Talk About Persecution!

It is absolutely amazing the things these people will say to push their agenda. To guarantee that anyone with a weight over the desired anorexic level will not feel good about themselves, some UK researchers are now giving overweight and obese people a “real” reason to hate themselves. Talk about scare tactics and bullying. IF you won’t do as we say, we’ll shame, guilt and force you into submitting to our lifestyle.

It is absolutely disgusting what is going on these days, and even more disgusting that most people just sit there and take it!!!

From ABC Science I bring you a guilt trip even your mother wouldn’t dream of using:

Obesity contributes to global warming, too

Friday, 16 May 2008 Michael Kahn
Reuters

---

Policies that reduce obesity could also reduce greenhouse emissions, the researchers argue (Source: Toby Melville/Reuters)

Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and a literally swelling global population will make this source of greenhouse emissions worse, say UK researchers.

Dr Phil Edwards and Dr Ian Roberts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine argue their point in this week’s issue of The Lancet.

“We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility,” Edwards says. “Obesity is a key part of the big picture.”

At least 400 million adults worldwide are obese. The World Health Organization (WHO) projects 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will be obese by 2015.

~snip~

The researchers found that obese people require 1,680 daily calories to sustain normal energy and another 1,280 calories to maintain daily activities, 18% more than someone with a stable BMI.

Because thinner people eat less and are more likely to walk than rely on cars, a slimmer population would lower demand for fuel for transportation and for agriculture, says Edwards.

This would take the pressure off food and energy supplies and reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and transport, he says.

© 2008 ABC

Read the FULL STORY here.

But wait…..according to the Lancet (mentioned above) it’s NOT about global warming or fat at all, it IS about trying to force everyone to stop driving their cars, which will in turn cause a drop in obesity, fuel prices, food prices and reduce global warming.

OK, from the Lancet mentioned in that piece (I’m pasting the whole thing here as you need to sign up to actually read it, and if you are like me, I just hate when others link me to a site that won’t let me read unless I register - and I don’t care if registration is free or not, it sucks):

The Lancet, Current Issue, Volume 371, Number 9625, 17 May 2008

The Lancet 2008; 371:1661

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60716-3Correspondence

Transport policy is food policy

Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts

We endorse the call for fair and sustainable solutions to tackle the causes of global food insecurity (April 26, p 1389),1 but argue for greater recognition of the importance of reducing the demand for transportation fuel in resolving the struggle for energy between people and cars.

Petrol tanks and stomachs were competing well before biofuels were proposed to tackle climate change. Motorised transport is more than 95% oil-dependent and accounts for almost half of world oil use.2 Because oil is a key agricultural input, demand for transportation fuel affects food prices. Increased car use also contributes to rising food prices by promoting obesity which, for the reasons outlined below, increases the global demand for food.

We estimate that a population of 1 billion people with a stable mean body-mass index (BMI) of 24·5 kg/m2 consumes an average 6·5 MJ of food energy per person per day to maintain basal metabolic rate, and a further 4 MJ per person per day for activities of daily living. An obese population of 1 billion people with a stable mean BMI of 29·0 kg/m23 would require an average 7 MJ of food energy per person per day to maintain basal metabolic rate, and 5·4 MJ per person per day for activities of daily living (calculations available from the authors). Compared with the normal weight population, the obese population consumes 18% more food energy. Additionally, more transportation fuel energy will be used to transport the increased mass of the obese population, which will increase even further if, as is likely, the overweight people in response to their increased body mass choose to walk less and drive more.

Urban transport policies that promote walking and cycling would reduce food prices by reducing the global demand for oil, and promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food. Decreased car use would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus the need for biofuels, and increased physical activity levels, would reduce injury risk and air pollution, improving population health.

Transport policy is food policy and the importance of sustainable transport must not be overlooked.

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

References

1. The Lancet. Finding long-term solutions to the world food crisis. Lancet 2008; 371: 1389. Full Text | Full-Text PDF (35 KB) | CrossRef

2. Woodcock J, Banister D, Edwards P, Prentice A, Roberts I. Energy and transport. Lancet 2007; 370: 1078-1088. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (197 KB) | CrossRef

3. Swinburn B, Egger G. The runaway weight gain train: too many accelerators not enough brakes. BMJ 2004; 329: 736-739.

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved.

If you wish to see it yourself click HERE.

Personally I want to know how increased physical activity levels decreases the risk of injury. Because it seems to me that it is those who are the most active that are always pulling something, breaking something or injuring themselves. So THAT particular statement needs to be explained to me.

So, here you have todays daily dose of fear and guilt all wrapped up in one neat package. How do you plan on dealing with it?

Me? I do believe I’ll pick up some ice cream, cookies and potato chips on my home tonight to munch on while I veg out on the couch watching TV!

Yeah, that sounds like a good plan!

Nanny On Your Shoulder

Thanks to my roommate for the title of this post.

San Antonio, Texas is the next place to start making the monitoring of Diabetics the city’s business as well as the patient and doctor. Following in New York City’s footsteps, the San Antonio Metro Health District will run a pilot program consisting of about 50,000 diabetics for 18 months, THEN in September of 2009 they will present their findings to the state legislature who may then choose to mandate this program statewide if it proves successful.

From Junkfood Science:

First it’s a scarlet D, then O, H, C…

Did you hear that San Antonio Metro Health District has decided to create a surveillance program of the lab results on its residents to identify diabetics who aren’t keeping their indices to government-approved levels? Health officials there are initiating a program to make it mandatory that all laboratories electronically turn over hemoglobin A1c results (along with the people’s names, addresses and dates of birth) to its government agency for a database of diabetics.

~snipped~

Vermedx is already laying the groundwork for monitoring blood pressure, cholesterol, depression, health literacy, etc. and working to lay the plans for national public health surveillance of those with chronic diseases.

Read the FULL STORY here.

What I want to know is are the patients being told this up front? Are they being asked to sign a consent form to this kind of surveillance?

And the San Antonio Business Journal posted this on May 12th, and according to the article the program rolls out in MAY. Gee, nice warning eh?

