fact that she is an activist judge who has no respect for the rule of law.
One has to ask what has the plaintiff in Ricci v DeStefano got to do with Sotomayor's judicial record; unless, of course, Sotomayor is admitting that her decision in the Ricci case had more to do with her passions, opinions and prejudices than with the rule of law? Such certainly conforms to her record. And such certainly speaks to the fact that she should never have been even considered as a possibility to fill Souter's seat.
Is Sotomayor's nomination to the United States Supreme Court insane? How could one call it anything else? Insanity seems to be the norm these days!
Beyond her record, Sotomayor is a racist bigot, with connections to racist organizations such as La Raza. That the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) deems anyone opposed to Sotomayor as racist and contends La Raza is a "thoroughly mainstream human rights organization" is telling. But then, intelligent people take the SPLC and Morris 'Sleaze' Dees with the grain of salt they are due.
Sotomayor has no business on the United States Supreme Court.
Yet Senators like Patty Murray (D-WA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), both femi-Nazi's of the first order, go absolutely ga-ga at the very mention of Sotomayor's name! One can almost see the slobber dripping from their chins!
Speaking of Patty Murray, she has engaged in a campaign, in Washington State, to push the usurper's socialized medicine agenda. She is currently soliciting sob stories from people in Washington State regarding health care; claiming those sob stories are proof of a "health care crisis."
She went before the cameras recently to speak of an 11-year-old boy who approached her with the story of how his mother, 27, had died from lack of health care. Senator Murray told how this "hard working" mother, who was "trying to provide for her family" had become ill, lost her job due to her illness, and ultimately, died from her illness.
But folks, let's do the math. The boy was 11; his mother 27. That means she was somewhere in the vicinity of 16 when he was born. An un-wed mother? Maybe; no mention of a father or husband was made. A teenage mother? Definitely.
Why did this teenager end up pregnant? Was it what she was taught in the schools? Was she taught that she should refrain from sexual activity until married or was she taught that she should have sex when it felt right to her as is taught in too many of the government schools today; the same government schools that Patty Murray thinks are just doing a wonderful job of educating children? These are the same schools that view parents as the "silent partner" in the raising and education of the child; the same schools whose goal it is to inculcate in the child the attitudes, values and beliefs (that children are required to demonstrate mastery of) that promote the government agenda of increased power and control over people.
And because this teenager was obviously sexually active, but was neither mature nor responsible as most teenagers aren't, she ended up pregnant which is all too common under the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy of self-indulgence. This same philosophy extends to using drugs and drinking alcohol.
After becoming pregnant, did she finish high-school or did she drop out?
And even if she finished high school, when she started out with few skills and a child to support, what were her chances of getting a good paying job, one with benefits?
Instead of looking at the source of the problem — a teenager who, had she been taught self-discipline instead of self-indulgence, would have had a greater probability of being alive today with a good paying job, one with benefits — Senator Murray sees this situation as an opportunity to wrest more power to government under the claim that lack of health care caused her death. That simply is not true.
And while Senator Murray and her comrades claim there are approximately 45,000,000 uninsured in America today, what she isn't saying is that most of those are illegal aliens; that the illegal alien population is the unnamed reason behind the "health care crisis". Again, the truth that Senator Murray carefully conceals is that if we get rid of the 45,000,000 illegals in this country, that are here in violation of existing law, we get rid of the problem.
The truism that government serves to perpetuate its own interests of power and control is long established—the War of Poverty increased poverty; the War on Drugs increased drug usage; the War on Terror has spent a lot of money and accomplished nothing; Goals 2000 destroyed all vestiges of the ability of a child to receive competent education; and on and on.
The government does nothing that does not serve its purposes of justifying ever-increasing power and control.
And what Senator Murray isn't willing to say, but is the truth, is that 1) having health insurance is no guarantee against dying, and 2) under socialized medicine, this mother would have also died, for socialized medicine is about saving money, not lives. Under socialized medicine, those deemed "useless eaters" — the elderly, indigent, chronically ill, terminally ill — will be denied health care in the name of cost savings!
Senator Murray, and those like her, are playing a shell game. What they claim, and what the truth is, are diametrically opposed. But like the liar in the Oval Office, they will lie to get what they want: more power, more control.
Is it insane to encourage self-destructive behavior in the quest for power? Yes, it is. People who encourage this type behavior do so for their own purposes and not because they "care about people"—the mantra under which they operate. If they truly cared about people, they would do everything in their power to make people self-reliant, independent, and eternally free from the bondage that government, by its very nature, seeks. They would, in every instance, do that which limits the power and control of government.
As with everything the government does, illegal aliens serve a purpose in increasing government power and control:
1. Illegals bring communicable diseases that have to be addressed; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
2. Illegals come to America because of the "free" health care; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
3. Illegals get social benefits; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
4. The children of illegals must be educated; requiring resources the illegals do not pay for.
5. The more illegals who displace American workers, the more Americans who go bankrupt and can't meet their bills; requiring resources the illegals and their employers do not pay for.
6. Every day, legal citizens of the United States are victims of crimes (rape, murder, sodomy, identify theft, drugs, DUI … ) committed by illegal aliens; prosecuting and incarcerating them requires resources the illegals do not pay for.
Again, it's a shell game and the goal is control over people. Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell never saw an illegal alien they didn't just love; so long, that is, as the illegal didn't get so close to them that they might be sullied by the proximity!
Are the people pushing for amnesty for illegals insane? Isn't self-destructive behavior one of the symptoms of insanity? And isn't it self-destructive to allow illegals into this country, and to stay in this country, knowing full well the deleterious affect their being here has on this country?
And who but an insane individual would think up a scheme to tax the people for virtually every breath they take, for their very existence, which, I might add, they had no role in bringing about?
Recently, I suggested to both Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell that if they truly believe the global warming hoax behind the usurper's cap and trade bill (HR 2454), that they do what any decent human being would do and quit exhaling. So far, I've not heard that they've done that.
As such, it becomes readily apparent that they know full well that cap and trade isn't about the environment or global warming; that cap and trade is about government control over people.
Are they insane for supporting cap and trade? Let's put it a bit differently: would a sane person purpose or support legislation based on a hoax?
And what about the individual on whose behalf that legislation was written; who has supported it wholeheartedly: the usurper of the Oval Office, the occupier of the White House, who isn't sure which hospital in Hawaii he wasn't born at?
Is he any more sane than the legislation he supports?
Who, in their right mind, would
1. support the spending of money they don't have to spend?2. support policies specifically intended to destroy people's lives and enslave them?3. support the transformation of America from a constitutional republic to a participatory democracy such as the U.S.S.R. was?4. stand before the American people and state that America is the greatest nation in the world, "help me change it."5. travel about the world apologizing left and right for what he perceives are America's character flaws—freedom and liberty?6. paint a target on the forehead of every American serving overseas by releasing classified information regarding terrorist interrogations tactics?7. support legislation that will kill people in the name of cost savings?8. do everything within their power to destroy the economy of the United States of America?
Is the usurper insane? I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious!
When one puts the ideology of the left in context, it becomes very apparent that those who pursue the leftist ideology are truly insane individuals.
This gives a whole new perspective to the claim that Washington, DC is an insane asylum and the inmates are truly running the asylum. They make the character of Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look perfectly lucid!
The question is, why do the American people simply not fence DC in and keep the inmates from destroying the rest of the country?
Better yet, how about we give them a taste of their own medicine. Insane people, under universal health care, are deemed "useless eaters" and useless eaters are allowed to die to save money.
How can I say such a thing?
It's time people wake up to the reality. To quote Alan Stang's immutable laws of war:
• Law One: If you don’t know you are in a war, you will lose. • Law Two: If you don’t know you are in a battle to the death, you will die.
The usurper in the Oval Office, the occupier of the White House, and his minions in government, have declared war on the United States of America.
We have a choice; we can either fight to win or we can do nothing and lose our nation and our freedom.
More Scandals Haunt SotomayorBy Cliff Kincaid
June 11, 2009
Bill O’Reilly has declared, “I don’t think she’s a racist,” in regard to Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though it turns out that her comment about a Latina woman making better decisions than a white man was repeated on several occasions. O’Reilly turns a blind eye to her raw display of racism because he doesn’t want to be accused of being a racist himself. This is how cowardly the sponsor of the “No Spin Zone” has become in the face of a politically correct “debate” that has already forced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to retract his charge of racism against her.
