VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE AND THOUGHTS

Read this link to a very interesting sermon.

Sermon Text

Interesting sermon. I went and read Genesis starting in 39 and the first mistake of the Egyptian people was not saving for themselves but allowing Pharaoh to save for them. During the seven years of plenty Pharaoh, on Josephs advice and management, took 20% of the crops and stored them. Then when the famine came Pharaoh had all the
stored food and the Egyptians were forced to pay with everything they had just to get survival food. I think much of this country has made the same mistake, during the years of plenty very few saved and now that we are in the beginning years of famine people are looking to the government to meet all their needs. Pharaoh couldn't print money and devalue the currency of those who had saved and planned as the US Government can today. So today, although the Government didn't plan
ahead and save from years of plenty they can through currency devaluation and the institution of new taxes and fees take from those who did plan ahead and the end result is the same. Everyone becomes a servant of the government.

Now this view is from that of an Egyptian, as for the Hebrews and the sons of Jacob it gave the opportunity for Joseph to deliver his Fathers family from the famines of Canaan with God using Joseph to accomplish this.

Democrats playing doctor

Article Link

Recycling Cans

I have been telling Christopher how I used to save newspapers and cans for recycling when I was young. He has started saving cans and we were just looking to see how many cans it takes to make a pound which turns out is about 34 and the price I most recently saw was 55 cents a pound at the recyclers. However in that web site on which we learned how many cans there are per pound we learned what a major environmental impact recycling cans can have. Here is the link to that site and hopefully this will cause you to think before you throw cans in the garbage. Not for the money involved but for the positive environmental impact.
Recycling questions answered

Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare Information

I have been wondering what exactly is medicaid and why do we need government run health care to insure all the uninsured when we already have it with medicaid. I thought maybe I didn't understand what medicaid really is. I am going to paste some links here so you can see for yourself what medicaid really is. Once you realize what medicaid is you really wonder what this is all about. We already have a bankrupt government health care system in the form of both medicare and medicaid. Medicare for old people and Medicaid for the poor people. Thus the issue really becomes socializing the remaining amount of our health care in pursuit of FDR's second bill of rights.

Here is a link from the National Conference of State Legislatures giving an explanation of Medicaid

Short commercial explanation of Medicare

Now lets look at the unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare.

Of course we now understand this news clip from December 24, 2009.

President Obama just delivered a short speech praising Senate passage of the health care bill, calling the health care bill one of the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security in the 1930's and Medicare in the 1960's.

We now understand what important legislation means to a liberal. Legislation that has the legitimate opportunity to bankrupt an entire nation.

So of course we can understand why the government should take over all health care decisions on costs and benefits provided. They have done such a good job so far of spending money they don't have, why not expand it to the entire population, and just accelerate the bankrupting of this country. Lets look at how the Congressional Budget Office has done in the past of estimating the future since the democrats are basing their takeover of health care on CBO estimates. Is the US Government bankrupt?

Internet TV and Videos, Where the real journalism has gone

I just watched these two videos from this guy who seems to do more to educate and inform than 60 minutes with their unlimited budget. Pretty sad when we can get more education from internet sites with very small budgets such as PJTV and breitbarttv than we can from our "state run media" known as CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN.

Detroit in RUINS! (Why)


The REAL GUANTANAMO BAY!!

Detroit residents express little faith in Washington to fix city, auto industry

Why Interest Rates Will Almost Certainly Rise in 2010

article link

U.S. promises unlimited financial assistance to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

Only Obama would offer unlimited aid. No CEO would ever offer open ended commitments such as this.

On the same day that Obama was taking additional shots at the insurance industry and proclaiming historic progress toward nationalizing health insurance he was offering unlimited aid to Fannie and Freddie. Not only that but approving of multimillion dollar bonuses to their top management. If you are a friend of the White House then multimillion dollar bonuses are fine and even supported with government cash but if you are on their "shit list" then you should be restricted to 400,000 per year.