San Antonio’s pilot program is starting in May and will run over the next 18 months. It will involve at least 50,000 active diabetic patients and four major testing labs. Metro Health will present a detailed summary of the pilot program to the Texas Legislature in September 2009. If the pilot program is successful, state lawmakers may consider similar programs in other major Texas metropolitan areas.

All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

How any free thinking person can think this is a great idea is beyond me. Seriously, MY healthcare is between me and my doctor. I’ll be damned if I need a city or state nanny hovering over my shoulder and deciding what my proper blood sugar level is supposed to be.

Seriously, considering how they lowered the BMI to create the obesity epidemic (overnight 30 million people became obese) and lowered the cholesterol levels do you honestly think they will know what everyone’s blood sugar is supposed to be? There is NO room for individuality in this. The 3rd party is creating a ‘one size fits all’ acceptable level and God/Goddess help you if you are one of those people who don’t fit the norm. AND don’t think for one moment they won’t threaten you into compliance IF you happen to be receiving any kind of assistance from the city or state.

I can’t believe this is happening and everyone is just sitting back and going “oh that’s a good idea”………………..WAKE UP!!!! Take back YOUR life.

Wisconsin Gun Owner Railroaded!

I don’t know if you have heard of David Olofson in Wisconsin who was just yesterday sentenced to 30 months prison time, followed by 2 years probation and community service all because he let a friend use one of his guns at a firing range, and it malfunctioned and let loose with more than one shot.

You need to read these Articles over at Just My Truth’s blog. She has been following this and has all the information. A couple of them actually have comments from David himself.

David Olofson Was Set Up

David Olofson, Latest Lou Dobbs Coverage

Olofson’s Court Documents 5-13-08

Olofson, Denied, Denied, Denied

Lou Dobbs David Olofson 5-14 JustMyTruth Comments

An appeal is being filed and his attorney is fighting to have his sentence stayed until after the appeal. Unfortunately that could take another 6 - 9 months and the judge on this case denied to stay the sentence.

The Supreme Court is supposed to render its decision on the D.C. gun ban next month. I don’t know what bearing, if any, that will have on this case, but right now, I see both as an attempt to dismantle the 2nd amendment.

IF you care about the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, we need to start writing letters. This man has done nothing wrong but someone wants to use him as a scapegoat.

Blue Dog Coalition Trying to Shaft Soldiers

The war in Iraq has been a nightmare. It’s been especially worse for the soldiers. Bush demands, not asks or requests mind you, but DEMANDS that Congress - read the taxpayers - just hand him over all the money HE wants for his war! Personally, I’d like an accounting of those funds.

Remember in the beginning all the horror stories about not enough ammunition, no bullet proof vests, bad helmets, bad humvees, bad this, bad that? You really do have to wonder where all this money was going. What’s worse, is that these soldiers, other peoples’ sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews and grandchildren were fighting in a war we had NO business starting to begin with, AND they were doing so without the proper tools. Read this story from 2004 - a year AFTER we went into Iraq - that 60 Minutes did and see how much Bush “supported the troops”.

GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets

What About The Troops, Asks 60 Minute’s Steve Kroft

Oct. 31, 2004

(CBS) Two weeks ago, a group of Army reservists in Iraq refused a direct order to go on a dangerous operation to re-supply another unit with jet fuel.

Without helicopter gunships to escort them over a treacherous stretch of highway, and lacking armored vehicles, soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company called it a suicide mission.

Oregon Army National Guard Spc. Eric S. McKinley, 24, of Corvallis, Ore., was killed north of Baghdad when his unarmed Humvee hit a roadside bomb on June 13, 2004. (AP Photo/Statesman Journal)

The Army called it an isolated incident, a temporary breakdown in discipline, and an investigation is underway.

But the 343rd isn’t the first outfit to be put in harm’s way without proper equipment, and commanders in Iraq acknowledged that the unit’s concerns were legitimate, even if their mutiny was not.

© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Read the FULL STORY here.

Bush has demanded more and more money ever since, each demand larger than the last. To add insult to injury, once wounded the soldier is treated like dirt - See HERE, HERE, HERE AND HERE. That’s just a small sampling of what a google search brings up on Iraqi Vets healthcare (Results 1 - 10 of about 2,570,000 for iraqi veterans get no health care). So we bribe the kids into joining up, and then if they get injured or suffer trauma we renege on our deal? What the hell is up with that?

Then I read this on Huffington Post about Veteran Benefits. Now remember as you read this, these kids are sold this bill of goods to sign up in the service (blackmail and entrapment come to my mind here):

Congress: Money for War, But No Money for the Troops?

Posted May 12, 2008 | 11:25 PM (EST)

By: Paul Rieckhoff

When it comes to hypocritical “Support the Troops” rhetoric, I thought I’d seen it all. But I was wrong. This week, a small group of Democrats are using back door dealings to torpedo the widely-supported new GI Bill. For anyone new to the issue, here’s the bottom line up front:

In 1944, FDR signed the original GI Bill, which gave every veteran a chance to go to college. It paid for tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend. The GI Bill helped the “Greatest Generation” readjust to civilian life, it helped pull us out of a post-war recession, and it helped build the middle class. Every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added at least seven dollars to the national economy.
Today, 1.7 million troops have come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the GI Bill no longer covers anything like the cost of college. So a bipartisan coalition of veterans now serving in the Senate introduced a new GI Bill, modeled on the World War II legislation. This bill recently got added to the war funding bill currently in Congress.

In the real world, two things are obvious:

1) If you send troops to war, caring for the veterans who come home is an unavoidable and necessary cost of that war.
2) The GI Bill is a proven program, and a smart financial investment that pays for itself.

It just makes sense. That’s why the 300-plus Senators and Representatives from both parties and all the major veterans organizations in America have endorsed the legislation.

In Washington, however, it seems like nothing is ever easy. A couple of Congressmen, including Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Allen Boyd (D-FL), all members of the Blue Dog Coalition, have gotten together to OPPOSE paying for the GI Bill this week. (If you live in their districts, you can urge them to support the GI Bill by clicking here.)