False accusations against white people are tolerated by the media, even the conservative media. This is why Al Sharpton is a frequent guest on the O’Reilly show, despite his participation in the Tawana Brawley hoax, whereby he falsely accused a group of white men of raping a black woman.
But accurate accusations of racism against members of minority groups who make racist statements are not tolerated. That is why Gingrich backed away from his accurate comments, and why O’Reilly said he didn’t want to have anything to do with them.
“When I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist, but I applied it to her as a person,” Gingrich said on Face the Nation. “The truth is, I don’t know her as a person.” Gloria Borger on CNN reported that Republican senators had asked Gingrich to retract the charge. More cowardice.
Yet the words themselves were evidence of racism. What’s more, she had made the same kind of statement on different occasions.
It is obvious that Gingrich will never “know her” in the sense of sitting down with her for hours and exchanging views. Conclusions have to be based on what people say and do. And when someone assumes a position of gender and racial superiority over others, what other conclusion can you come to, except that he or she is a racist? Even Obama agreed that the statement was a poor choice of words. It was a controversy, if given the media coverage it deserved, that could have seriously damaged the nominee because it gets to the heart of what she personally believes and thinks about America.
However, there’s another major controversy lurking—her anti-American views, despite having benefited from extraordinary opportunities in America. And then there’s a political speech she made, in violation of judicial ethics, hailing Obama’s election and calling on the legal profession to implement the Obama agenda. Any one of these scandals could sink her nomination—if the media do their duty and cover them.
Ironically, some of this has already surfaced on a far-left radio show, where Puerto Rican political writer and analyst Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua said that Judge Sotomayor is “not a daughter of the American Revolution” but instead “a child of colonialism.”
He told Amy Goodman’s radio show, “Judge Sotomayor was a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, which meant three things: number one, that she was an ethnic national, a Puerto Rican; number two, that she felt that ethnic Puerto Rican deserved and needed a defense; and third, that she dedicated 12 years of her life to that defense, the defense of the Puerto Rican ethnicity within the United States of America.”
Sotomayor was not born in Puerto Rico. She was born in the Bronx in New York. Still, she apparently counts Puerto Rico, not America, as her home.
The United States “invaded her country,” said Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, reinforcing the point that she owes her allegiance to Puerto Rico. Her appointment, he said, touches on the “colonial relationship” between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. He was described on the show as someone who knows Sotomayor well.
This is a matter that must be covered by the media and explored by the Senate. The radical or Marxist view is that Puerto Rico is under colonial occupation and deserves independence. Sotomayor holds that view. Her 1976 thesis expressed support for Puerto Rican independence because she feared the “Americanization” of Puerto Rico.
In her thesis on Puerto Rico, Sotomayor came across as bitter, saying that “The experiences of Alaska and Hawaii since their statehood with cultural destruction has been indicative of the cultural loss Puerto Rico would eventually face if statehood for the island were chosen. Under the commonwealth status, there has been a gradual deterioration of the Spanish language among the Puerto Rican populace and a growing Americanization of the island. The loss of cultural autonomy has become the price of permanent union with the United States.”
Obama, still the source of controversy about where exactly he was born, said he wanted a nominee with empathy. But she didn’t have any empathy for Frank Ricci, the white firefighter who worked hard to pass an exam to get a promotion but was denied that promotion simply because a certain number of blacks didn’t score as high as he did. She ruled that Ricci and other firefighters didn’t have a case. This is what Sotomayor thinks of merit and hard work if you are a white male. It proves that her words mean something. It is racism, no matter how many convoluted arguments people like Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus try to make on her behalf.
In a column titled, “The ‘Radical’ Who Isn’t,” the liberal Marcus tries to rationalize a racist decision that she knows could seriously damage the nominee. The public would be advised to visit the website of the “New Haven 20” who were denied their promotions by ugly racism and understand how simple the case is.
Sotomayor was also a member of the National Council of La Raza, which claims that “La Raza” has been “mistranslated” as “the race” and actually means “the people” or the ”community.” They want to avoid the connotation that the group is racist. But the Webster’s New World Spanish dictionary defines “Raza” as race. The word for people is “gente.” The word for community is “comunidad.”
Once again, the truth has taken a back seat to being politically correct and masking the racist nature of an organization that Sotomayor belonged to.
In a 1996 speech, “The Genesis and Needs of an Ethnic Identity,” she talks at length at the Third World Center about her own ethnic identity, even how she eats ethnic foods, and goes on to say, “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and color-blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud.”
One might argue with justification that she is the one who has a confused or warped image of America.
There are, of course, some “white rights” or “white pride” organizations around, but they are shunned, criticized or condemned, even by whites. For the most part, white people think of themselves as Americans, and not as European-Americans.
But affirming one’s Latina identity is perfectly acceptable, and is apparently considered a qualification for the Supreme Court. That is because, in the Marxist view, she is a member of an oppressed group who needs to express herself against white supremacy.
Her 2002 Berkeley Law Review article, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” goes into substantial detail regarding her complaints about the allegedly low number of Latinos and women on the courts. In this article she repeats her statement about a “wise” Latina woman making better decisions than a white male.
But none of this really bothers the media. “The Latina Justice” proclaims the cover of Time magazine, as if confirmation is all but certain.
But the “Latina Justice” is generally considered liberal. So she will vote like the liberal “white male” she is replacing. Still, the point is that she looks different, and that is apparently what counts with the media.
In my previous column on this nomination, I noted that Sotomayor had delivered a speech entitled, “Being the Change We Need for Our Communities.” It sounded like something delivered by a political candidate or Obama himself. We now have a copy of that speech.
Just about two months ago, this sitting federal judge, who is supposed to be above politics, told the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association that “The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven.”
“On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences,” she said, hailing Obama’s election.
She added, “What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence. We have to continue to work together for our common goal of bringing the promise of America’s greatness and fairness to all members of our society.”
Notice how she referred to herself as a “citizen of the world,” not as a citizen of the United States. This takes on significance in her case because she wrote a foreword to a book called The International Judge. Does she believe in American sovereignty?
Calling for more “change,” she said, “It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed. We must devote ourselves to bettering the lives of all the needy of our society and we must do it together.”
She is openly advocating using the courts to push Obama’s political agenda.
Based on these comments, which violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Sotomayor should not only be forced to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, she should be impeached.
Canon 7 says a judge should refrain from political activity. It explains that she should NOT “make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office…”
The fact that her speech occurred after the election should not affect the severity of the offense. It sent the message that she is a liberal judge who will legislate for Obama from the bench. No wonder she got the nomination. She seemed to be auditioning for it.
In light of this and other controversies, it’s also no wonder Senate liberals are trying to rush this nomination through. This nominee has a lot of obvious baggage that has only begun to be examined for contraband.
In terms of media coverage, we will probably be seeing more “American dream” stories about her, and how she made something out of herself in the U.S. This is a tremendous achievement. It would be relevant were it not for the evidence suggesting that she seems to have no real allegiance to the country whose government she views as oppressing her people.
Sotomayor’s 60% Reversal Rate
Obama selected a very unqualified Judge for SCOTUS
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, yet three out of five of her majority opinions written for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court have been reversed. Based on the bare facts, this says that she is unconstitutional 60% of the time - and we are supposed to welcome her to the high court?
It is bad enough that her history of racist remarks brings to question her ability to be impartial, and that she has stated in the past that she believes it is up to the courts to make policy, which is unconstitutional. Now, it turns out, the Supreme Court has had to reverse over half of her rulings. Sotomayor is unqualified, and should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
Problem is, the scales over the eyes of the Democrats, and their leftist counterparts in the media and on the liberal blogs, are too blind to recognize the sad truth.
Attorney General to Classify Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Americans as TerroristsBy NWV News writer Jim Kouri
July 5, 2009© 2009
An amendment to a bill swiftly moving through the US Congress will allow the Obama Administration's Attorney General to classify Americans as domestic terrorists if they are pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government.
Impeached Florida judge -- now a Democrat Party member of the House of Representatives -- Rep. Alcee Hastings introduced what some claim is a disturbing piece of legislation. Hasting's amendment calls for the Attorney General to have discretion over who is called a terrorist and what groups will be treated as terrorist groups.
