True Health Is True Wealth!!

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Meeting Today on Health Care/Eligibility Challenge

2012-02-17T15:49:00.001-08:00

PURPURA V. SEBELIUS ASKS IF OBAMA WAS QUALIFIED TO SIGN THE BILL

by Sharon Rondeau

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Decide to Hear Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges Obama's eligibility to have signed the health care law?

(Feb. 17, 2012) — 11:49 a.m. ET – The Post & Email has just learned that the U.S. Supreme Court will be conferencing today to decide whether or not to hear the case of Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill and Obama’s eligibility to hold office.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr. call their challenge the “We the People” brief.

Purpura stated that his case is “the best one” to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by Obama. He had submitted a Request for Reargument to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case on January 17, 2012.

Purpura has stated that “the reason they don’t want to take the case and why they’re most frightened is Count 6,” which claims that if Obama is not eligible to serve as President, the bill is null and void.

A prayer request was put out by Purpura, and today he stated that he is “getting calls from all over the country” in response to it. “People are praying at the Oklahoma Air Force base; people throughout the country…they’re even praying at the Supreme Court! They want their lawsuit heard,” he said.

A new 17-page brief with 15 pages of argument sent to the Supreme Court was dated January 27, with Purpura representing himself. “What I told them flat-out is that you have no choice but to hear this,” Purpura told The Post & Email. “Count 6 is the most important.”

Purpura also said that “Sotomayor and Kagan cannot hear this case” because of their conflict of interest, having been appointed to the court by Obama.

"Count 6" asks how Obama can "exercise the authority of the office of President" if he is not a "natural born Citizen"

Page 7 explains "Count 6," which asks if Obama is a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to serve as President

Count 6 reads:

18. Count 6 Violation Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5; No Constitutional question before this Honorable Court surpasses the importance concerning this issue that must be adjudicated. Petitioner has never stated Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the United States. That being said, the Constitutional question exists: is Mr. Obama a “natural born Citizen”, if not; how can he exercise the authority of the office of President? Failure to address this Count would constitute a desertion from ones [sic] sworn fiduciary duty and betrayal of the United States Constitution. (See Article 6, Paragraph 2). The Court must consider during the years Mr. Obama was developing a power base and running for President Congress 8-times attempted to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy…

19. Therefore, the question still exists whether Mr. Obama was eligible to sign “Act” in law, make appointments, institute regulations or hold the office of president?

Of this new development, Purpura told The Post & Email:

This is really important, because they’re disenfranchising the voters if they don’t hear it. The first three pages, which are the opening statement, will tell you everything, and so will the last page. The only count that really counts here is Count 6. As you know, there are ballot challenges throughout the country, and what I told them flat-out is, “You have no choice but to hear this because we have a constitutional crisis.” I’m believing, that if you read Count 6, because that’s the most important one in the whole brief, they’re sort-of trapped if they’re honest. Kagan and Sotomayor cannot by U.S. statute participate. So we’re in great shape in reality. But will they obey the statutes, or will they do what this administration is doing: ignoring the law that are on the books in the United States.

Purpura then read from the third page of the brief:

It is incumbent upon this Court to settle the issue of ‘eligibility’ post haste to afford those in the Democrat Party an opportunity to choose an “eligible” candidate to be on the ballot in November. To do otherwise disenfranchises all voters and continues the constitutional crisis that has been escalating since the Courts refused to address Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign’s challenge. To ignore this constitutional challenge will have devastating consequence which this Court bears full responsibility for failing to perform its fiduciary duty pursuant to your sworn oath taken by every Member of this Court.

Source: The Post & Email

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Judge Rejects Health Care Law

SCOTAS ObamaCare Hearing

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

2012-02-17T11:44:00.001-08:00

Think the contraception decision was bad? Wait until bureaucrats start telling your insurer which cancer screenings to cover.

Offended by President Obama's decision to force health insurers to pay for contraception and surgical sterilization or my religious institutions mandated to go against their core beliefs? It gets worse: In the future, thanks to ObamaCare, the government will issue such health edicts on a routine basis—and largely insulated from public view. This goes beyond contraception to cancer screenings, the use of common drugs like aspirin, and much more.

Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.