As Representative Tanner quipped, “Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick makers.” Really? Does the Congressman usually explain major policy decisions by quoting Mother Goose?

Seriously, though–by saying that the GI Bill shouldn’t be in the war funding bill, Representative Tanner is supporting the war, but not the warriors. That kind of thinking used to only appear in parodies. Moreover, these Representatives insist on referring to the GI Bill as a “new entitlement” - even though we’ve had a GI Bill for more than 60 years. But the most remarkable logical pirouette they’ve offered so far is that they oppose the GI Bill because they are “fiscal conservatives.”

Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc

Read the FULL STORY here.

So now we have Congressmen/women willing to give bush even MORE money to fund his war, but they don’t think the GI Bill should be part of the war funding package? The package is for more than $180 Billion and the GI Bill portion of this is only $780 Million. Look at the graph to get a real picture of it:

Our government has been paying for basically the entire war “off-budget”–the equivalent of racking up billions in credit card debt. Everyone thinks this is a bad way of doing business. But it’s not the whole supplemental that these Congressmen are threatening to vote against; it’s just the GI Bill. For those of you playing along at home, here’s what that looks like:

This circle is the spending bill we’re talking about. The big red part? That’s spending that is A-OK with these Congressmen (more than $180 billion). It’s that tiny blue sliver that represents the GI Bill, and that’s the dealbreaker for these folks ($780 million).

It’s absurd. Anyone who can find the money to fund the war has no excuse for voting against the tiny fraction of money needed for veterans’ education benefits. The fiscal conservative argument seems even more ludicrous once you realize that even five years of spending on the GI Bill would only cost as much as nine weeks of war in Iraq.

Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc

As you can see, the GI Bill funding is barely visible. You have to wonder what is in the minds of these morons. IF they were really “fiscal conservatives” I seriously doubt we’d be in the debt we are currently in. And NOW they want to tell these kids that were basically bribed into joining the service to fight that they can go to hell?

Any other business operating the way our government does would be out of business in short order. WHAT the hell are we letting them get away with this for?

Click HERE to see if your representative is part of this coalition trying to shaft our soldiers.

Click HERE to find your representative to contact him/her and tell them to “SUPPORT THE TROOPS”!!!!!!!!!

The ACLU DOES Fight For Us Too…

Lately, I’ve wondered about the American Civil Liberties Union, as they didn’t seem to be doing much in terms of “American Civil Liberties”. They have been strongly advocating “amnesty” and “rights” for ILLEGAL residents.

However, I just read something that gives me hope again. The ACLU has issued a memo to Congress regarding the S. 1959 bill also known as the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″. Apparently 2 Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) sent a report on Islamic Homegrown Terrorism. The report, “Violent Islamic Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat“ is based on findings from hearings held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. According to the ACLU and about 20 other groups, this report basically labels the internet “a weapon” along with singling out a religious group (Islamics) as “extremists”.

Here’s the ACLU press release as seen on CommonDreams.org:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 8, 2008 5:45 PM	CONTACT: ACLU 202-675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org
ACLU Skeptical of Senate Report on “Homegrown” Terrorism
WASHINGTON, DC - May 8 - After Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced a report on Islamic homegrown terrorism today, the American Civil Liberties Union strongly urged Congress to use caution when moving forward on related legislation, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 1959). The report, “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat,” is based on findings from hearings held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The ACLU and nearly twenty other groups sent a memo to the committee outlining concerns with the report, most notably the free speech implications of labeling the internet as a “weapon” and the unfair singling out of one religious group as possible “extremists.” “Once we begin trying to regulate belief systems, we have veered perilously far from the Constitution,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Though the need to prevent criminal acts of violence is unquestionable, targeting communities based on religious beliefs is unacceptable and unproductive. We will only end up stigmatizing the Islamic community and creating a nation of Islamophobes. We should not be legislating against thought and we should certainly not be regulating religious or unpopular thought. A dynamic debate can only make this country stronger and safer.” The ACLU raised similar concerns regarding legislation passed by the House last year. The framework established by that measure could possibly lead to unconstitutional restrictions on speech and belief – in addition to more appropriate restrictions on actions. ~snip~ The ACLU is concerned that identifying the Internet as a tool for terrorists will lead to censorship and regulated speech – especially since the Internet has become an essential communications and research tool for everyone. Indeed, some policy makers have advocated shutting down objectionable websites in violation of the First Amendment. It is an unworkable solution. “Unfortunately, terror comes in all shapes and sizes, and from all colors and religious backgrounds,” said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel. “Focusing on people with specific religious beliefs or backgrounds will not protect against the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world. This narrow focus could cost us dearly in the future.” To read the coalition memo about homegrown terrorism, go to: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35209leg20080507.html

Be sure the read that memo, it’s eye opening.

I’m with the ACLU on this one, all the way. When you read the report you will see they are using a case where an American was “converted”. Well, not for the nothing, but Islam is NOT the only religion that preaches intolerance, hatred, etc. The non-tolerance and hatred comes from all over the place and in all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, etc. This is just another form of Racial Profiling on the one hand, and more loss of freedom in the land of the free on the other hand.

That Senators (Lieberman has been helping McCain - so if you’re considering a vote for McCain you might want to reconsider that, unless you just don’t care about the Constitution and your rights) are trying to do this is disgusting! There’s something extremely wrong when the government of a Democratic Republic starts to dismantle that which they have sworn to protect and defend. I’d like to know how Lieberman and Collins consider destroying the first amendment to be protecting and/or defending our Constitution.

You can also read what the Huffington Post says about this, pointing out of course that there’s been NO word about this coming out of main stream media (but that’s NO surprise to me given how they are NOT free anymore).

I’ve been saying that this S.1959 bill was about destroying the first amendment. I don’t think that’s such a crazy thought anymore, do you?

Bush Administration Ignores The Will Of The People

How anyone can still praise this joke of a president with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. This administration has done nothing but show it’s complete and utter disdain for the “people” and for our Constitution….bush himself called it “just a goddamned piece of paper“; one of his puppets, alberto gonzalez called it “outdated“.