"This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder -- a Bill Clinton retread -- will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. He's also proposed the creation of "emergency camps" that are nothing more than prisons," warns political strategist Mike Baker. "This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists," he added.In an unclassified report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and her agency included the following description of "extremists:" "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."Last Thursday, Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) made the following remarks on the House Floor regarding Congressman Alcee Hastings’ (D-FL) amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill:
"The Hastings Amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill (which now is being considered en bloc) prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons with known affiliations to "groups determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.""Members on both sides of the aisle support the purpose of this amendment because we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about the enlistment of persons who may seek to use their military training to cause harm to innocents, but we should take pause to consider the breadth of this amendment carefully. I just want to express concern about the language of this amendment, and my concerns are shared by many in this House," said Rep. Franks. "While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks."I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks."I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates as extremists under the bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make our intentions clear. If the intent of this amendment is to go after citizens because of their political views and moral convictions, then the amendment is unconstitutional. I hope that the sponsor of the Amendment will make clear tonight that this is not the intent," he added.Rep. Alcee Hastings also introduced what many say is another disturbing piece of legislation. That new bill calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to build at least six facilities that can be designated as "emergency centers. Hastings rationale for such facilities is to gather and "house" civilians on what are basically detention centers guarded by armed soldiers or paramilitary troops.
The House bill (HR 645) -- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act -- is not even on the radar of members of the elite media. According to critics of the plan, if passed the government will create camps or centers that by their nature restrict the activities of US citizens herded into them.
In fact, one provision -- Section 2 (b) (4) -- states: "[To] meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."
One critic, political strategist Mike Baker claims the idea of such detention center smacks of the type of concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany, Americans find repugnant.
"Why aren't the news media covering this story? Could it be because they fear being the first occupants of these so-called emergency installations? Where is the outrage by our nation's Fourth Estate?" asks Baker.
Hastings bill is suspected of attempting to help expand the President Obama's military and law enforcement powers. While Hastings pushes this bill, even Republican congressmen are hesitant to remind one another and the nation that this Florida congressman was impeached while he sat on Florida's federal court bench.
Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American federal judge in the state of Florida, and served in that position for ten years. He’s still called “Judge” by some of his colleagues, but one would think he’d rather forget his days on the federal bench.
In 1989, Judge Hastings was impeached by the US House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case. Hastings said the charges against him smacked of racism.
Even Rep. John Conyers, who is also black, said he “found no trace of racism during the investigation.” He urged his colleagues to remove Hastings from the bench. He said, “[Hastings] is unfit to serve.”
When the ultra-liberal Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi nominated Hastings for the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, even members of her own political party balked.
"The prospect of Rep. Alcee Hastings becoming the chairman of the House of Representative’s Intelligence Committee was proposed by Congressional Black Caucus, who had been pressuring the new House Speaker Pelosi to appoint blacks to key leadership positions and Hasting benefited from the pressure on the radical left Pelosi," said former Detective Sidney Frances (NYPD-ret.), himself an African-American.
While Hastings did not become chairman of that committee, he is a ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
As if It Needed to, Virginia Bans Smiles at the DMV
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Few places in Virginia are as draining to the soul and as numbing to the buttocks as the branch offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles. And yet, until recently, smiling was still permitted there.
No more. As part of the DMV's effort to develop super-secure driver's licenses and foolproof identification cards, the agency has issued a smile ban, directing customers to adopt a "neutral expression" in their portraits, thereby extinguishing whatever happiness comes with finally hearing one's number called.
The driver's license photo, it seems, is destined to look like a mug shot.
DMV officials say the smile ban is for a good cause. The agency would like to develop a facial recognition system that could compare customers' photographs over time to prevent fraud and identity theft. "The technology works best when the images are similar," said DMV spokeswoman Pam Goheen. "To prepare for the possibility of future security enhancements, we're asking customers to maintain a neutral expression."
At a Manassas DMV branch yesterday, that translated to a simple directive: "Don't smile."
That's exactly what a DMV attendant told Manassas resident Maria Quispe when she sat down against the white backdrop and attempted to look happy for the photo she would be carrying around for much of the next eight years.
"Say cheese," said her stepdaughter, Alexandra Lopez.
"No cheese today," the DMV attendant said.
The shutter clicked, and the attendant consulted a computer monitor, then shook her head disapprovingly.
Quispe's teeth had been visible. Strike one. "Your mouth was open," the attendant said.
Quispe's second attempt turned out sufficiently dull. "It's going to be so ugly," Quispe said afterward. "This is like being in the Army!"
When asked how DMV employees are able to determine when customers might be smiling too much, Goheen explained that the process is automated. Naturally, the new software is programmed to reject attempts at exuberance or human warmth. "It will send an error message if it detects a non-neutral expression," she said.
The ban is in effect at more than half of the agency's 74 offices statewide, Goheen said, including most Northern Virginia branches. It is expected to be in place at the remaining branches by the end of next month.
Nationwide, 37 motor vehicle agencies use facial recognition technologies, said Jason King, a spokesman for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. "Some focus on the entire face, and the states using those technologies find they work better for fraud prevention when customers have a neutral expression," he said.
King said he wasn't sure how many states had a smile ban. Maryland and the District do not have such bans and have yet to implement facial recognition software.
As for DMV patrons in Virginia, there is further cause for disappointment beyond the anti-smile rule. With the new system, state residents can no longer get their licenses and identification cards on the same day as their visits.
Instead, licenses and identification cards are now processed at a central facility in the southern Virginia city of Danville, then mailed to the customer's address a few days later. The new cards are loaded with security features, including tactile lettering, secondary photos and anti-tampering measures, and they will be phased in as state residents renew their licenses and ID cards, Goheen said.
Customers don't have to frown or anything like that, she said, and they can even grin a little, as long as they don't show any teeth.
"It's weird that you're not allowed to smile," said Christopher George, a 22-year-old from Manassas who had also been scolded when he tried to put forward a good face for his portrait. He worried that that the dour expression he had to adopt would put him at a disadvantage.
"I mean, when you get pulled over, you want a friendly picture for the cop to look at," he reasoned. On the loudspeaker overhead, a robotic voice summoned customers to the attendant windows by number, guided by some mysterious algorithm.
"It makes everyone look like criminals," said Arthur Freeman, 18, who needed no prompting to appear unhappy after waiting two hours for a motorcycle license. "I don't usually smile for these pictures anyway."
Nearby, 19-year-old Robert Nuckols, also of Manassas, returned to the waiting area after posing for his learner's permit photo. "We're at the DMV," he said. "Why would we smile?"
Nuckols said that when he took off his hat and sat down in front of the camera for his photo, the attendant directed him to look at a specific spot on the lens, between a pair of stickers. The stickers were smiley faces.
The Quackery of Chemotherapy, Gunpoint Medicine and the Disturbing Fate of 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) You see it in newspapers and websites across the 'net: People insisting that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must be injected with chemotherapy in order to "save his life," and that anyone refusing to go along with that is a criminal deserving of arrest and imprisonment.
What's most astonishing about the mainstream reaction to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser is not merely that they believe states now own the children, but that they believe in the entire world there exists but one single treatment for cancer, and it happens to be the one that makes pharmaceutical companies the most money. The arrogance (and ignorance) of that position is mind boggling.
There was once a time when western medical doctors believed that the heavy metal mercury was a medicine, too. They methodically used mercury to treat hundreds of different diseases and conditions, oblivious to the fact that they were actually poisoning people with this toxic heavy metal.
And yet, imagine if authorities had arrested parents for not treating their children with mercury. Imagine if they threw parents in prison for refusing their "mercury medicine." That would be equivalent to today's arrogant, misguided and extremely dangerous campaign to outlaw saying "no" to chemotherapy.
A brief history of medical quackeryIt was mercury, in fact, that led to the term "quack." Mercury is called "quicksilver," and those doctors who prescribed it were eventually discovered to be pushing toxic chemicals rather than any real medicine. They were initially called "quicks" and then later "quacks."
The quackery of those doctors prescribing mercury wasn't hard to miss: People taking the mercury would get extremely ill. Their hair would fall out. They would lose their appetite and experience extreme loss of body weight. Many would simply die from the toxicity.
Remarkably, these are the same side effects produced by chemotherapy. And today, chemotherapy doctors describe these side effects in precisely the same terms as the mercury quacks of a century ago, claiming the effects are "part of the healing process" and encouraging patients to find the courage to "just go through with it."