The task force already rates services with letter grades of "A" through "D" (or "I," if it has "insufficient evidence" to make a rating). But under ObamaCare, services rated "A" or "B"—such as colon cancer screening for adults aged 50-75—must be covered by health plans in full, without any co-pays. Many services that get "Cs" and "Ds"—such as screening for ovarian or testicular cancer—could get nixed from coverage entirely.

That's because mandating coverage for all the "A" and "B" services will be very costly. In 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the marginal cost of similar state insurance mandates was 5%-10% of total claims. Other estimates put the cost of mandates as high as 20% of premiums.

Health plans will inevitably choose to drop coverage for many services that don't get a passing grade from the task force and therefore aren't mandated. Insurance companies will need to conserve their premium money, which the government regulates, in order to spend it subsidizing those services that the task force requires them to cover in full.

David Klein

Americans first became familiar with the task force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to recommend that women ages 40-49 shouldn't get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine prostate-cancer screening and the use of tests that detect the viruses that can cause cervical cancer.

The task force relishes setting a very high bar. Like the Food and Drug Administration in approving new drugs, it usually requires a randomized, prospective trial to "prove" that a diagnostic test or other intervention improves clinical outcomes and therefore deserves a high grade of "A" or "B."

This means its advice is often out of sync with conventional medical practice. For example, it recommended against wider screening for HIV long after such screening was accepted practice. As a result, many of its verdicts are widely ignored by practicing doctors.

The task force is a part-time board of volunteer advisers that works slowly and is often late to incorporate new science into its recommendations. Only in 2009 did it finally recommend aspirin for the prevention of stroke and heart attack among those at risk—decades after this practice was demonstrated to save lives and had become part of standard medical practice.

The task force is also the only federal health agency to have the explicit legal authority to consider cost as one criterion in recommending whether patients should use a medical test or treatment.

Over time, the task force will surely recommend against many services that patients now take for granted, while mandating full insurance coverage for things that they'd be just as happy paying for. Among the interventions that it plans to consider in 2012 are screening for hepatitis C in adults, for osteoporosis in men and for depression in children; counseling for obesity in adults and for alcohol use in adolescents; and daily aspirin for heart-attack and stroke prevention in people over 80.

The task force's problems are compounded by the fact that it is deliberately exempted from the rules that govern other government advisory boards and regulatory agencies. Thus it has no obligation to hold its meetings in public, announce decisions in draft form or even consider public comments. Consumers have no way to directly appeal its decisions. And health providers or product developers affected by its decisions can't sue it for recourse.

To begin addressing these problems, Congress should make the task force subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would at least require it to hold its deliberations in public. Congress could also make it a full-fledged part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which already convenes its meetings. That would make the task force subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and all the rules that bind other regulatory bodies, including the legal requirement to consider public comments and provide avenues for appeal.

Better still, Congress could let private health plans—and their members—decide on their own how preventive tests and treatments should be covered. If not, Americans will soon be surprised by all the important tests and treatments that become more costly, and all the less relevant stuff that's suddenly free.

It's all a reminder that President Obama's decision on contraception isn't a one-off political intervention but the initial exploit of an elaborate new system.

by Dr. Gottlieb, a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has served as deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He consults with and invests in health-care companies. - WSJ

As time goes on… if people don’t start reading the ObamaCare Bill and make sure it is repealed in its entirety, either by the Supreme Court or a New President and a primarily new Congress in November 2012, Americans will soon find out that former Alaska Governor and GOP VP candidate in 2008, Sarah Palin plus others who were paying attention, was 100% right about rationing, death panels or whatever you want to call it in ObamaCare and a lot more that we all won’t like… especially seniors, the disabled and special needs children and adults! Wake-up America… before it is too late.

Senate Republicans Ask Supreme Court to Strike Mandate

Judge Rejects Health Care Law

SCOTAS ObamaCare Hearing

More Doctors Fire Vaccine Refusers

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

2012-02-16T15:42:00.001-08:00

Families Who Reject Inoculations Told to Find a New Physician; Contagion in Waiting Room Is a Fear

Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices, raising questions about a doctor's responsibility to these patients.

Medical associations don't recommend such patient bans, but the practice appears to be growing, according to vaccine researchers.