Not convinced yet? Here’s a good example of the total disregard of the people’s wishes AND of Congress itself:

FIRE MARY PETERS

By Tom DeWeese
May 11, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

The Bush Administration has directly defied, not only the will and intent of Congress, but it is now openly ignoring legislation that the President himself signed into law. As a result a Constitutional crisis is rapidly developing over a project to let Mexican trucks on U.S. roads. As a result, many are now calling for the firing of U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.

In September 2007, the Bush Administration began a pilot project to allow Mexican trucks to drive on U.S. highways. The project is, frankly, necessary if goals for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are to be achieved. The SPP openly calls for “harmonizing” the borders between the U.S. Mexico and Canada. In fact, the Bush Administration sites the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as its authority to push the project.

Congress was not happy with the program. Several members immediately sighted problems with safety of the Mexican trucks, including the inability of Mexican drivers to read English road signs in the US. Within weeks of the beginning of the project, both houses of congress began to draft legislation to put a stop to it.

Quickly, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced an amendment to the Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations bill to remove funding for the project. The amendment was passed by a bi-partisan majority of 74-24 and subsequently became part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by President Bush on December 26, 2007.

To make it perfectly clear that the legislation was a demand for the Administration to stop the Mexican truck project, Senator Dorgan received a letter from the Senate Legislative Council to confirm the law’s intent. The letter said, “No funds made available under the Consolidation Appropriations Act, 2008, were to be used in fiscal year 2008 to establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico.”

Can it be more clear? Further, it is the Constitutional duty of the Congress to fund or not to fund programs. Yet, in defiance of this clear intention of Congress, Secretary Peters continues to move forward, spending funds for the truck project unabated and against federal law.

Melissa Delaney, spokeswoman for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA), indicated the administration will simply ignore the congressional funding issue. In an all-too-familiar display of contempt for the concerns of the American people and in defiance of Congress, Delaney said, “We are committed to incremental steps in demonstrating the safety of the cross-border program, but there is no requirement to have a demonstration project.”

~snip~

Another major concern about the safety of the Mexican trucks crossing our border is the ability of the drivers to read and understand highway signs. The Bush Administration has falsely assured that the drivers are required to be proficient in English before crossing the border. A brochure aimed at Mexican drivers on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s website says, “Did you know? You MUST be able to read and speak English to drive truck in the United States.”

Yet, under heavy questioning during a Senate hearing in March, 2008, Transportation Secretary Peters and DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel reluctantly admitted that Mexican drivers were being approved at the border as “proficient in English” even though they could only explain U.S. traffic signs in Spanish.

Here is the verbatim exchange between Senator Dorgan, Peters and Scovel. Dorgan asked, “Does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration test for English proficiency at the border include questions about U.S. highway signs?”

“Do you show a driver an octagonal STOP sign at the border and qualify him if he explains the sign means ‘ALTO,” Dorgan asked with obvious agitation, “ALTO is the Spanish Word for STOP,” he said.

“Yes,” Scovel answered, hesitatingly. “If the stop sign is identified as ‘alto’ the driver is considered English proficient.”

“In other words,” said Dorgan, “the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is allowing Mexican drivers in the demonstration project to prove their proficiency in English by responding to the examiner’s questions in Spanish?”

Mary Peters responded, “U.S. highway signs comply with international standards. I drive frequently in Mexico and I always recognize the octagonal ‘ALTO’ signs as ‘STOP’ signs.”

“Excuse me, Madame Secretary,” said Dorgan, “the question is not whether you understand Mexican highway signs when driving in Mexico but whether Mexican drivers entering the U.S. in your demonstration project can pass an English proficiency test by answering the questions totally in Spanish.”

Answered Peters, “But answering in Spanish, the drivers explain they understand the English-language highway signs.” Countered Dorgan, “If you answer in Spanish, you’re not English proficient.”

Continued Dorgan, “My main concern is safety. We’ve established (in the Senate hearing) that there are no equivalencies between Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks. There are no equivalent safety standards. Mexico has no reliable database for vehicle inspections, no accident reports or driver’s records. Now you tell us Mexican drivers can pass their English proficiency tests in Spanish. The Department of Transportation is telling Congress - ‘We’re doing this and we don’t care’–” Senator Dorgan concluded.

~snip~

As Senator Dorgan said, the Bush Administration doesn’t care what Americans think about these policies. Mary Peters should be fired as a way to send a very strong message to the Bush Administration that the American people are fed up with its arrogance. Her firing would be a major blow to efforts to impose the North American Union, which of course President Bush denies exists. Fire Mary Peters first, and we’ll get the rest of the gang later.

© 2008 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Read the FULL STORY here.

What’s worse is that bush’s cronies are no longer being subtle in their disregard for the Constitution of the United States, and/or the will of “We The People”. They are now blatantly and openly doing as they damned well please, constitution and people be damned!

How much longer are we going to tolerate this? How much longer are we going to allow the rich elite to dictate to us? How long is it going to take for the majority to wake up and start taking back this country?

Out Of Control Nannyism

HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!

Although, since parenting is more and more becoming the domain of government nannies, I think Mother’s Day and Father’s Day will soon be abolished. Unless the only reason to celebrate them is just the fact that daddy was able to plant the seed and mommy was able to grow it.

The world has gone MAD! There is NO other explanation for the extreme nannyism taking place in today’s world. That people are actually calling all this crap a good idea and going along with it just boggles the mind of any person with a room temperature IQ.

Seriously, when did parents become so stupid that they need instructions on raising their children? I mean I know kids don’t come with an “instruction manual” but really, for millenia parents have managed to properly care for their children. So someone needs to explain to me, how and why in the 21st Century, people suddenly need “nannies” to tell them how to eat, what to eat, what kind of exercise to get, how much sleep to get, etc!

Or is it that people just got lazy? They want all the attention of the pregnancy and new baby stuff, but none of the responsibility? I don’t get it.