But let's pull our heads out of the muck here and acknowledge the obvious: Poisoning patients -- whether with mercury or chemotherapy -- will never produce healing. And the prescribing of such toxic chemicals to patients is little more than sophisticated quackery, backed by seemingly convincing data (which is actually based on scientific fraud) along with the urgings of cancer doctors who rely on highly manipulative fear tactics to corral patients into treatments that will only harm them.
Do parents have the right to protect their children from poison?
Today, the mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is on the run, having skipped out on the Minnesota court that ordered her to poison her own child. She is now considered criminally negligent by the state -- a parent who belongs behind bars and will likely be imprisoned when she is arrested at gunpoint.
And yet, I ask you this: What else could she have done? To appear in court and submit her child to chemical injections of a toxic substance would amount to child abuse. She is doing what any sensible parent would do: She's protecting her child from the poisons of the world, and standing up against the tyrants of modern medicine who so desperately seek to exploit her child for profit that they have actually turned to enforcing their business at gunpoint in order to do so.
It is interesting that pharmaceutical medicine is the only industry in America that's forced to recruit its patients at gunpoint.
I call it Gunpoint Medicine, and it is exactly as it sounds: The enforcing of medical quackery at gunpoint. It is also interesting that conventional medicine is so utterly (and arrogantly) convinced that its chemicals are the one and only solution for any disease, it now believes those who seek other healing modalities should be arrested and imprisoned.
It puts the operations of conventional (pharmaceutical) medicine in a whole new light (or darkness, as it were). Now, conventional medicine requires armed enforcers -- medical mercenaries who push patented chemicals at gunpoint. After all, without the threat of firearms toted by local law enforcement, the courts of Minnesota would have no leverage over the Hauser family. Conventional medicine is now paired with armed foot soldiers who effectively enforce the marketing of their products at the barrel of a gun.
And let's be clear about this: The decision of the Minnesota court is little more than the marketing of a modern form of quackery, enforced with the threat firearms.
I'll ask the obvious question: When faced with being threatened at gunpoint by doctors pushing toxic chemicals onto children, with their freedoms taken away and their parental rights trampled beyond recovery, do not these parents have the right to defend the lives and safety of their children with their own firearms? If an intruder barges through your front door armed with a syringe filled with toxic chemicals, and he tries to inject those chemicals into your son or daughter, you are well within your rights as a free citizen to shoot that intruder before he can harm your children.
Guns work both ways, after all, and firearms remain the last-ditch defense of citizens attempting to protect their lives and freedoms from tyrannical governments. The United States of America, of course, is founded on precisely such principles.
The State as criminalIt is never lawful or just for a government to kidnap children at gunpoint, to imprison their parents and injected their children with toxic chemicals merely because those parents seek more natural healing modalities. Technically, any citizen who is subjected to such tyrannical treatments has every right, under the U.S. Constitution, to defend their family members with the use of lethal force against such intruders. Just because those intruders happened to be on the state payroll does not make them any less criminal in their actions.
By comparison, car companies don't market their products at gunpoint. If you showed up at a car dealer and said, "I want a pickup truck," but they shoved a gun in your face and said, "No, you will buy a sedan or you will go to prison," you would probably think that's a bit insane.
Tourism companies don't market their services at gunpoint, either. If you went to a travel agent and said you wanted to take your family to Disneyland, but they whipped out a Colt 45, shoved it in your face, and said, "You're going to Alaska," you might be taken aback.
But modern medicine is now operating with the same terrorizing threat: You take your son to a doctor, asking for help, and he calls gun-toting law enforcement officials who essentially threaten you at gunpoint, saying, "You will choose chemotherapy or lose your children." That's what's happening today, right now, with the Hauser family and the state of Minnesota.
It just goes to show you how desperate the cancer industry is to thwart free choice. The most dangerous threat to pharmaceutical medicine is an informed mother who chooses to say no to toxic chemotherapy. And that is precisely why such choices are being criminalized.
It has nothing to do with the health of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser. It has everything to do with monopolizing the medical industry, putting fear into the minds of parents, and continuing a tradition of outright quackery that sells poison to patients while calling it "treatment."
And it has everything, of course, to do with asserting the power of tyrannical government over the People, controlling their behavior, erecting virtual prisons in their own minds that prevent them from venturing outside the bounds of "accepted" behavior. Modern medicine, in this way, is working in conspiracy with tyrannical government to turn People into medical slaves, and it is stripping away their freedoms, their choice and their very children in the process.
Top 10 Ways to Know You're Living in a Medical Police StateThursday, May 28, 2009 by: Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Are Americans really living in a medical police state? The recent news with Daniel Hauser and his family's fight over chemotherapy seems to indicate so. Here are ten ways to recognize whether you're living under the oppressive tyranny of a medical police state.
#1 - If an armed U.S. Marshall is posted outside your house at night -- just to make sure you don't escape "treatment" -- you're probably living in a medical police state. Source: "Daniel was allowed to spend the night at home, but County Attorney James Olson said a deputy was posted at the Hauser farm in Sleepy Eye." (FoxNews)
#2 - If saying "I'd rather not inject my child with that poison" to your doctor results in him calling Child Protective Services, you're most likely living in a medical police state.
#3 - If a nationwide manhunt (involving FBI agents) is unleashed just to find you and drag you back to the hospital to submit to dangerous pharmaceuticals, there's little doubt you're living in a medical police state.
#4 - If you find yourself suddenly wondering if you should flee to Mexico in order to find freedom, you're probably living in a medical police state.
#5 - If doctors call the police to prevent you from visiting competing cancer clinics outside the country, that's a warning sign that you're living in a medical police state.
#6 - If your doctor claims to be practicing "integrative medicine" but then calls the police when you don't submit to chemotherapy, you're definitely living in a medical police state.Quote from Daniel Hauser's oncologist, Dr. Bostrom: "Although I've had patients concerned about getting chemo, this is the first time I've ever had to report someone." Source:
#7 - If you're blasted by the mainstream media for supporting a mother's right to protect her teenage son from an injection of toxic chemicals, you're almost certainly living in a medical police state (populated by sheeple).
#8 - If you walk into a hospital and they handcuff you, steal your child and forcibly inject him with dangerous poisons while explaining, "It's for your own good," then you're almost certainly living in a medical police state.
#9 - If the State calls you "medically negligent" for feeding your child raw foods, or medicinal herbs, or holistic diets that are free from sugar, red meat and chemical additives, then you're definitely living in a medical police state. (Fact: Parents who feed their children diets of raw, living foods have been accused of medical neglect.)
#10 - If you disagree with your psychiatrist, and in response he diagnosis you with "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" and demands you take his mind-altering psych drugs, you are absolutely living in a medical police state!
S. 909 Pedophile Protection Act
Democrats Ensure Hate Crimes Bill Includes Protecting Pedophiles
By Douglas V. Gibbs
May 7, 2009
As expected with the creeping incrementalism of the degradation of morality in America, under this sinister bill that accompanies H.R. 1913 (Hate Crimes Bill), S. 909 will give heightened protection to pedophiles. The Pedophile Protection Act, as some conservatives are calling it, along with the Hate Crimes Bill, is the first step toward criminalizing Christianity, and protecting all sexually deviant activities and behaviors.
“But how does this bill protect pedophiles?” one may ask.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, submitted that a simple sentence, an amendment, to H.R. 1913 in the House Judiciary Committee to read the following: The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
His suggestion was rejected. As the bill stands, if it passes for law, if you catch an adult in the act of raping a child, and use force to remove that person from the child, the pedophile can turn around and accuse you of assault, and claim it was a hate crime.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., in response to the outcry by King, and others, stated that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or “Paraphilias” listed by the APA. Hastings said on the House floor: This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘Philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
And now they are trying to ram this insidious bill through the Senate.
Call your Senators and scream out to them, “No, this bill cannot become law!”
‘Hate Crimes’ Bill is Full of Swill
Preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers, deviant sexual fetishes and perversionsBy Matt Barber
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal “hate crimes” bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I’ll join their little soirée, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.
To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups – including veterans, the elderly and the homeless – S. 909, in its current form, would grant special federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and – as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted on the House floor – a host of other APA recognized “sexual orientations” (i.e., deviant sexual fetishes and perversions).
Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required “equal protection of the laws;” it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government’s authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s how they’re doing it: In order for the feds to usurp the States’ police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly place, within the very language of the bill, a series of transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal power grab, they’ve been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce Clause.
In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement, S. 909’s sponsors have made – within the bill’s “Findings” section – several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to “interstate commerce.” So outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the Senate.
But since the bill’s Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy “findings” immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.
First, while addressing “hate crimes” allegedly motivated by so-called “sexual orientation” bias, the bill asserts that existing law is “inadequate to address this problem.” This is patently untrue. When the legislation’s 1968 “hate crimes” forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific wrong.
The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law. Victims are granted “equal protection of the laws” regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.
Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual activists and the mainstream media as the latest “hate crimes” cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down alleged “gay-bashing” assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations of systemic “homophobia.”
To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed “hate crimes” victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.
This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard’s memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being “gay.” Indeed, this very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”
The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation. Justice prevailed and existing law was undeniably “[adequate] to address this problem.”
In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was a homosexual or a cross-dresser. They won’t. They can’t.
But back to the interstate commerce charade: Here, the federal government’s own statistics serve to derail the “hate crimes” gravy train. According to the FBI, in 2007 – out of 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. – there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by the victim’s “sexual orientation.”
Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such “hate crimes.” So many, in fact, that it “poses a serious national problem.” The bill hysterically declares – while providing zero evidence – the following nonsense:
Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;
[T]he movment of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;
Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;
And, here’s the kicker. Wait for it …. Wait for it:
Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
So there you have it, folks. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be comical. But let’s make sure we have it straight. According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because right here, right now in America, it’s not at all unusual to witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed – yet wrongfully unemployed – “gays” and otherwise gender confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps, frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they’ve even had a chance to make a purchase, while inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them across state lines.
Don’t think I’ll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.
Administering Food and DrugsBy Nancy Levant
May 1, 2009
We need to step back and look at very fundamental clues which led to the freakish ignorance of the American people. Let us begin with health.
We the American people are the most drugged people on the planet. Senior citizens, bar none, are walking chemical experimentation organisms. With or without all the drugs, most seniors still die between the ages of 70 and 80, but the drugs that infect their systems are bizarre chemical cocktails and many are drugged to lethargy and death under the umbrella of humaneness or clinical trials.
For decades and decades, American women have been the recipients of sleeping pills, and anti-depression/psychotropic/mood-altering drugs. Today, it is sheik to partake in depression therapy and normal menstrual and menopause conditions have led to disease-style diagnostic chemical treatments. By default, American women may be the largest diagnosed (mental) population on the planet. As mental cases, make note they are also the mothers of American children. And these children are the most regularly and routinely-drugged children on the planet. Therefore, it is no surprise that schools partner with the mental health community as diagnostic gatekeepers for the drug industries that target our children and very often their mothers.
Couple all of this with America’s epidemic cancers, diabetes, hypertension, and multiple forms of old age and youth dementia, and the blurry drug trails from health to sickness come into controlled focus. We the people are the most regularly and routinely-drugged people in the world and we are also the largest global population of recreational drug users. In a nutshell, we are not ourselves; we are, in fact, chemically-altered.
Think, if you will, of the absolute and unquestioned reality of American parents who mass-drug their infants beginning at birth, and continuing this mindless pattern throughout childhood. American drugging does, in fact, begin at birth and continues full out through death, unquestioned. We are not ourselves; we are an induced population.
Next, we must look at the American diet. The last three generations of American people ate primarily non-foods. Grocery store breads, pastas, crackers, snacks, breakfast cereals, soda pops, and over-the-counter candies are not food. Most grains that we now eat are not food. Prior to the food pyramid, we were a far, far healthier population. But our national health plummeted with the onslaught of genetically-modified produce, coupled with the infamous food pyramid which encouraged our grain spaced (translation: vegetarian) diets.
When our grandparents were eating non-hormoned, non-vaccinated meat, genetically-pure produce, lard and butter, whole milk, and home made desserts, there were no epidemic cancers, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, old age and youth dementia, and there was no mass drugging of the population. However, we now have three to four generations of change to deal with and that change is clearly, absolutely evident in the intellectual dulling of we the people. We are not ourselves.
No matter what you believe or disbelieve about chemtrailing, something is sprayed from very high-flying jets into the atmosphere, all over the nation, in all 50 states, and for years. No one can seemingly pin down these events, rumors abound, but something is sprayed from jets, and that something spreads from horizon to horizon in all 50 states. Weather modification? Who knows? Our government certainly does not clarify, nor even mention the non-stop spraying campaign. But as we can see the chemtrail substances, let us therefore assume they are substances.
City water is treated. Bottled water, who knows? Third world produce, who knows? But the facts remain that we the people are sick in strange and unusual ways and depopulation of the planet is a global agenda item. The United States, as we know, is the sacrificial lamb of the global vision, including the Constitutional nation and her Americanized people.
When you look at the change vision, you must also look back several generations to capture the essence of this change. People themselves have changed. We are an unhealthy population by virtue of corporate power and federal intervention and mandates. We are a weaker people than we once were because we are chemically-altered by design and often times by law. A vision has many, many meanings. Look it up. You will find the word “trance” for instance. Just remember this, mass population-reduction is a mandate of the global vision. Equally, pandemic has been media-hammered for at least a decade and experimental super-virus manufacturing is: 1. Reality, and 2. One more impending crisis.
Funny how the only growing job markets are: 1. Government jobs, and 2. Health care jobs. Therefore, expect a government-controlled crisis in health care. Oh, gosh, right again.
Also, never forget that Agenda 21 calls for vegetarianism. Mad Cow, Swine Flu, Bird Flu, mercury in fish. Does that not just about cover our animal food products? When you think of “visions”, think of agenda, agenda, agenda.
So, is national ignorance bliss when coupled with epidemic alcoholism, epidemic drug addiction, both prescription and recreational, fast-acting caffeine addictions to supersonic caffeine drinks marketed to kids, psychotropic and anti-depression drugs, our new-fangled sex drive and anti-pregnancy drugs, mandatory and life-long vaccines, and old age and infant chemical cocktails?
And what are the results of chemically-based living coupled with the most powerful and far-reaching addictive drug of all called tell-a-vision? The drug that tells you what to think, what to believe, what is right and wrong, what your opinions are and are not, what to wear and how to look, what to weigh and what to eat and not eat, what to do and not do, where to live, how to travel, how to spend your money, what to drive, and to worship nature.
Nature? Meaning “natural”? How blissful do you feel right about now, or more specifically, how stupid? Well, dream on visioners! You are indeed “visions” by design. You couldn’t have an independent thought if it smacked you in the face. Have a drink. Take a pill. Watch your tell-a-vision. Do as told. Think as told. Be as told. Mass ignorance is somebody’s bliss. Can you say food and drug enforcement, or shall we say administration?
And Now for Meghan McCain’s Plan to Save the Republican Party
By Daniel Greenfield
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Satire - (Sultan Knish was not available to write a blog post today. In his place we present this insightful piece from guest columnist Meghan McCain)
How I Can Save the Republican Party
By Meghan McCain
So today I was like in the bathroom, brushing my teeth and thinking about what’s going to be in my memoir (which by the way I just sold to Hyperion for 600 thousand. Nice, right?) and I had a great idea how to save the Republican Party. What was that? No I’m busy right now.
You know my generation doesn’t like the Republican Party and the name is totally a huge problem. Who wants to vote for people named “Republicans” anyway? What is a Republican? What does that word even mean? I opened up a dictionary and it said something about a Republic, which is some kind of magazine or something. And if I don’t know what it means, no one knows what it means. So why do we even have the name? It’s like all those weird signs on the back of a dollar bill which I swear begin to hypnotize me if I look at them for too long. So I totally am in love with the Republican party, but the name has to go. We need to call it something short and cool, like Google. I mean if the Republican Party was called something like Google or Prada or Yahoo, it would have a much better image.
Hold on a second I have to get the phone… yeah what? No I’m ordering in. Is this thing still typing? No don’t type that. How do I shut this off? Okay back to the issues. You can’t graduate from the Fashion Institute of Technology and not learn a thing or two about politics. Also I spent a lot of time with my dad, who’s big in politics and stuff. He has his own office in Washington D.C. and ran for President a few times. So I’m completely up on this stuff, you don’t have to worry.