Adam Bird for The Wall Street Journal

Dr. Allan LaReau in Michigan stops treating families who refuse to vaccinate their children. 'You feel badly about losing a nice family,' he says.

In a study of Connecticut pediatricians published last year, some 30% of 133 doctors said they had asked a family to leave their practice for vaccine refusal, and a recent survey of 909 Midwestern pediatricians found that 21% reported discharging families for the same reason.

By comparison, in 2001 and 2006 about 6% of physicians said they "routinely" stopped working with families due to parents' continued vaccine refusal and 16% "sometimes" dismissed them, according to surveys conducted then by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"There's more noise among pediatricians, more people willing to argue that it's OK to do this versus 10 years ago," said Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Diekema wrote the AAP's policy on working with vaccine refusers, which recommends providers address the issue at repeated visits, but respect parents' wishes unless it puts a child at risk of significant harm.

Most pediatricians consider preventing disease through vaccines a primary goal of their job. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and AAP issue an annual recommended vaccination schedule, but some parents ask if their child's immunizations can be pushed back or skipped altogether, pediatricians say.

It's hard to imagine an outbreak of smallpox today. But for centuries the deadly virus wiped out entire populations. WSJ's Christina Tsuei reports on how the discovery of vaccines (with the help of cows) eradicated the disease and led to the prevention of many other diseases.

While rates for several key inoculations in young children rose between 2009 and 2010, according to the CDC, lower immunization rates have been blamed as a factor in U.S. outbreaks of whooping cough and measles in recent years.

Parents often voice concerns about autism or that their child's immune system may be overwhelmed by too many vaccines at once. Worries about a link between vaccines and autism arose because some parents noticed their children regressed, or lost some skills, around the time of their vaccinations at two years of age. Another concern centered on the former use of mercury as a vaccine preservative.

Numerous studies since have dispelled these concerns among scientists. Rather, scientists say, it is more likely that autism symptoms begin showing up around the same age children are vaccinated.

The rise in patient firings reflects another factor. As patients have become savvier and more willing to challenge doctors, physicians have become increasingly reluctant to deal with uncooperative patients, said Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania. In addition, doctors may feel financial pressure to see more patients and so have less time to contend with recalcitrant ones.

Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices. Stefanie Ilgenfritz has details on Lunch Break.

For Allan LaReau of Kalamazoo, Mich., and his 11 colleagues at Bronson Rambling Road Pediatrics, who chose in 2010 to stop working with vaccine-refusing families, a major factor was the concern that unimmunized children could pose a danger in the waiting room to infants or sick children who haven't yet been fully vaccinated.

In one case, an unvaccinated child came in with a high fever and Dr. LaReau feared the patient might have meningitis, a contagious, potentially deadly infection of the brain and spinal cord for which a vaccine commonly is given. "I lost a lot more sleep than I usually do" worrying about the situation, he said.

<div class="noFlash"> {if djIsFlashPossible} <p>The version of Adobe Flash Player required to view this interactive has not been found. To enjoy our complete interactive experience, please download a free copy of the latest version of Adobe Flash Player <a href="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash">here</a></p> {else} <p>This content can not be displayed because your browser does not support the Adobe Flash player required to view it.</p> {/if} </div>

"You feel badly about losing a nice family from the practice," added Dr. LaReau, but families who refused to vaccinate their kids were told that "this is going to be a difficult relationship without this core part of pediatrics." Some families chose to go elsewhere while others agreed to have their kids inoculated.

Pediatricians disagree about what their duty is to these families. "The bottom line is you should try to do whatever you can to maintain the family in the best care," said Michael Brady, chair of the pediatrics department at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and a member of the AAP's immunization committee. "If they leave your practice, they're probably going to gravitate toward another practice with unhealthy practices."

Other physicians say they rarely have had luck persuading vaccine opponents to change their minds.

David Fenner and his 20-plus colleagues at Children's Medical Group in Rhinebeck, N.Y., discuss vaccine concerns but ask families to leave if they don't comply by a certain point.

Dr. Fenner said he tells new families, "You've been bombarded with information before you came here, some accurate and some not." Iif a family refuses to vaccinate after a discussion of the issue, he tells them "there are so many things we're not going to see eye-to-eye on."