Here is an excerpt from the news long ago (December 5, 2009) relative to the just passed senate bill:

"Talks to find common ground on those issues are happening behind the scenes, but coloring the public action. Democratic leaders were giving the spotlight Saturday to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. — a key moderate with a difficult re-election next year — to propose an amendment that would limit insurance executives' tax deductible salaries to the same amount the U.S. president makes — currently $400,000.

The bill already includes a limit of $500,000 added by Lincoln earlier, so the new amendment doesn't represent a major change, though it does add a provision directing the expected $650 million in revenue to the Medicare trust fund."

This amendment failed but the intent is already in the bill.

Unlimited aid

Fannie, Freddie CEOs to Earn $4M-$6M in '09

White House Christmas Decor Featuring Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire

Why would we be surprised if the White House Christmas Tree had a Mao Zedong Christmas ornament. We had a white house communication director this year who had Mao as one of her favorite philosophers and when she left her husband then became the White House attorney which only made sense as he had been Obamas personal attorney before that.

White House Christmas Decor Featuring Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire

Anita Dunn Video

Dropping the Bomb on Healthcare

Link to article

Top Ten Reasons Why the Yield Curve Will Flatten (Hint: This Is a Different Sort of Recession)

article link

Obama Gives Save Award

Obama was on the bully pulpit again yesterday attacking his predecessor for poor fiscal management and telling us that he is saving the US and the world. He had nothing but praise for the senate in their fleecing of America state by state with bribes for socialized health-care for all. His words are almost laughable if he were not the president of the US.

He also was promoting his SAVE program and the award of the first winner. Below is the text from the portion of his self congratulatory talk on health care yesterday related to the program. Note they had 38,000 ideas submitted from Government employees and they voted on them and narrowed it down to 4 and finally this one great idea.

DRUM ROLL PLEASE:

The winning idea:

Nancy Fichtner from Colorado thinks that veterans leaving VA hospitals should be able to take the medicine they've been using home with them instead of it being thrown away when they're discharged.
As is the case in most hospitals all across the country, medicine that is used in the hospital is not given to patients to be brought home; instead, it is thrown out. "Currently the inpatient medications such as ointments, inhalers, eye drops, and other bulk items are being disposed of upon patient discharge." Nancy proposes ending this waste and finding a way to allow this medicine to be used by those who need it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

What a genius idea, I am sure glad this was voted on among 38,000 ideas and deemed the best and that the President of the United States was able to give the award. Glad we were able to fly her and her family across the country for the presentation. This was an award that shows the lack of empowerment in our federal government. This idea should never have had to go beyond the shift supervisor on the floor of the hospital but instead had to be submitted, reviewed at probably every level of the VA then voted on and then given an award at the white house. And these are the people who have come up with the idea to save our entire health care system. Should make you feel better after you read the transcript or perhaps even watch the whole video of his praise for the fleecing of the taxpayers by the the Senate.

Entire transcript in case you can't get enough:
Time Transcript of speach

Link to White House Video

Otherwise here is the portion related to this earth shattering idea:

" Now, embracing this kind of responsibility in Washington is what also brings us here today. I am pleased to be joined this morning by my Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Ric Shinseki; my budget director, Peter Orszag; and our special guest, last but not least, the winner of the first annual SAVE Award -- and that's Nancy Fichtner of Loma, Colorado.

Having met with Nancy a few minutes ago, I can tell you Nancy means business. She is a single working mom; she's a clerk with the VA; she's an artist; she's an outdoorswoman; and she is an avid hunter. In fact, somewhere in the western United States, there is an elk that is breathing a sigh of relief because Nancy is here instead of where she would have been: hunting with her kids. (Laughter.) And I believe her children are here -- where's Nancy's kids? There they are right there. It's great to see you guys. Nancy's daughter -- she skins and guts her elk, so don't mess with her either. (Laughter.)

We're all here for a simple reason. At a time when we face not only a fiscal crisis, but also a host of difficult challenges as a nation, business as usual in Washington just won't cut it. We need a government that's more efficient, that's more effective, and far more fiscally responsible.