Lately I’ve been working on helping the Republican party (which I totally love) back on track with my columns, and my blogging and twitter. And also going on CNN and morning shows to denounce everyone in the party who sucks. Which is basically everyone except my dad. The Republican party is stuck. It has a dumb name and no one likes us. Which sucks because we could totally rock if they gave us the chance. But we need to make some major changes around here.
First thing we gotta dump all this family values stuff. No one likes that except old people. And who needs their votes anyway? If the party’s gonna connect to people under 25, we’ve gotta be the party party. (Memo, what if we just call ourselves “The Party” with no name. Like “Le Bag” or “The Club”. I should totally twitter that.) Also we have to stop being against illegal immigration. I mean where are we going to get the help from? There’s some things you can’t pay American citizens 3 dollars an hour to do. Like put citrus peels wrapped in cabbage leaves between your toes.
And intolerance. I have lots of gay friends and I hate that we’ve become the intolerant party. What’s the big deal about recognizing gay marriage anyway? It’s like reporters who keep spelling my name Megan McCain, instead of Meghan McCain. Hello, there’s an H in there. Are you people blind or something? Why can’t you recognize that it’s Meghan. It’s the H that makes me special.
And we gotta do something about the economy. It’s not like I’m strapped for money or anything. (600,000 dollar advance from Hyperion, Hello!) but once I went to buy some lipstick and I left my American Express at home and that moment I knew how poor people felt. Some of them don’t even have American Express cards!!! ):
I have lots of great ideas like that, but the Republican party is old and won’t listen to me. That’s why I have to go out there and tell off all those stupid radio talk show people (Hello, who even listens to the radio anymore? If Rush Limbaugh wanted to matter, he should be on Twitter like me. 25,000 followers and counting! :D) and Karl Rove and the Christians.
The only way the Republican party is ever going to matter to bored rich twenty somethings like me, is if we stop being old and start being cool. Forget Joe the Plumber, we need Will Smith. Lincoln, take a hike. Hello, no one uses pennies anymore. Or five dollar bills. Except maybe in North Phoenix.
Anyway I gotta go write my memoirs now. I’ve got a whole two chapters in them about not being able to find a date, and I’m working on a third one now telling off people who think I’m fat. Sure you might not think that’s important, but I do. And like that black guy who has his own holiday, I have a dream.
I have a dream that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be our candidate in 2012. The candidate of “The Party.” And he’s not even going to have a platform. We’ll just have magazine covers with his face on it on every poster that will say “Arnold 2012”. Nothing else. Because you don’t need policies or issues anymore to be President, just a cool image. And action figures. Stop thinking and start talking a lot about yourself. It’s not about America anymore, it’s about You. And mainly me. It’s about being exciting and cutting edge. Everyone wants to be a celebrity (not me, because I already am :) and if we harness that power, we can win. I just know it. But first we’re going to have to get rid of everyone who isn’t with it. I’m working on that right now. Off to do CNN.
Megan McCain is a columnist for the Daily Beast, whose insightful columns continue to educate dozens of Americans about the dangers of hair extensions and Republican extremism, and will shortly be talking to a very drunken Jack Cafferty shortly about how much trouble she’s having finding a date for her book release party.
Deeper Digital Penetration
The expanding invasion of the naked body scannersBy William Saletan
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The naked body scanners are taking over.
When we first checked in on them two years ago, the scanners, which see through clothing, were being deployed at a single airport. A few months later, they were upgraded to millimeter-wave technology, which delivered similar images with even less radiation—"10,000 times less than a cell phone transmission," according to the Transportation Security Administration. At the time, TSA assured us that the scanners would be used only as a "voluntary alternative" to "a more invasive physical pat-down during secondary screening." Only a few passengers, the ones selected for extra scrutiny, would face the scanners. The rest of us could walk through the metal detectors and board our planes.
Surprise! Two months ago, TSA revised its position. It began testing millimeter-wave scans "in the place of the walk-through metal detector at six airports." At these airports, everyone—not just people selected for secondary screening—would face the see-through machines. Anyone who objected would "undergo metal detector screening and a pat-down." You might even get the "enhanced pat-down," which includes "sensitive areas of the body that are often used by professional testers and terrorists," such as "the breast and groin areas of females and the groin area of males." Show us your body, or we'll feel you up.
Now the plan is going nationwide. Joe Sharkey of the New York Times reports that TSA "plans to replace the walk-through metal detectors at airport checkpoints with whole-body imaging machines—the kind that provide an image of the naked body." All passengers will "go through the whole-body imager instead of the walk-through metal detector," according to TSA's chief technology officer, and the machines will begin operating soon after orders are placed this summer.
When the scanners first appeared, I endorsed them. When they were upgraded to millimeter-wave technology, I endorsed them again. I gave two reasons. One reason was that a scan was less invasive than a pat-down. The other reason was that TSA promised to blur your face and keep your scan private, so that nobody would ever connect your name to your revealed body. That, I argued, was a sufficient kind of privacy in the age of terrorism.
Now I'm having second thoughts. I still like the technology. It's the people behind it who worry me. Yes, the scan is less invasive than the pat-down. But TSA has just demonstrated its ability and willingness to move the goalposts. When TSA offered pat-downs as the alternative to body scans in secondary screening, the scan sounded pretty good. Now TSA is offering pat-downs as the alternative to body scans in primary screening, and again, the scan sounds better. And if TSA announces tomorrow that pat-downs are the new alternative for all train or bus passengers, body scans will seem preferable there, too. Anywhere we're threatened with pat-downs, we'll settle for body scans. Where does it end?
And what about the content of the scans? Two years ago, I linked to a scan that seemed to expose every intimate body contour of TSA's research lab director. TSA argued that the picture was moot because its machines (which at the time used backscatter technology) had been upgraded with a "privacy algorithm" to obscure such features. But you won't find the phrase privacy algorithm on that page anymore; it's been scrubbed. In fact, privacy algorithm has completely disappeared from TSA's Web site. So have the images that used to show a frontal backscatter image of a male passenger. All you can find on TSA's millimeter-wave page are four scans shrunk to a size so tiny you'd need a magnifying glass to make sense of them. Good luck figuring out how much they show—and why they look nothing like the image depicted in a video (WMV file) on the TSA site.
Why should I care what the government says or depicts about its latest scanner image or blurring technology, when the technology and the depictions keep changing? The lesson of the escalating body scans, like the escalating pat-downs, is that TSA will do whatever it thinks it needs to do. Last year, when the agency announced its "enhanced" pat-downs, it explained:
As the ongoing terror trial in London clearly illustrates, terrorists actively look for ways to manipulate security protocols. Intelligence has also shown for decades, terrorists' manipulation of societal norms to evade detection or use social engineering techniques to their advantage. Terrorists have successfully hidden explosives in these areas. ... TSA developed this pat down as a measure to close the gap on items hidden on sensitive areas of the body.
In other words, any detail omitted by airport screeners—a blurred crotch in the body scan, an untouched groin during the pat-down—becomes a "gap" exploited by terrorists or testers, which must then be closed.
"The enhanced pat-down will be used only after all other screening methods have been used and the alarm remains unresolved," TSA promised last year. It added: "This new procedure will affect a very small percentage of travelers."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what you said about the body scans. Just put on the gloves and get it over with.
Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!
Green Gestapo, EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant”By Alan Caruba
Saturday, April 18, 2009
If the Environmental Protection Agency were some benign government unit tucked away in the corner of some massive federal government building, we could safely conclude it was doing its job to keep the nation’s air and water clean.
It is the very antithesis of that. It is a Green Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with all aspects of the nation’s industrial and agricultural communities, run roughshod over property rights, declared puddles to be navigable waters, and removed invaluable, beneficial chemicals from use to protect the lives and property of all Americans.
In much the same way as the FBI maintains a “Ten Most Wanted” list of criminals, so does the EPA.
The EPA’s former director, Carol Browner, was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International, described by Steven Milloy of as “a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause.” Socialist International’s principles are the communist principles set forth by Karl Marx.
Browner is presently the chief White House advisor to the President on environmental issues.
The announcement that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and all so-called greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare now clears the way to regulate every single economic activity in the nation, most notably the emissions from automobiles.