So far, the practice has fired a couple of families per year since it implemented the policy about five years ago.

Pamela Felice, who lives in an Atlanta suburb, had difficulty finding a pediatrician for her two children though they have waivers from a previous pediatrician exempting them from school requirements for immunizations. Her older child had gastrointestinal trouble and regressed development after receiving vaccines, she said, which she believes were related to the shots.

Ms. Felice received a letter from her pediatrician a few years ago stating that because the family chose not to vaccinate, it needed to find another doctor. She called four or five other practices but none would agree to an appointment after she told them she was opposed to vaccines. The family ended up with an elderly family doctor who said he had "seen it all" and was willing to treat the children if they got sick, Ms. Felice said.

"A doctor should feel obligated to discuss [potential vaccine] risks with any parent who wants to discuss them," said Ms. Felice.

By SHIRLEY S. WANG - Write to Shirley S. Wang at shirley.wang@wsj.com - WSJ

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

2012-02-16T12:22:00.001-08:00

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius answered questions in Congress this week about the left framed ‘contraception compromise’ or the ‘first amendment un-compromise’ as framed by the right.

Sibelius essentially said that the decision has been made and this mandate along with many other surprises for those who did not follow the ObamaCare fight on in August 2013… PERIOD! The decision has been made and will go into affect regardless of the Constitution, religious freedom or what the American people want.

Remember what Nancy Pelosi said… “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill!” Well, you are beginning to find out.

So why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Now it should all start making sense to everyone. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics, which also explains Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin, based on her ideology and history. She was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.

America just celebrated 54 million abortions, a ‘choice’ everyone in the Obama administration supports. On the other side, the Priests for Life Group Just Sued the U.S. Government over the Birth Control Mandate. Sebelius admitted to Senator Orin Hatch during the hearings that she didn't consult bishops over contraception rule and also admitted that she/they did not consult with the Justice Department as to the constitutionality.

President Obama himself said that he had done the same thing when he was a community organizer. He got leftist priests and nuns in Chicago to compromise the values of the church.

The backlash over Sibelius' interpretation of the mandate built to a crescendo last week. Obama went to the podium and announced a "compromise." It was no compromise at all ... In reality, Obama’s contraception mandate tramples religious freedom.

This is not an issue that will go away and may haunt the president through the 2012 Election cycle. It is a huge power grab and the first of many frightening realities of the what is really in the ObamaCare Bill. It should be a flag to all concerned Americans that each us needs to read that bill and insist that our Congressman and Senators read it immediately… and act. It should also be a flag to all Americans about the ideology of the President and his team and what is in our future if Obama survives this and is re-elected.

Socialized Medicine, which ObamaCare is, is he crown jewel of socialism… progressivism. It gives the government the control over one sixth of the U.S. Economy and decisions over who get care and who doesn’t, who lives and who dies, and this fight in addition to being a fight over religious freedom and the first amendment, not contraception, is also a fight over what the government can make each of us buy and pay for from here on out.

One of the best explanations of this fight I’ve heard is:

If you are against murder and someone says, “Okay, you don’t have to kill anyone yourself. We will hire someone to kill them for you.”, there is no resolution to the issue. It goes against your values, against God and against everything you stand for. That is exactly what is happening with the birth control mandate being forced on the Catholic Church by the administration and ObamaCare.

Beck Announces ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement to Stand Up for Religious Freedom

The controversy over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate is at a boiling point, as many Catholic leaders continue to view the president’s so-called “accommodation” as a failure to protect religious liberty.

Now, Glenn Beck is coming forward with a new movement called “We Are All Catholics Now.” The main goal of the initiative is to ask Americans to reach out to Congressional leaders (at the moment, Senators) to encourage the passage of legislation that would protect religious groups’ conscience rights.

Watch Beck discuss the effort on his radio show this morning:

Video: Glenn Beck Announces 'We Are All Catholics Now' Campaign

The main push, Beck says, is to support the highway transportation bill, which will likely be voted upon this week. It will include an amendment – Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment – from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would protect religious conscience rights. In the House, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) is working on companion legislation, though it may not be voted on for a few weeks.