When my administration walked through the door, the country faced a growing economic downturn as well as a deepening fiscal hole. Washington had passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and an expensive new entitlement program without paying for any of it. Health care costs continued to rise, year after year. And little effort was made to cut wasteful spending. As a result, over the previous eight years, the national debt doubled -- doubled. In January, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion. And we had to make the difficult decision to add to the deficit in the short term to prevent the potential collapse of our economy."

..........

"Finally, I've issued a challenge to every man and woman who works for the federal government: If you see a way that government could do its job better, or do the same job for less money, I want to know about it. That's why we started the SAVE Award, to draw on those who know government best to improve how government works. We asked federal employees to submit reform proposals based on their experiences. And in a testament to the seriousness with which these folks are taking their jobs, we received more than 38,000 proposals in just three weeks.

From these submissions, four finalists were selected and put to an online vote. Nancy is here because she won. Her idea stems from her experience at the VA Medical Center where she works. She noticed that whenever patients left the hospital, leftover medications like eye drops or inhalers were just thrown away. And often, veterans would have to go right back to the pharmacy to refill what was discarded. So the VA is paying twice -- it's waste, plain and simple. And thanks to Nancy -- and to Secretary Shinseki and the folks at Veterans Affairs -- we're putting a stop to it. The change is already underway.

Of course, Nancy's proposal was just one of many great ideas that came to us. We've already begun to implement a host of suggestions made through the SAVE contest. And while promoting electronic paystubs or scheduling Social Security appointments online or re-purposing unused government supplies may not be the most glamorous reforms in history, when taken together, these small changes can add up; they add up to a transformation of how government works.

And that's why we're going to turn the SAVE Award into an annual event. That's why we're holding a forum at the White House next month to seek more ideas from the private sector, specifically about how we can better use technology to reform our government for the 21st century.

After years of irresponsibility, we are once again taking responsibility for every dollar we spend, the same way families do. It's true that what I've described today will not be enough to get us out of our fiscal mess by itself. We face a deficit that will take some tough decisions in the next year's budget and in years to come to get under control. But these changes will save the American people billions of dollars. And they'll help to put in place a government that's more efficient and effective, that wastes less money on no-bid contracts, that's cutting bureaucracy and harnessing technology, that's more fiscally responsible, and that better serve the American taxpayer. That's the government we need. That's the government I intend to implement. That's the kind of government that the American people deserve. And that's the kind of government that people like Nancy are helping to build each and every day.

So, Nancy, congratulations. We're proud of you. Thank you so much. Thank you. We're very proud of your mom. (Laughter.) That's great."



Now don't you feel better about our federal government getting spending under control.

FOXNews.com - The Price Is Right? Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill

FOXNews.com - The Price Is Right? Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill

Posted using ShareThis

Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West

Lt Col Allen West

Obama's dubious 'wins' in Copenhagen and Congress

George Will comentary

Is this the Change that was expected

Constitutional Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The terrible thing we have now is a President and regulatory czar who
believe we need to have a second bill of rights stating what the
government must do for you and enforcing redistributive change.
Notice how proud Obama was of giving the Indians 3.4 billion recently.
He is the CEO of a company who just settled a 3.4 billion claim and
he brags about it. Obama said during a 2001 radio interview

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights
movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it
succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed
people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be
able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for
it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues
of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as
political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical
as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that
radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were
placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its
been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that
generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says
what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government
can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State
government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of
the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because
the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a
tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and
activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual
coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive
change. In some ways we still suffer from that."


And then Obama and Sunstein as well as I am sure most of the cabinet
and czars support FDR's massive expansion of the obligations of
government through a second bill of rights. Sunstein even wrote a
book called The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need It More than Ever. Here is what that means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States
President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address
on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize,
and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not
argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that
the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by
federal judges. Roosevelt's stated justification was that the
"political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of
happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to create an "economic bill of
rights" which would guarantee:

A job with a living wage
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
A home
Medical care
Education
Recreation

Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American
security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far
these and similar rights had been carried into practice.