The EPA is poised to further ruin the quintessentially American auto industry with regulatory power that will determine what kind of automobile Americans will be permitted to drive, limiting the use of internal combustion, and forcing the purchase of high cost hybrids and those run on massive batteries.
Naturally, the announcement was greeted with joy by the likes of the demented Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and a panoply of environment organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund.
The EDF hailed the announcement saying “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change.” Vickie Patton, EDF’s deputy general counsel, went on to say “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity.”
Only there is NO global warming and there is NOTHING that the U.S. government or all the governments of all the nations of the world can do about “climate change.” This is a “threat” that does not exist!
What the EPA and other elements of government can and will do is use the international “global warming” hoax to pass new laws and more regulations to destroy the economic viability of all activities that utilize energy.
Here’s why CO2 and the so-called “greenhouse” gases do not perform a “greenhouse” function. As explained by retired analytical chemist, Hans Schreuder:
“With no atmosphere at all, our moon is very hot in sunshine (over 100°C) and very cold in the shade (less than minus 150°C).”
“With earth receiving as good as the same amount of solar irradiation, our atmosphere thus acts as a cooling medium during the hours of sunshine and a blanket during the hours of darkness.”
“Global warming, global cooling and all climate change is caused by the daily revolutions of our earth around its own axis, throughout which time the varying amounts of heat gained during the day and similar variations of heat lost during the night make the weather what it is: ranging from plus 50°C to minus 50°C (even more extreme in places), unpredictable beyond a few days and at times violent or totally quiet.”
“That’s quite apart from the seasonal differences caused by the annual trip around the sun and the varying distance that our planet revolves around our sun and we’re not even considering even greater forces of influence.”
The entire white paper is available at
Throughout its history the EPA has deliberately distorted actual science to advance its own warped “environmental” agenda. This EPA ruling permits the government to control all aspects of CO2 emissions, short of the exhalation of CO2 by human beings.
Humans emit CO2. Animals emit CO2. And energy use emits CO2.
It is not a “pollutant” or a threat to health; it is a natural gas vital to all life on Earth via the process of photosynthesis by all plant life. Without CO2 all vegetation dies and with it all animal life.
Congress has a long record of restricting access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Our “dependency”; the importation of these energy sources is entirely the result of national policies. Now add thousands of regulations on all USE of energy.
Some will mark the announcement as the beginning of the decline of the American economy, but the U.S. government has long been engaged in all manner of control over everything required for a successful economy.
What begins is the end to the abundant choices Americans have always had regarding the manufacture, distribution, and purchase of anything and everything common to our present lifestyle.
It is a cruel despotism that has been unleashed on all Americans.
EPA Says CO2 a Threat to Human Health, Paves Way For Backdoor Tax on All Sectors of U.S. EconomyCarbon Dioxide regulated, rationed and restricted by the federal governmentBy Institute for Energy Research
Friday, April 17, 2009
Washington, D.C.—Institute for Energy Research (IER) president Thomas J. Pyle today issued the following statement in response to the announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that carbon dioxide is a threat to human health and welfare, and as such: must be regulated, rationed and restricted by the federal government.
“Carbon is lighter than oxygen, more abundant than nitrogen, and forms the basis of all human, plant and animal life on earth. At least it did yesterday. Today, it’s a danger to human health and, upon meeting air, a clear and present threat to our existence. That was the pronouncement made by the EPA today, and it will be one this generation and others that follow will not soon forget.
“In defending today’s decision, EPA was quick to promise that the rationing of carbon dioxide would only have limited application. This is incorrect. EPA will start by issuing new regulations on cars. Next will come restrictions on stationary sources. After that: the wholesale regulation of anything that uses oil, natural gas, or coal. And it won’t end there. If carbon dioxide is deemed a threat, other greenhouse gases like water, vapor and methane must be too.
“While the American people will need to wait a few more months to see how today’s announcement manifests itself in their daily lives, we know one thing for sure: EPA is about to become the largest, most powerful and most distended government agency in American history. And that alone should give every American who has a job, or may want one in the future, reason for serious concern.”
7 Senate Republicans Reply to DHS ‘Rightwing Extremists’ Scaremongering
Asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory reportBy Warner Todd Huston
Friday, April 17, 2009
Seven Republican Senators have this week signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory report on so-called rightwing extremism in the Untied States.
The seven scold the DHS and the Obama administration for its over-broad generalizations that seem to assume that nearly half the electorate is prone to becoming terrorists merely because they hold right of center political views.
The letter alludes to the central point in this whole episode: that the U.S. government has now determined that the traditional American beliefs of small government and adherence to the Constitution is now suddenly a determinant in forming citizens into homegrown terrorist groups. After 200 years, all of a sudden believing in run-of-the-mill American beliefs makes you a terrorist! These seven Senators want to know why.
Text of the Letter:Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.
First, your report states that “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.” Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS’s independent data.
Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.
In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.
David Vitter (R, Louis.) Sam Brownback (R, Kansas) Jim Demint (R, So Car.) Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma) Richard Burr (R, No. Car.) Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska) James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)
Let’s hope that far more than a mere seven Congressmen find this “report” more than a little distasteful.
My Response to M.I.A.C. Report
By Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2009
By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Illegal Immigration
Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."
However, it is the following statement contained in the MIAC report that is particularly disturbing to yours truly. Under the heading "Political Paraphernalia," the report states, "Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."
The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous "militia members." The broader implication is that the millions of people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself are likewise categorized as potential dangerous "militia members." This is a classic case of broad-brushed police profiling. Can you imagine the fallout of this preposterous report had the names Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters been used instead of the names Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr?
Accordingly, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I wrote a formal letter to the above-named Missouri officials demanding "that the following-described document be immediately removed from any and all websites associated with or maintained by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof, including the MIAC; that the said document no longer be circulated by the state of Missouri or any agency thereof or associated therewith; and that the state of Missouri repudiate its references to the three of us contained therein."
To view the full text of our letter to Governor Nixon of Missouri, click here.
Ladies and gentlemen, we simply cannot allow this kind of police profiling to continue. I assure you, this phenomenon is not limited to the State of Missouri. Every state that has a "Fusion Center" is being fed this kind of nonsense on a regular basis. You and I are commonly referred to as "extremists" in these secret police reports. This has been happening in earnest for the past couple of months and is operating under the auspices of the federal Department of Homeland Security. And people with a public platform (such as myself, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and a host of others) are now being singled out by name. How long will it be before police agencies begin "picking up and hauling away" those people whose names are mentioned in these reports? It may be sooner than we think.
To see if your state has a "Fusion Center," click here.
The only thing that will stymie this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. Yes, the people of this country (that means YOU) still have the power to put a stop to this kind of totalitarian thinking. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to stop it. We either stop it now, or it will quickly mushroom into a leviathan that will both monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country. No, I am not exaggerating.
The Feds already monitor virtually every phone call, email, and public speech in the country. How long before these secret police reports will be used as justification to arrest and incarcerate people because of their ideas and opinions, labeling them as a "threat" or as "dangerous" to society?
Here is the contact information for the appropriate officials in Missouri:
Email address:
Missouri Information Analysis CenterDivision of Drugs & Crime ControlP. O. Box 568Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568Phone: 573-751-6422Toll Free: 866-362-6422Fax: 573-751-9950
And while you are at it, you should also contact the state police agency as well as the governor's office in your state, especially if your state has a "Fusion Center" (see web site above). Mark it down: if you have ever publicly opposed any of the above-mentioned issues or organizations, or have ever publicly supported an independent Presidential candidate, You Are Being Profiled Right Now!We await the State of Missouri's response. In the meantime, what are you going to do?
P.S. Even as this column is being distributed, we have just received a reply from the Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety, John Britt. I will analyze and respond to this statement in my next column.

Missouri State Police Think You and I are TerroristsBy Chuck Baldwin
March 17, 2009
Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as "'militia' influenced terrorists." The report, he said, "instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties."
Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called "militia movement" and "conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order."
This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated "defenders" of the Constitution as "right-wing extremists." However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.
According to the MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a potential threat to the police. The MIAC report also refers to Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism."
The story exposing the MIAC report states, "The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists."
See the report here:
The Columbia Daily Tribune also carried the story last Saturday. It quoted Missouri resident Tim Neal of Miller County. "When Neal read the report, he couldn't help but think it described him. A military veteran and a delegate to the 2008 Missouri Republican state convention, he didn't appreciate being lumped in with groups like the Neo-Nazis.