Beck is encouraging individuals to get involved by calling their Senators and letting them know that “we are all Catholics now.” The issue at hand is not about contraception as it has been framed by many media outlets, he says. Instead, it is a religious freedom issue that hinges upon the separation of church and state’s mandate that the government not force churches to violate their values and principles.

Here are his directions for getting involved and making an impact:

Call the Capitol and speak with your Senator. The numbers are: 202.224.3121; 202.225.3121; the toll free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard include: 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-800-862-5530.

Call the switchboard, ask to be connected to a Senator from your specific state (it will take two calls, one for each Senator).

Whoever answers:

1. Tell them that you want to tell the Senator to vote for the Blunt conscience protection amendment.
2. Ask them if they know how the Senator will vote on that amendment
3. Tell them you want to be contacted back about how he voted (be sure to ask for accountability — they hate it, but it makes them call you back).
4. When you call, be sure to tell them “We are all Catholics now”. This key phrase will let them know you are part of a larger, organized movement working in support of religious freedom.

You can read more about the movement at GlennBeck.com.

Sitting in yesterday at GBTV was the co-author for Indivisible talking about the importance of his book as well as Glenn’s book Being George Washington during this pivotal times.

He spoke on the importance of uniting and turning back to God for divine intervention was our only chance to turn our country around.

This is the time to stand-up and choose your side.

Governor Palin appeared on On the Record calling this mandate an ‘Un-American Act’

Add this fight to the expected rise in unemployment (even with the job number game) and possible $5 gas prices at the pump… and this might end up being Obama’s Waterloo! Some believe the timing of this fight is an answer to the prayers for intervention being said daily by many Americans.

This is not a fight over contraception and who will pay for it. It is a fight over religious freedom vs. secularism, a fight over the Constitution vs. Progressivism, a fight over limiting the powers of the commerce clause vs. the government being able to force us to purchase and pay for anything they choose, and the fight over the ideology that will control this country. This is not a fight that anyone can afford to sit out.

Ask Marion~

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

‘Un-American Act’: Palin Slams Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate as Violating Constitutional Rights

2012-02-15T21:28:00.001-08:00

On Tuesday — Valentine’s Day — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had a not-so-loving message for President Barack Obama. In an interview with FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren, Palin unleashed on the president’s contraceptive mandate, calling his actions against the Catholic Church “un-American.”

Palin uttered this term, which is bold to attach to any U.S. politician — especially a president — two times during her interview with Van Susteren. The former vice-presidential candidate was clear that she sees Obama’s stance on the mandate as morally, Constitutionally and politically unsound.

“Very poor politics that they would choose such a battle,” Palin said. “One — to pick a fight with faith-filled Americans. You know, we will fight…to the death for our freedom of religion and for the rights that are protected by our United States Constitution.”

Following these remarks, she unleashed her “un-American” label not once, but twice:

“This is an un-American act of our president. Anything that would so blatantly violate an amendment within the United States Constitution is un-American and Barack Obama needs to re-think what he has just done to the people of America because we’re rising up on this one. We‘re not going to back off and we’re not going to say ‘Okay, it is alright that such a violation of conscience — such a violation of those things that our founders fought and died for — we’re just going to sit back and let it happen to us.’ Not this time.”

Watch these comments, below (around 1:50):

Video: Sarah Palin Says Barack Obama's Recent Actions Are "Un-American"

Londonderry School Uses Therapy Dog in Classroom

2012-02-15T00:37:00.001-08:00

Southern New Hampshire Montessori Academy (SNHMA) has become one of the first schools in New England to bring in a therapy dog as a full time member of its community. Guardian, a Portuguese water dog, was chosen for his temperament, his silky soft hypoallergenic coat and teddy bear looks. While he’s in the process of completing his year-long training, Guardian is already having a positive impact in the classroom, where he is charged with being a calm, emphatic and steadfast best friend for little boys and girls.

“While school therapy dogs are still currently regarded as a cutting-edge educational tool, research is showing that dogs in the classroom can play a huge role in boosting students’ happiness, calmness, overall emotional well-being, and ability to learn,” explains Debra Hogan SNHMA’s Founder and Head of School.

Guardian, who is always here to greet student with a wag and a lick in the mornings, has helped the younger pre-K students with separation anxiety as their parents drop them off in the morning. “He is happy to see the children come in in the mornings and offers a welcome huggable friend to little ones who are finding it hard to see Mom and Dad go,” says Hogan.