So you see the problem is not that our existing Bill of Rights was not
clear it is that we have a power structure in Washington who wants to
entirely redefine the role of government and idolizes socialist
agendas. They want to use politcal power and community organizing to
bring about the change that the Courts and Constitution have not been
able to achieve nor were they ever intended to achieve.

Perhaps the banks weren't so sick

Perhaps the banks weren't so sick

Chavez and Clinton in Copenhagen

It is very disturbing to me that Hugo Chavez can receive some of the most applause for attacking capitalism and the free markets. It tells you the political ideology of those who are attending that conference. Sure hope our President doesn't follow suit as he has been known to do both here and abroad relative to the evils of capitalism and the need for government regulation, ownership and control. Hillary pledged 100 billion per year to third world nations by 2020 yesterday financed by cap and trade in the US. At least I guess you have to say they are consistent. Redistribute the wealth in our own country and then turn around and use the environmental movement to redistribute the national wealth to poor nations and wa la, we have a socialist world where we are all equal.

Hugo Chavez remarks

Hillary pledge

Rewriting Our History, Changing Our Traditions - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

Rewriting Our History, Changing Our Traditions - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

The Obama Administration and the Bill of Rights

The Obama Administration and the Bill of Rights

Mt Rushmore addition

I was just listening to this short video of Becks talking about scattered glimpses of journalism occurring after a full year of silence. At the end of his video he made a comment that just when he thought they may be starting to be journalist again he saw a CBS poll about adding a president to Mt Rushmore and they had 6 dead presidents in the poll and one who has been in office for 10 months. I thought it must be a joke so I googled it. It wasn't a joke. Of course it was a 60 Minutes poll. I quite watching what used to be my favorite program about 6 months ago when it became obvious that 60 Minutes was a White House propaganda show and this pretty much supports my assertion.

Here is the Glenn Beck video link: Video
And then here is the CBS news poll in which you can vote for Obama being added to Mt
Rushmore survey

The Water Cure: An interview with Dr. Batmanghelidj page 1

The Water Cure: An interview with Dr. Batmanghelidj page 1

snopes.com: An Open Letter to President Obama - Lou Pritchett

snopes.com: An Open Letter to President Obama - Lou Pritchett

Posted using ShareThis

Swine Flu Government Data Scam

Swine Flu Government Data Scam


Watch CBS News Videos Online

7 stories Obama does not want told

Which means the media will probably never tell them. But, let's just say someone lost that chill up the leg, or didn't think the President and the first lady looked so gosh darned stunning. What would be the stories Obama doesn't want out for public consumption? The Politico has an article out that covers just that - including one thing about Obama's apparent lack of emotion that has bothered Glenn for some time now. ( Transcript, Insider Audio)

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: 7 stories Obama does not want told

Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Luttrell's take

Just listened to the audio of this interview twice and I know the transcript is not nearly as informative or interesting but the information is still there. This is a Navy Seal talking and that is about as front line and informed as you can get.

Glenn Beck - Interviews - Glenn Beck: Luttrell's take

How Adam Got Eve

How Adam Got Eve

Nothing like a good Bible story to make your day.

How Adam Got Eve -- Priceless

Adam was hanging around the garden of Eden feeling very lonely..




So, God asked him, 'What's wrong with you?'


Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to.

God said that He was going to make Adam a companion

and that it would be a woman.







He said, 'This pretty lady will gather food for you, she will cook for you,


and when you discover clothing, she will wash them for you







She will always agree with every decision you make and she will not nag you,


and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement.


She will praise you!







She will bear your children.







and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them.







'She will NEVER have a headache and will freely give you love and


passion whenever you need it.'






Adam asked God, 'What will a woman like this cost?'

'An arm and a leg..'

Then Adam asked, 'What can I get for a rib

Maxine on the Bailout!

Maxine on the Bailout!



BAIL 'EM OUT ????

Heck, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it.

They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the entire economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry, and possibly our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey!"