Sandy over at the Junkfood Science blog has done it again, and put together a list of some of the most pathetic and ridiculous “helpful programs” I’ve ever seen. Seeing them in a list this way (and it’s just a small sampling mind you) scares me to death and makes me so grateful that I’m not a parent with a young child.

It’s official: the world has gone nuts

There is simply no other explanation. In no particular order, I present as evidence:

Personal trainers and mini-exercise treadmills, child-size stair steppers, rowers and spinning bikes are now offered for children 3+ years of age: The Oxy-Kids classes in Sydney are already booked. Parents work out in an adjoining gym. The mother of a 4-year old said her son’s trainer told him fruit was a healthy food to eat before going to the gym.

The first ever fat camp for toddlers under age 5: A professor from Leeds Metropolitan University has launched a fat camp for toddlers called Too Fat to Toddle.

You will need click here for the Rest of this List.

If this doesn’t have you rolling your eyes, you are a lost cause and deserve the new world that you are allowing to happen. In case you haven’t noticed, that new world allows for NO FREE CHOICE!

My son once told me, unapologetically, that he had no intention of having children and I would never be a grandmother. I told him then “Thank you” and “you’d better make damned sure YOU don’t impregnate anyone even by accident. YOU don’t want children then birth control is YOUR responsibility solely”. I have no great desire to be a grandmother anyway, but seeing how things are going today, I think it’s almost criminal to bring a child into this world and I’m grateful my son won’t be!

If this new world of “nannying everyone” and not thinking for yourself is the world you want then go for it, just please, stop the world a moment and let those of us who aren’t afraid to live freely get off!

Al Gore: Promoting Genocide & Received A Nobel Prize?

We hear the calls for help all the time. Our email inboxes are filled with requests to help those in third-world countries (at least they are if you sign up for even one special interest/activist newsletter). It used to focus mostly on Southeast Asia, these days the calls are for African nations as well.

The concentration camps and killing of millions of Jews during the Nazi Regime were horrific and condemned by all. The holocust is still remembered and talked about as the worst act of genocide in history. Not to take away from that, but is it really the worst? Given the numbers of people dying in under-developed countries, under our very watchful eyes, I have to wonder if there isn’t a new genocide underway, in just as deliberate a manner, only this time under the guise of “health issues” and “global warming”.

I know, I know…..that’s crazy, right? Well there really IS enough food in the world to feed everyone, so you have to wonder what is happening to all the aid being sent to these countries that so many people are starving to death. You also have wonder why so many of them are dying of diseases that have all but been eradicated in the rest of the world.

An article in News With Views gives us a little insight into this, and also explains why I personally no longer have much respect or trust in all these special interest groups. It’s hard to know which ones are truly real anymore.

You also have to wonder how someone who helped promote the return of malaria in underdeveloped countries killing millions of innocent people was awarded a Nobel Prize. Especially for something that is not agreed with by any consensus. Since when do we reward junk science by special interests?

NOBEL PRIZE FOR DEATH

by Arthur Robinson

May 9, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

And so it has begun. Word is beginning to spill into the news of food riots and starvation in poor countries, as a result of shortages and the resulting high prices for grain. This suffering is a direct result of the unprincipled actions of self-interested people in developed countries who are promulgating the scientifically refuted myth of human-caused global warming.

Frightened by this myth, U. S. federal and state governments have diverted a significant amount of the American grain supply into the production of ethanol — an entirely counterproductive action that has helped to cause these grain shortages.

There is no intrinsic shortage of food. Since, however, food is perishable; the market produces each year an amount of food comparable to that which will be consumed. Stored food — primarily grain — usually suffices to smooth fluctuations due to weather and other factors. Prices fluctuate within a range narrow enough that most of the world’s people have sufficient food at a price they can afford. When, however, a large amount of grain is suddenly withdrawn from the market, severe shortages can result.

This current food shortage is only the beginning.

We have been down this road before. Unprincipled opportunists — falsely claiming that DDT is dangerous to the environment — managed to engineer a world-wide ban of DDT. DDT had eradicated malaria from the developed world and was well on its way to eradicating it from the less developed countries at the time this ban of DDT was instituted. The initiation of DDT use against malaria was rewarded by a Nobel Prize, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT had saved hundreds of millions of lives.

One of the principal political figures who worked to ban DDT was none other than Al Gore.

As a result of the DDT ban, more than 30 million children in Africa and Asia have died from DDT-preventable malaria, and an estimated 500 million adults are today chronically ill from this disease. The ban of DDT was the worst act of technological genocide in human history.

Now, Mr. Gore is the recognized leader of an effort to ban at least 90% of world use of hydrocarbon fuels. Once again, his claims are based upon bogus science and are motivated by personal financial and political self interest. Mr. Gore has been joined by the United Nations and its IPCC process. The goal of the United Nations is clear. It wants the power to tax and ration world energy supplies. This would place essentially unlimited power and money in the hands of the United Nations and cooperating world political entities.

As acts of genocide, the potential effects of the human-caused global warming industry are so profound that the DDT genocide is minor in comparison.

© 2008 - Art Robinson - All Rights Reserve

Art Robinson was educated in chemistry at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Diego. Immediately after graduation, he was appointed to the faculty of UCSD and carried out research there and at Stanford University. In 1973, Linus Pauling and Art Robinson founded a research Institute that was known as the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. Robinson was President and Director of that Institute. In 1980, Art Robinson, his scientist wife Laurelee, and several colleagues founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, where he is currently President and Research Professor.

Website: OISM.org

Read the FULL STORY here.

I didn’t realize that Al Gore was behind the DDT ban. I’m no advocate for the promotion or use of chemicals, especially pesticides that can, and does, get into our food and water supply. But you have to wonder what was going through their mind when malaria went on the rise again in these underdeveloped nations after the DDT ban. OH, that’s right……they blamed it on smoking and global warming….we’ll just ignore the fact that it’s the mosquito that spreads malaria. Silly me.