Guardian is also helping first graders hone in their reading skills, as Ms. Hogan explains: “Dogs are perfect listeners. They are not judgmental; they don’t care if you don’t get the words exactly right, and for most children, practicing reading aloud is all they need to become fluent readers.”

“Therapy dogs can have a positive impact on every aspect of the classroom from lessons planning, to teaching social skills and responsibility, to comforting students in a time of grief or personal crisis. They teach, they listen, they are unconditional friends. I have seen children who had attention deficit disorder become calmer. I have seen children with emotional difficulties lie down beside the dog and whisper things in his ear, things they’d never tell an adult, and then rise up ready to learn. Their self esteem really soared,” says Terri Hamilton, an Elementary Guidance Consultant and Parent-Child Connection Advocate.

Images courtesy of Tanya Swann Photography.

Southern New Hampshire Montessori Academy offers an academically focused education to children through an integrated curriculum. Concentration is given to educating the “whole child” (all facets of the child’s being, including: intellectual, physical, emotional, social and creative aspects) with a strong emphasis of hands-on and experiential learning where children develop their passion in technology, science, visual and performing arts, foreign language and physical education. Complementing a strong academic core, the school offers an enrichment program that includes elementary Latin, creative arts (visual and performing), daily physical education, technology and Spanish. For further information, please visit their website.

Source: Londonderry News

A Healthy and Fun Valentines Day

2012-02-14T00:05:00.001-08:00

Some Sexy and Healthy Valentine’s Day Activities

Girls Night Out: Pole Dancing Class
A pole dancing class is a frisky way for friends to celebrate Valentine's Day together. It's a little intimidating to swing around a pole while also letting out your sexier side, but when doing it with a group of your favorite girlfriends, it becomes easier. Besides being a great excuse to get together, this dance-inspired workout will help you tap into your sensual side while also helping tone muscles, firm the body, and increase flexibility. Once class is over, head out together for a glass of heart-healthy wine.

Group Date: Salsa Dancing
If a perfect date night for you involves getting together with other couples, charge things up by going salsa dancing. Besides being an easy way to burn calories, salsa is like flirting on the dance floor. From the rhythmic Latin beats to all that hip shaking, things are guaranteed to get hot. Don't be afraid to switch things up during the night. It's almost expected that you'll dance with different partners while out for a night of salsa dancing.

For You and Him: Couples Massage . . .
If you're going the traditional route and spending Valentine's Day with that special someone, indulge by getting a couple's massage. It will help you both relax, offer relief from stress, and ease muscle soreness that comes from exercise or the demands of the day. From there, cook a healthy dinner together and don't forget to get physical — and not at the gym! Valentine's Day is a good excuse to be intimate with your partner, especially given all the health benefits of having sex.

Seems like you can't turn your head without gazing on a box of chocolates or other sweet treat this week. And let's not talk about that Valentine's Day tradition. But dipped strawberries gives you both… some healthy fruit along with the chocolaty treat!

h/t to fitsugar & Weight Watchers

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields

2012-02-13T19:03:00.001-08:00

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar. Unlike many European Union countries, Hungary is a nation where genetically modified (GM) seeds are banned. In a similar stance against GM ingredients, Peru has also passed a 10 year ban on GM foods.

Planetsave reports:

Almost 1000 acres of maize found to have been ground with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary, deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said. The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added.

Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary. The checks will continue despite the fact that seek traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said.

During the investigation, controllers have found Pioneer Monsanto products among the seeds planted.

The free movement of goods within the EU means that authorities will not investigate how the seeds arrived in Hungary, but they will check where the goods can be found, Bognar said. Regional public radio reported that the two biggest international seed producing companies are affected in the matter and GMO seeds could have been sown on up to the thousands of hectares in the country. Most of the local farmers have complained since they just discovered they were using GMO seeds.

With season already under way, it is too late to sow new seeds, so this year’s harvest has been lost.

And to make things even worse for the farmers, the company that distributed the seeds in Baranya county is under liquidation. Therefore, if any compensation is paid by the international seed producers, the money will be paid primarily to that company’s creditors, rather than the farmers.