Picture worth a billion words (minimum)

This Picture is Worth

1000 Million Words (minimum!) . .

We truly take a lot for granted. Forget the football 'heroes' and movie 'stars'. Pass this on so that all may know the price of freedom

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,

Jesus Christ and a Soldier

One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

Anyway

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
… Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
… Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
… Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
… Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
… Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
… Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
… Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;
… Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them anyway.”
——— Mother Theresa.

National Budget on Defense VS HHS plus SS

The graph on the right is of the percentage of the National Budget spent on Department of Defense both Civilian and Military plus the VA compared to spending on Health and Human services plus Social Security. Since 1962 they have completely switched places from defense taking over half the budget to social services taking over half of it. In 1962 the defense portion was 52.1 % compared to 16.7% for the social services. In 2007 it was defense 22.1% to social services 45.4. According to the 2009 budget, the estimate for 2013 is defense 19.2% and social services 50.3%. Think about that next time someone complains about the defense budget taking from social programs. Or they want to create a tax for funding defense. The progressives want to eliminate defense and they are well on their way. This comparison is even more extreme when you consider that the dollars involved have gone from about 100 billion in 1962 for the entire national budget to 3.5 trillion now. That is an increase of the total budget of three thousand five hundred percent. Thus if the percentage allocations had remained the same they would have been spending 35 times more than in 62. For a look at the actual dollars involved in 1962 the combined spending of defense and VA was 56.675 billion and for 2007 which is the last year we have actual numbers it was 649.808 billion an increase of 11.46 times or 1146 percent. For the combination of Health and Human Services and Social Security in 1962 they spent 17.9 billion as compared to 1,233.8 billion which is 1.2338 trillion for an increase of 68.9 times, 6,890 percent. The 2013 estimate is defense 707.914 billion compared to HHS and SS of 1,798.606 billion or about 1.8 trillion. Guess we can see where all the increased spending has occurred and continues to do so. Sure not on military. But now we want a tax just for the military spending so we can make people more aware of the military spending while we ignore the big spending abuse of social welfare programs.

Net Neutrality Basics

It seems this relates more to the government telling one business what they have to provide in order to subsidize another business. Nice idea for those who want someone else to pay for what they get for free, but seems to have severe ramifications on internet service providers with the increasing bandwidth requirements we are all using. Thus it seems to be anti free market capitalist which takes us back to why our current administration is pushing it. Sounds good on the surface, we should all get the same products and services regardless of price we pay or our ability to pay. Kind of sounds like many other administration policies. One thing about it, they are consistent in pushing socialist ideas on all fronts.

Who’s ‘right’ in the Net Neutrality debate?

• 16 Comments
• Share

by Nicholas Deleon on September 26, 2009

This past week saw the resurrection of Net Neutrality as a divisive issue. Some folks (people like Google, and, well, us) are in favor of Net Neutrality, while other folks (primarily the ISPs) are against it. Not long after the FCC announced its intentions, six Republican senators, three of which who received quite a lot of money from AT&T, proposed an amendment to a bill to stop the FCC in its tracks. The senators later rescinded their amendment, saying that they were now open to a “dialogue” with the FCC.

Which brings up to today’s point: are there any angels in this debate? The Wall Street Journal recently, I guess, came to the defense of the ISPs: why should Google and whoever else be allowed to profit off the Internet Service Providers’ networks? Why should, say, Time Warner, subsidize Google’s online applications with its broadband network when it (Time Warner) doesn’t stand to make any money?

That’s how the Wall Street Journal characterizes it, at least.

The WSJ says that people like Google (I keep bringing up Google because it stands to benefit the most from an open Internet) want to maintain the status quo: it doesn’t want to have to pay Time Warner (or whoever) hand over fist just to keep it from shutting off access to Google Maps.

The WSJ also brings up how one of Google’s top lobbyists, Andrew McLaughlin, recently got a job in the Obama Administration as deputy head of telecom policy. The scary implication, of course, is that now Google will get whatever the hell it wants because one of its former guys is now in a proper policy-making position. If only things were that easy.

So, basically, I’ve just said nothing other than that this Net Neutrality business can get really complicated if you want to devote the time to it. I stand to benefit more from a Net Neutral world, so I’m in favor of that, which is only logical. You’re free to disagree, of course. In fact, I encourage it! More opinions expressed = a better chance of coming to a well-informed conclusion.