"'I was going down the list and thinking, "Check, that's me,"' he said. 'I'm a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I've got the "America: Freedom to Fascism" video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I'm a domestic terrorist? Because I've got a video about the Federal Reserve?'"
The Tribune's report also acknowledges, "The [MIAC] report's most controversial passage states that militia 'most commonly associate with third-party political groups' and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional [sic] Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year."
The Tribune report also said, "Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won't know whether it's because he was speeding or because of his political views."
See the Columbia Tribune report here:
I realize that there are people who will dismiss this kind of story as insignificant. They shouldn't. This is very serious and should be treated as such. Anyone who knows anything at all about history knows that before a state or national government can persecute--and commit acts of violence against--a group of people, they must first marginalize the group from society's mainstream and categorize it as dangerous.
Rome did exactly that to Christians, as did Mao's China; Hitler's Germany did the same thing to Jews; Stalin's Russia did the same thing to political dissenters, etc. That a State police agency in America would actually infer that people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself in a political campaign are somehow indistinguishable from violence-prone "militias" is beyond insulting: it is a smear campaign, and might should even be regarded as a hate crime!
Beyond that, the MIAC report paints with a very broad brush. In addition to supporting Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, a review of the report reveals that opposition to any of the following risks someone being classified as a potential "domestic terrorist":
The New World OrderThe United NationsGun ControlThe violation of Posse ComitatusThe Federal ReserveThe Income TaxThe Ammunition Accountability ActA possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)The North American UnionUniversal Service ProgramRadio Frequency Identification (RFID)Abortion on demandIllegal Immigration
Again, if you oppose any of the above, or if you supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, you risk being labeled a "domestic terrorist," according to the MIAC.
Do you not see how dangerous this kind of slanderous labeling can become? It could affect your flight status when you try to board an airline. It could affect your application for sensitive jobs. It could affect your adjudication before a court or judge. It could make you a target for aggressive law enforcement strategies. It could affect your being able to obtain a passport. It could affect one's ability to purchase a firearm or receive a State concealed weapon permit.
This is very serious business! We are not talking about private opinions. We are talking about law enforcement agencies. And remember, most law enforcement agencies share these types of reports; therefore, how many other state police agencies have similar reports floating around? Probably several. Plus, how do we know that this report was not influenced by federal police agencies? We don't.
Rest assured, I do not plan to take this lying down. As one who is personally named in the above report, I demand a public retraction and apology from the MIAC and Missouri State Police. I can tell you that my family is extremely distraught that their husband, father, and grandfather would be labeled in such a manner. I am also not ruling out legal action. In addition, I am discussing an appropriate response with Ron Paul and Bob Barr. I will keep readers posted as to what comes of these discussions (as I am at liberty to do so, of course).
In the meantime, I encourage everyone who believes in the freedom of speech and who believes that the MIAC report is an egregious miscarriage of justice to contact the appropriate Missouri police officials. Here is the contact information:
Email address:
Missouri Information Analysis CenterDivision of Drugs & Crime ControlP. O. Box 568Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568Phone: 573-751-6422Toll Free: 866-362-6422Fax: 573-751-9950
And lest one thinks that none of this concerns him or her, I would like to remind you of the lament of Martin Niemoeller back in the days of Hitler's Germany. Niemoeller was a decorated U-Boat Captain and pastor of great distinction. An avid anti-communist, Niemoeller at first supported Hitler's rise to power and was hesitant to oppose the violations of civil rights against various groups he personally found distasteful. It did not take long, however, before Niemoeller realized that when laws protecting the rights of all were removed from some, no one was safe--including him. Unfortunately, he learned his lesson too late, as he, too, was persecuted and imprisoned by Hitler's State Police. Here is what Niemoeller said about his indifference:
"They came first for the communists, and I did not speak up-because I was not a communist;And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up - because I was not a trade unionist;And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew;And then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak up."
So, those of you who think you have nothing to fear because you did not vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or me, or because you do not live in the State of Missouri need to think again. As I have repeatedly said, we either have freedom for all, or we have freedom for none. Truly, secret police reports such as the one above threaten the liberties of us all.
So, will you speak up now or wait until they come for you and no one is left to speak up?
Did Obama Say We Should Kill the Old Folks to Save Money Last Night?Healthcare could be cheaper if we don't give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now getBy Warner Todd Huston
Thursday, June 25, 2009
I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don’t give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren’t worth the effort. Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn’t have hesitated to call him any manner of names.
Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that “evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve” the patient’s health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Obama offered a question on the efficacy of further care for his grandmother saying, “and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?”
But who is it that will present the “evidence” that will “show” that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.
Does your homebuilder negotiate with your city hall over whether you get a building permit, or does the permit get levied no matter what? Does a cop decide if you really broke the law, or does he simply arrest you and let the courts hash it out? Does your tax preparer negotiate with the IRS or is he supposed to just calculate your tax bill on their terms and have you pay the required amount?
Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won’t be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else’s.
Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the “murderer”?
So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren’t worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won’t be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won’t be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won’t be Obama’s buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.
Ah, but we are told that Obama’s ideas on healthcare are “evolving,” dontcha know? During the recent campaign for president (that was only 7 months ago, if you’ll recall) Obama insisted that he would never tax your healthcare benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan. Lately, however, he’s “evolved” toward saying that such a new tax is on the table. What about his stance against fining people and businesses that don’t join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before. Now he’s “evolved.”
Originally, he said it was “healthcare for all,” but as of Wednesday night, it seems he’s “evolved” to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to died and/or suffer. If he does any more “evolving” we’ll all be finding just who is “worth” what as far as he and his Democrats are concerned. Somehow I’d guess that many of you reading this today won’t quite be worth as much as certain others!
Let’s hope none of us are ever in a position to find out if Obamacare deems our grandmothers worth saving.
And what ever happened to the left’s mantra that healthcare is a “right” and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it’s just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm? Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the “murderer”?
Stimulus Bill: Democrats Calling for Elimination of Senior Citizens?Obama’s faux “stimulus bill”, Socialist Universal HealthcareBy Sher Zieve
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Covertly slipped into GL Obama’s faux “stimulus bill” last weekend—by leftist Democrats—was the Socialist Universal Healthcare program. Contained within the bill is the provision that doctors will now be forced to report any and all of their patient treatments to the federal government for approval to treat.
Also contained within this portion of Obama’s non-stimulus bill is the rationing of healthcare services to senior US citizens and the withholding of potentially life-saving measures. As Democrat Tom Daschle wrote in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” senior citizens “should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age.” Daschle does not appear to believe that senior citizens (apparently the government’s definition of “senior citizen” is not defined) that seniors should accept their inevitable deaths without complaining. That is, senior citizens who are not members of the elite ruling class. Daschle’s medical conditions, of course, would not be applicable to these provisions.
Note: Edward G. Robinson’s death scene in the movie ‘Soylent Green’ comes immediately to mind.
Contained within this anything-but-job-stimulus-bill is—I gather—the ability of another of the Obama Administration’s soon to be formed departments that will determine who can and cannot receive medical treatment. This is not only Socialized medicine but, provides the inherent ability for Obama and his minions, yet, another way to rid themselves of those deemed to be political enemies. For example, if someone who vocally opposes the Democrats’ secular messiah has a medical condition that requires treatment, the now-in-charge-of-all-treatment-options-for-ALL-OF-the-American-people federal government can and will determine whether or not that individual can receive any treatment at all! It also has the added benefit—as Daschle seems to be pushing in his book—of eliminating those pesky seniors. And—for decades—seniors have voted en masse for Democrats over Republicans. This is another Democrat Party “thanks now go away and die.” Is anyone out there getting scared yet?
Were those of you who voted for Obama expecting this? Do you agree that Obama should have the power to tell your doctor if he or she can treat you for illnesses? Are you in favor of this and the other non-economic stimulus portions of Obama’s bill—portions that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars that we and generations to come will all have to pay? Is this really what you had in mind when you voted this entity into office?
Did you who cast your ballots for Obama really vote for a dictator? Well…it’s what you and we who didn’t vote for him now have. If you want to know your future, look to an even more tyrannical Venezuela than Hugo Chavez has created. And three Obama-adherent Senators voting for Obama’s bill are named Specter, Collins and Snow. Sickening …