Source: Exposing the Truth One UE at at Time

Monsanto: A Horrifying Picture that Will Freeze the Blood in Your Veins – Updated

Dow and Monsanto Team Up on the Mother of All Herbicide Marketing Plans

America’s farmlands to be carpet-bombed with Vietnam-ear Agent Orange chemical if Dow petition approved

Are You Eating, Drinking and Breathing Monsanto’s New ‘Agent Orange’?

Monsanto Battle Continues After Suing Midwest Farmers for Saving Seeds

GM Foods Not Served in Monsanto Cafeteria

Would You Vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

George Soros and Food Safety

PDF File
Liar, Liar: FDA Secrets, Scandals & Slip Ups!

Dumbing Down Society Part 1: Foods, Beverages, and Meds (Media and Education)

Senate Bill S.510 Passed… Quickly Explained Here

UPDATED:

President Obama appointed former Monsanto vice president and lobbyist Michael Taylor as senior advisor to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

This is a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse. President Obama should isolate the FDA from corporate influence by asking Taylor to step down immediately.

That's why I created a petition to President Obama on SignOn.org. Click here to add your name, and then pass it along to your friends:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=269891&id=35461-19004089-AN_n6Yx&t=2

The petition says:

President Obama, I oppose your appointment of Michael Taylor, a former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto, the widely criticized genetically modified (GM) food multinational, as senior advisor to the commissioner at the FDA. Taylor is the same person who as a high ranking official at the FDA in the 1990s promoted allowing genetically modified organisms into the U.S. food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is a travesty.

Taylor was in charge of policy for Monsanto's now-discredited GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is opposed by many medical and hospital organizations. It was Michael Taylor who pursued a policy that milk from rBGH-treated cows should not be labeled with disclosures. Michael Taylor and Monsanto do not belong in our government.

President Obama, Monsanto has been seen as a foe to family-based agriculture, the backbone of America, by introducing dangerous changes to plants and animals and by using strong-arm legal tactics against farmers for decades. Naturally occurring plant and animal species are permanently threatened by the introduction of DNA and hormonal modification, Monsanto's core businesses.

FDA scientists once regarded genetic modification of the food supply as the single most radical and potentially dangerous threat to public health in history. As early as the 1991, a body of scientific research began to form which now includes articles in over 600 journals. As a whole, these offer scientific evidence that GM foods, hormones, and related pesticides are the root cause for the increase of many serious diseases in the U.S. Since GM foods were introduced, diagnosis of multiple chronic illnesses in the U.S. has skyrocketed. These illnesses include changes in major organs and in hormonal, immune, digestive, and reproductive systems. These modifications to foods and food production may also be contributors to colon, breast, lymphatic, and prostate cancers.

Experts are discouraged that regulators and GM companies systematically overlook potential side effects of GM. Monsanto's objective to use biotechnology to change the world's food supply is the opposite policy direction your administration should pursue. Your legacy of supporting Monsanto to have free rein in U.S. food policy is a nightmare scenario that is against the interest of all Americans and world citizens.

Will you sign the petition? Click here to add your name, and then pass it along to your friends:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=269891&id=35461-19004089-AN_n6Yx&t=3

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

2012-02-11T10:50:00.001-08:00

With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

h/t to ProgressingAmerica – http://tinyurl.com/727ter6 and to AJ

It is time that people themselves read the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and demand that their Congressman and Senators read it and work to repeal and replace it.

If for no other reason… A vote for any of the 4-GOP candidates, whoever becomes the nominee, will guarantee the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare and removal of the government from our HealthCare! A vote for Obama is a vote for socialized medicine, rationing and a long list of surprises yet to come. 2012 will be the last chance to get rid of ObamaCare because of the way its tentacles will spread.

Jack Lew appeared on Fox with Chris Wallace this morning and said there would be no additional compromise on the mandatory birth control mandate… “We have set out our policy” said Lew.

WALLACE: You say it’s consistent. The Catholic bishops are clearly not satisfied with it — if I may, sir. They have issued a statement that says that they view the decision by the president, the revision, with grave moral concern.

Let’s put up their statement on the screen.

“Today’s proposal involves needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion — government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.”

And, sir, they call on Congress to block the president’s policy.