The Net Neutrality Debate All On One Page

• 69 Comments
• 16 retweet
• Share20

by Erick Schonfeld on August 31, 2008

Are you confused about Net Neutrality? Who isn’t? Some people argue it is necessary for continued innovation on the Internet, and point to Comcast’s bandwidth metering as a sign of things to come. Others claim that it is unnecessary regulation that will create unintended consequences in its wake. Opposing Views, the debate site that pits experts against each other to argue the pros and cons of the big questions of the day (read our launch review), last night put up a page on Net Neutrality. The page lays out the arguments pro and con for Net Neutrality, and then links to fuller arguments.

Marshaling the arguments for Net Neutrality are the Save The Internet Coalition, the Open Internet Coalition, and Public Knowledge. (It’s a freedom of speech issue, the ISPs are quasi-monopolies that cannot be trusted, innovation on the Web is at stake). Arguing against are the Cato Institute and Hands Off The Internet (it’s a technical issue best left to engineers, the cost of Net Neutrality will be passed onto consumers, regulation will backfire). Readers are then encouraged to vote on who is winning the argument, an add their own points of view, which can be elevated to the main discussion page.

Here’s a sample of some of the back-and-forth. The Open Internet Coalition argues that it is a fundamental principle:

Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation.

The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection.

The Cato Institute warns of the difficulty of enforcing fuzzy concepts:

it’s important to remember that network neutrality is fundamentally a technical principle. Like any technical principle, it is fuzzy at the edges.

. . . Leading network neutrality proposals contain numerous ambiguities that would create uncertainty for everyone in the Internet industry. Here’s just one example: the most prominent network neutrality proposal of the 2006 congressional session, known as Snowe-Dorgan, defined a “broadband service provider” as “a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.” Does this mean that the owner of a coffee shop with a WiFi connection would be subject to FCC regulation of its firewall configuration? One would hope not, but that’s what the language seems to suggest. The same point can be made with respect to hotels, Internet cafes, airports, and even individuals who choose to make their home WiFi connection available to their neighbors.

Where do you stand on Net Neutrality? Go debate.

HSI e-Alert - You've Got to Ask...

Dear Reader,

Every now and then, when a study comes along that just doesn't add up, I find myself wondering: What the heck was in that placebo?

In placebo controlled clinical trials that the medical mainstreamers are always holding up as their sacred "gold standard," the placebo pill is assumed to be inert. In fact, it's a blind spot.

In trials financed by drug companies, the company supplies the placebo and controls the ingredients. The FDA does not oversee placebo ingredients. No one does.

So for instance, if a drug prompts a side effect, such as howling at the full moon, drug company execs might be tempted to include something in the placebo that would also prompt full moon howling. That way, the published write up of their study would simply note that side effects were similar in both groups.

That's just one way a placebo with a little something extra might tweak study results.

Which brings us to a new trial that tested Chantix, a best selling smoking cessation drug. I'm not saying there were any disreputable hijinks involved with this research. But some of the details had me wondering: What the heck was in the placebo?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Powerful stuff
-----------------------------------------------------------

UCLA researchers put Chantix up to a very difficult test: COPD.

According to Dr. Donald Tashkin, the leader of the UCLA study, Chantix came through like a champ!

This is impressive because Dr. Tashkin tells Reuters Health that cigarette smokers with COPD (a debilitating and steady deterioration of the respiratory system) actually find it harder to quit smoking than smokers who have avoided the disease.

The UCLA team recruited about 500 smokers with COPD. On average, subjects were in their late 50s and had been smoking for about 40 years. For 12 weeks, half the group received Chantix while the other half received a placebo.

Results: One year after the beginning of the study, nearly 19 percent of the Chantix group had successfully refrained from smoking, while nearly six percent of the placebo group had quit.

Considering how hard it is for COPD patients to quit smoking, I suppose that one success story out of every five attempts might be considered an impressive result.