A google search turns up that Al Gore has been working hard to eradicate those he deems “unacceptable” for quite some time. The American Thinker is a good blog site. Here is a clip from one back in October of 2007:

But it’s not just cancer patients that come into Gore’s technological crosshairs. Gore also points out the supposedly dire effect on nature of growing more food to feed the hungry. Ironically, he blasts what is called the “green revolution,” the high-yield farming and plant breeding that has made countries like India and Pakistan self-sustaining in agriculture. Norman Borlaug won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering these techniques and bringing them to the Third World.

This is an example of how Gore alarms and misleads at the same time. Yes, any agricultural improvement may have negative side effects that need to be fixed. But India’s “temporary” conquering of hunger has lasted 40 years, and the nation is now a net grain exporter. Borlaug has also been honored by politicians of both parties, as he is a senior consultant to the Carter Center and was surrounded by President Bush and the House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid when he received the Congressional Gold Medal this July. Gore’s disparaging of Borlaug’s prize-winning achievement shows how far out of the scientific mainstream Gore is on this and other issues.

Unfortunately, Gore still has plenty of influence as an ambassador of science to the media and lay public, and a Nobel Peace Prize may magnify this even more. The results of honoring Gore’s dishonoring of human progress could be tragic and devastating. Look no further than Gore’s tirades against another Nobel-winning achievement: the life-saving insecticide DDT.

Even after the turnabout by the World Health Organization, the New York Times and other establishment venues, Gore has never once said that Rachel Carson was wrong. As late as 1996, he called DDT a “notorious compound” that “presented serious human health risks.” The tragedy is that on this issue, Gore could have used his tremendous political capital to make a difference in reducing malaria deaths.

And Gore is still hindering anti-malaria efforts by spreading misinformation about its main causes. In his movie and book An Inconvenient Truth, Gore blames global warming for recent outbreaks of malaria in the cooler regions of Kenya. But as I have reported in my book Eco-Freaks and elsewhere, the World Health Organization had documented epidemics in those very regions in the 1940s, long before global warming was on the radar screen. The malaria was wiped out there, as elsewhere, by DDT, and unfortunately, as elsewhere, has now returned in the absence of DDT’s use.

Read the FULL STORY here.

And speaking of global warming and Al Gore, do he and his cronies drive vehicles that add NO pollution to air? Even IF they do, how to they get to their speaking engagements around the world? OH, that’s right they take the JET…….you know one of those flying contraptions that spews tons of pollutants into the air each time they use it, and that they claim are part of the cause the global warming crisis. So unless they are flying under their own power like Superman, they are a bunch of hypocrites.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for respecting and caring for the environment, but I’ve never bought into Al’s view of it. There are ways to clean up our environment and do our part to take care of it, however, I don’t believe for one minute that we need to stop living in order to do it.

Michael Crichton gave a great speech back in 2003. I urge you to read the whole thing, I don’t have permission to use any of it yet (still waiting to hear on that) but there are about 3 or 4 paragraphs about 2/3 of the way into it that everyone needs to read and pay attention to. Here is the link for the speech entitled (click on the title):

Environmentalism As Religion

Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003

The majority of the people today need to pull their heads out of the sand! We are being overrun and overruled by “special interest” groups who don’t give a damn about you, they only care about their personal agenda which they want you to submit to. They are willing to use UN-democratic force via laws to make you submit.

Time to shake off the apathy and complacency we’ve fallen into, and start demanding the Constitution be adhered to once again! It is well past time we made these people using our tax dollars, or our donated dollars, accountable to WE THE PEOPLE!

Federal Genetic Database….

Apparently 2 important bills were voted on, both passed and were sent to the President’s office for his signature. One bill has already been signed by bush ( S. 1858 ) and the other is still awaiting signature ( HR 493 ). I don’t know about you, but I did not hear one word about this on my local news, in the paper, or even on CNN!

The big questions are: Will they ask for your consent AND will your information be kept private OR will it be shared with anyone who asks for it?

The Junkfood Science blog has been keeping close track on this issue and has a very informative posting about it this week.

Have you heard the news — on the federal genetic database and surveillance program?

Two major new pieces of legislation have received virtually no notice by mainstream media, but, incredibly, give the federal government the ability to both collect the DNA on every American and establish a nationalized DNA database and surveillance system, and to legalize the sharing of genetic information without patient consent. The names given the legislation aren’t what they sound.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007

Last week, President Bush signed into law bill S. 1858, which will see the federal government begin a nationalized program to gather genetic information for screening on all newborn babies in the United States within six months. This Act is the first step towards establishing a national DNA database. [Background information on the scientific efficacy and ethical issues and controversies surrounding newborn screening here.]

~snip~

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

In a vote of 414 to 1 (the only dissenting vote was cast by Rep. Ron Paul), the House voted last week to approve bill HR 493, which was reported as prohibiting discrimination in employer hiring or insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on the results of genetic tests. The legislation received the support of HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt who told the Boston Globe it was something to be “thrilled about.”

Read the FULL STORY here.

This part of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 ( S. 1858 ) bill, which the president has already signed, is interesting (bold emphasis mine):

`SEC. 1116. HUNTER KELLY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

`(a) Newborn Screening Activities-

• `(A) identifying, developing, and testing the most promising new screening technologies, in order to improve already existing screening tests, increase the specificity of newborn screening, and expand the number of conditions for which screening tests are available;`(B) experimental treatments and disease management strategies for additional newborn conditions, and other genetic, metabolic, hormonal and or functional conditions that can be detected through newborn screening for which treatment is not yet available; and

  `(C) other activities that would improve newborn screening, as identified by the Director.

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in conjunction with the Director of the National Institutes of Health and taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, may continue carrying out, coordinating, and expanding research in newborn screening (to be known as `Hunter Kelly Newborn Screening Research Program’) including–

`(2) ADDITIONAL NEWBORN CONDITION- For purposes of this subsection, the term `additional newborn condition’ means any condition that is not one of the core conditions recommended by the Advisory Committee and adopted by the Secretary.

You can read the FULL TEXT of S. 1858 here.