But what's really surprising is that ANYONE in the placebo group was successful. I mean, you have a disease that makes it harder to quit, but still, you successfully kick the habit after FOUR DECADES of steady smoking.

Hmmm. That's an unusually powerful placebo effect!

-----------------------------------------------------------
Bad ideas
-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's where the study gets very fishy: side effects.

You may remember Chantix dangers from several previous e- Alerts. For instance, in the first quarter of 2008, the number of serious reactions reported to the FDA was higher with Chantix than with all of the 10 best selling brand name drugs COMBINED.

One year later, the FDA required Pfizer, the maker of Chantix, to include a Black Box Warning that the drug might prompt depression, suicidal ideation, and suicidal actions.

In the UCLA study, Chantix side effects included nausea, insomnia, and abnormal dreams. But serious side effects were MORE common in the placebo group. And no one in the Chantix group reported suicidal ideation, but one person in the placebo group did.

Wow. That is an astounding placebo effect!

But wait -- before we ask the question -- I have two more details: 1) The trial was funded by Pfizer, and 2) Dr. Tashkin is a consultant for Pfizer.

Okay? All together now: What the HECK was in that placebo?

---

...and another thing

I don't believe there's enough champagne in France to accommodate all the celebrating that must be going on at drug companies these days.

Well, not ALL drug companies. Just the five that have a sweet piece of the H1N1 vaccine action.

So far, the U.S. has ordered 195 million doses of the vaccine. But don't be surprised when that number goes higher. A few days ago, the FDA approved the use of Australia's CSL Limited H1N1 vaccine in children 6 months and older. Previously, the approval was only for teens and adults, 18 years and older.

And an added bonus: The approval includes CSL's seasonal flu vaccine. So just imagine the delirious joy this news must have brought the vaccinators at CSL.

The vaccine is available in two forms: 1) A single dose that's preservative-free, or 2) a double dose that contains thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative.

Hmmm. Now, why in the world would they make one form with a double dose of mercury, and another single-dose form with zero mercury?

Could it be because many parents who (wisely) suspect the shot is unnecessary would quickly opt out if their only choice included thimerosal?

Television medical pundits are quick to dismiss any link between thimerosal and autism. They call it "junk science" and no one ever questions them. But the mercury is still there. And mercury is still a neurotoxin. And many parents (wisely) ignore the assurance that it's perfectly safe to inject this heavy metal into ANYONE -- particularly infants.

To Your Good Health,

Jenny Thompson

---

Is the secret to "eternal youth" locked inside a PURPLE TOMATO?

Scientists at the renowned John Innes Center have just finished a medical masterpiece... the purple tomato. Heart protection, hawk-like vision, bursting energy -- the anti-aging power is off the charts. Now for the first time, a new breakthrough delivers the "eternal youth" secret locked inside this purple produce... and MUCH MORE OF IT!

Keep reading...

http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/pXA/qyA/+ZY/AQ/Aha7iA/eFku

---

To start receiving your own copy of the HSI e-Alert, visit:
http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/pXA/qyA/C4U/Ag/Aha7iA/ghaa
Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert.

---

Tap into the minds of other health-conscious readers like yourself at the new HSI health forum:
http://www.healthiertalk.com

Australian Jihadist

Does anyone doubt that this is happening here in the USA??

PASSWORD

OK. I THINK I GET IT

Let me see if I understand all this....

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE TURKEY BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IN PRISON!

IF YOU CROSS THE MEXICAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU ARE HELD FOR RANSOM.

BUT, IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:

A DRIVERS LICENSE

A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD

WELFARE

FOOD STAMPS

AND, FREE HEALTH CARE?

Oh well sure. That makes perfect sense.

Another Failed Presidency

The following is an interesting article and I wonder how long Dr. Hunt can remain at National Institute of Health once the powers that be get wind of this article.

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

Another Failed Presidency

An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies—led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait—they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What’s going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us. He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task—all contributory of course. It’s that he’s not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us—financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state—staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year... With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

“When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.” - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus

“A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” – Unknown