The other bill called Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (HR 493), which is awaiting the president’s signature, sounds like a good idea. This is a looooonnnnngggg bill, mostly because the bulk of it consists of defining everything over and over (employee, employer, family, etc) as IF those definitions change from bill to bill? Anyway, I found THIS interesting….again the bolded emphasis is mine:

TITLE II–PROHIBITING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENETIC INFORMATION

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.(3) FAMILY MEMBER- The term `family member’ means, with respect to an individual–

(A) a dependent (as such term is used for purposes of section 701(f)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) of such individual, and(B) any other individual who is a first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, or fourth-degree relative of such individual or of an individual described in subparagraph (A).

SEC. 202. EMPLOYER PRACTICES.(a) Discrimination Based on Genetic Information- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

(1) to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee, or otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee; or(2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee as an employee, because of genetic information with respect to the employee.

(b) Acquisition of Genetic Information- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee except–

(1) where an employer inadvertently requests or requires family medical history of the employee or family member of the employee;

OK, color me stupid, BUT exactly HOW does an employer INADVERTENTLY request or require family medical history? Seems to me there is no way to inadvertently ask for that.

You can read the FULL TEXT OF HR 493 here.

I have to tell you, only an over-educated, over-blown ego could write these bills. In going through HR 493, all I can say is what a WASTE of words, times, paper. The whole damned thing could be summed up in one paragraph stating that it shall be UNlawful to discriminate in any way, manner, shape, form against any person by any employer, insurer, agency because of genetics and that it shall be unlawful for any employer, insurer, agency other than the individual and their primary doctor to have access to this genetic information, to be shared ONLY with the patients’ written consent for specific purposes. But that’s just me. I actually understand what that means, as would every other normal person on the planet. The problem is that government, insurers, over-educated people always think they are somehow entitled to butt in.

Regardless of what HR 493 states, I can almost guarantee you that there WILL be flagrant and outright discrimination based on genetics. And exactly HOW is a person to give consent to share that information IF they weren’t even aware they were tested genetically. Remember, S. 1858 allows for the genetic screening of all newborns without parental consent.

Ron Paul was the ONLY representative to stand up against these bills. Too bad the rest of our so-called representatives didn’t think about what WE THE PEOPLE might want.

It really is time to re-educate yourself about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The government has gotten too big, too controlling, and are definitely out of hand. WE THE PEOPLE need to reign them in again and cut them back down to size.

Prosecute bush………IF ONLY!!!

Now here is someone who has the spine to actually say it!!!

No other commentary is required, this article says it all!

Published on Friday, May 9, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

by Vincent Bugliosi

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.

Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

The Manning Memo

On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.

~snip~

Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder is available May 27.

For more information visit www.prosecutionofbush.com

Read the FULL STORY here.

Taxation Without Representation

Does the title here sound familiar to anyone? It is one of the reasons that the colonists tossed all that tea overboard into Boston Harbor and started the American Revolution against the King of England.

Oh my how we have forgotten our history.

Now New York has become a gangster, or rather is using gangster tactics, to force all it’s citizens who shop online to avoid the taxes into paying them via forcing the online retailer to charge the NY State tax and pay the state OR suffer an audit for back taxes. This law is to go into effect June 1, 2008. IF the online retailer registers by then and starts collecting and paying NY those taxes, then NY guarantees they will NOT go after the retailer for back taxes owed for the past few quarters.

I’ve actually been waiting for someone to do this. I knew it was coming when they went after the cigarette internet sellers for customer lists and started sending their citizens tax bills for the taxes they didn’t pay by buying cigarettes online. And warm, understanding people that the State employs, gave these poor souls all of 30 days to pay up or face penalties and interest charges. Some States went back as far as 3 years and some folks, mostly retired too, were hit with back tax bills in the thousands that they had NO way to pay. The States in their compassionate fashion, agreed to payment plans that included PENALTIES AND INTEREST.

The hatred against tobacco allowed them to get away with it, and many of those citizens who cheered it on are now going to get a taste of that.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t blackmail illegal? Isn’t threatening considered bullying?

New York Goes Gangsta With Tax Law

By Mike Sachoff - Tue, 05/06/2008 - 9:30am.

Makes sellers offer they can’t refuse

Online retailers doing business in New York will be required to register with the state beginning June 1, 2008 to collect taxes, or face audits for prior quarters for failing to register.

Amazon.com is suing the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (DTF) over a new state law that requires Internet retailers to collect sales tax on purchases shipped to state residents.

Amazon has argued that since it does not have a physical presence in the state that it should not be required to collect taxes on shipments going to New York. “Amazon has no physical presence in New York,” according to the suit. “It does not own, lease, or otherwise occupy any physical property in the state, and none of its employees works or resides in the state.”

In addition Amazon says the New York law is unconstitutional based on a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that claims states are prohibited from requiring out of state retailers to collect sales tax unless the company has a physical presence in the state.

In the Quill v. North Dakota case, the Supreme Court re-established the rule that a state could not impose sales tax collection on a business unless the company had employees or property in the state.

Read the FULL STORY here.

Amazon Vs. New York

May 6th, 2008

2 Comments

Click To Play

Amazon Inc. has sued the state of New York over a tax law that was implemented in early April. The law requires out-of-state online companies to collect sales tax on items shipped to New York. Amazon claims the law is unconstitutional, while brick-and-mortar companies believe the law allows for fair competition. Watch the full report from WebProNews Reporter Abby Prince on your source for Breaking eBusiness and Search News.

In WebProNews Update

Check out the Video here.

I suspect that checkpoints at all the bridges and state line roads will be next to nail all those criminal tax evaders who have the nerve (and the means) to travel across state lines for tax-free, or at least lower taxed, shopping. And let us not forget all the bus depots, train stations and airports. My sister loves to visit her best friend in Delaware, and goes shopping like mad every time because there is NO sales tax in Delaware. She won’t be able to do that much longer from what I can see.

Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution clearly states:

Article. I.

Section. 9.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Maybe it’s just me, but if I buy something online that is shipped from another state, is that state not exporting an article to me? WHAT are these legal eagles thinking to do things like this?

Don’t say we (we=smokers) didn’t try to warn you, we did…………but what did we know, we were just stupid addicted smokers trying to evade the sales tax, right? While I would love to sit back and laugh now, but I can’t. I can’t because in order to fight for MY right to be free to choose, I must also fight for your rights. THIS is the one thing smokers have been trying to get through to everyone. It was never about smoking with us, it was, AND IS, about liberty, freedom of choice, and protecting the very foundation this country was built on.

The blatant, outright disregard for the Constitution is getting out of hand. We need to stop this outrage. IF the States are so hard up for money, they need to lower their sales tax rates which might encourage the citizens of that State to actually buy locally. This is a no-brainer! It doesn’t require a degree in advanced economics.

Do you still think this country is not sliding into a fascist/socialist state?

Rocket Fuel Component In Your Drinking Water?

While members of “public health” and special interest groups are running around screaming that the sky is falling with their hysterics over smoking, trans-fats, obesity, and what-ever-else the delicate flowers with weak immune systems find offensive, these same groups of people are NOT overly concerned about the real poisons in our food and water supply.

You really have to wonder about that.

Apparently there is in our water supply, a component found in rocket fuel and fireworks. The component is called perchlorate, and apparently is not healthy for the thyroid. I can’t even begin to imagine how it would affect a fetus.

See this article from Common Dreams on the EPA’s reaction to our poisoned waterways.

Published on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 by Associated Press

EPA Might Not Act To Limit Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water

by Erica Werner

WASHINGTON - An EPA official said Tuesday there’s a “distinct possibility” the agency won’t take action to rid drinking water of a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has contaminated public water supplies around the country.

Democratic senators called that unacceptable. They argued that states and local communities shouldn’t have to bear the expense of cleansing their drinking water of perchlorate, which has been found in at least 395 sites in 35 states — or the risk of not doing so.

The toxin interferes with thyroid function and poses developmental health risks, particularly to fetuses.

Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the Environmental Protection Agency, told a Senate hearing that EPA is aware that perchlorate is widespread and poses health risks.

But he said that after years of study, EPA has yet to determine whether regulating perchlorate in drinking water would do much good.

“Is there a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk if we issue a new national regulation on perchlorate? We’ve been spending a lot of time on that, Madam Chairman,” Grumbles told Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

“I understand your frustration in how long the process is taking but we believe it’s important to do the work,” Grumbles said, promising a decision by the end of the year.

“EPA is trying to shunt the scientists to the back, put the DOD contractors to the front,” Boxer chided. “We want to see action by the scientists. We want to see a standard set.”

Grumbles told Boxer it was possible that instead of a regulation, EPA would issue a public health advisory, which would simply provide information. After the hearing he told reporters that a decision to regulate perchlorate was also still on the table.

© 2008 Associated Press

Read the FULL STORY here.

Perchlorate is also found in our foods. The problem seems to be that no one has yet to determine a “safe level”. So between our food and our water is it just possible we are being poisoned and don’t even know it? Of course my response to that one is a resounding “YES” because I’ve said for years that they’ve put something in the water………………I just didn’t realize how accurate I was with that comment back then…LOL

You have to ask yourself, could THIS be what’s “wrong with kids today”?

Science News –

February 13, 2008

Perchlorate in food

A new FDA study provides averages but doesn’t include highly exposed populations.

Food is the primary source of perchlorate for most Americans, and U.S. toddlers on average are being exposed to more than half of the U.S. EPA’s safe dose from food alone, according to a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) diet survey designed to provide perchlorate and iodine intake averages from food for the entire U.S. Even though the new study is silent on intake by highly exposed populations, several lawmakers and environmental advocates renew their calls for a national perchlorate drinking-water standard, but EPA is not divulging its plans.

JUPITERIMAGES

Dairy products are the major source of perchlorate for children.

The agency, which has been waiting for the results from the FDA study to help it decide whether to set a national drinking-water standard for perchlorate, intends to issue a preliminary determination on whether to regulate the substance soon, according to Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Water. EPA has been investigating the contaminant for almost a decade.

Perchlorate is well known as a major component in rocket fuel, but the chemical also forms naturally. In sufficient amounts it disrupts the thyroid by inhibiting the uptake of iodide, an essential component of thyroid hormones. Because these hormones direct brain development, health concerns have focused on fetuses and young infants. A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee in 2005 recommended a safe dose of 0.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, and EPA adopted this as its reference dose.

As part of FDA’s existing Total Diet Study, agency scientists measured perchlorate levels in 285 foods obtained from grocery stores and fast-food outlets in different parts of the U.S. between 2003 and 2006. To estimate exposure, they combined the analytical results with food consumption estimates. Drinking water was excluded from the survey.

Other studies have found perchlorate in food, but this is the first to estimate exposure for the U.S. population. Toxicologist Gary Ginsberg of the Connecticut Department of Public Health notes that the FDA estimates for adult exposure to perchlorate from food, about 10% of the reference dose, agree well with biomonitoring data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the FDA survey cannot estimate extremes of exposure. “The CDC study found a fourfold increase from the average to the extremely exposed. . . . If this holds for toddlers, then some are likely to be way above the safe dose,” he says.

Copyright ©2008 American Chemical Society

Read the FULL STORY here.

I think I need to find myself a nice piece of empty land somewhere, and start growing my own food.

Plotting To Take Down Iran Began With 9/11

This administration has milked 9/11 for all it’s worth and plenty more. They’ve done it so much in fact that I sometimes start to believe those conspiracy theories that it was an inside job. bush needed a reason to start a war, needed a reason to instill enough fear in the people that we wouldn’t balk, because after all, terrorists killed Americans on American soil. Well they also killed plenty of foreigners who were working/visiting at the World Trade Center on that fateful morning also.

Common Dreams has an interesting article today about how the plan to take down Iran began right after the 9/11 attack.

Published on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 by Inter Press Service

Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change after 9/11

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.

Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.

Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W. Bush on Sep. 30, 2001 calling for the