LEW: No, I think the president’s policy does not do that. It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or may for benefits they find objectionable. But it guarantees a woman’s right to access. We think that’s the right solution.

There are others who opposed women’s access to contraception. They have different views than we do. I’m not going to speak to the motives of any of the parties. But it’s quite significant that a range of Catholic organizations has embraced this.

We didn’t expect to get universal support of the bishops or all Catholics. I think that what we have here is a policy that reflects bringing together two very important principles in a way that’s true to the American tradition. And that’s what the president is trying to do.

There are others who want to have a clash over it. We want to bring these two principles together.

WALLACE: But you say you’re not going to get universal support. There are others — this is the conference of Catholic bishops. This is the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country. They deal with grave moral concern and they say it should be turned around.

LEW: I can’t speak to the differences within the Catholic Church.

WALLACE: How do you respond to their statement that this government coercion?

LEW: I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association, which knows a fair amount about what it requires to health care in this country. They thought this was a very good solution. They understand what the policy is.

WALLACE: So, the bishops –

(CROSSTALK)

LEW: I think our policy is the right policy. I think that there’s broad support, but they’re not universal support for it. And we think this is right way to go.

WALLACE: So, you’re not going to change despite what the bishops say.

LEW: Our policy is clear.

WALLACE: Your policy is clear. Meaning, no revisions to the revisions?

LEW: We have set out our policy.

WALLACE: And that’s it?

LEW: We’re going to finalize it in the final rules. But I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties. And, you know, we think that that’s the right approach.

WALLACE: Mr. Lew, I think it’s fair to say this is precisely why so many people and I understand, you can argue whether it’s the majority or minority — but why so many people are opposed to Obamacare, because they are concerned with the idea that the government can mandate what people have to do, what private businesses have to do, what even religious institutions have to do.

LEW: I think the notion that this is about should we provide basic health care to all Americans is not the issue. You know, there are differences to whether or not the Affordable Care Act is the right approach. We think providing coverage to tens of millions of Americans and making sure that we have a health care system that provides the kind of care that people need that will help drive down the cost of health care in this country is a very important thing.

This is — this question of the impact on religious institutions is something we took very seriously right from the start. That’s why when the policy was announced; we said it would take 13 months to transition it in a way that would be respectful of those differences.

So, I think we’ve addressed that. I think that this concern is one that people can disagree, you know, on the margins about. But we have addressed the core issue — no institution that has, non-profit institution that has religious principles that we violated has to pay for or directly offer these services. But women have access to the kinds of care that they are entitled to.

We think that’s the right approach.

· Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth … – Since this piece was written the AG’s of 12 states have joined the suit being prepared and expected additional states of join the fight.

· U.S. News – Catholic TV network sues US over birth control mandate

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama Is Losing the Contraception Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

Let us not forget who is behind this bill… Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!

Rubio Crushes Obama and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC; says it is a Constitutional issue!

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

ObamaCare… Hits, Misses and Perhaps a Look into the Future

Bilderberger Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN… a Concept He Has Been Found to Promote Many Times Before…

Cross-Posted at Ask Marion the Daily Thought Pad to Knowledge Creates Power and to True Health Is True Wealth!! at 2/11/2012 10:59:00 PM

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle... But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

2012-02-10T16:44:00.001-08:00

(If you are not up on this issue… follow the thread here from the bottom up)

Update: Religious organizations are already saying that the Obama’s announced compromise is hollow. Catholic Bishops and other religious organizations are moving forward with their protests. The political fallout from this issue could be huge in the 2012 Election among religious groups and Independents. Remember Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008.

But in reality: Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab and this is why, if people realize, this could be Obama’s Waterloo! And if not, we are in big trouble!!

Don't Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!

Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience!

Do not be suckered by the “accommodation” announced today by President Obama and spokeswoman Kathleen Sebelius!

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Under the guise of making room for religious conscience, the President has actually made the policy worse—far worse.

Here’s how . . .

RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here.

Snip

So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!"

Snip

Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)

Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."

There's something unprecedented going on here.

Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.

FDR dreamed of this.

Obama is doing this.

The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!

by order and proclamation of...

BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate

They're Using Insurance for Communism' Ann Coulter Rocks CPAC

· Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab

Friday, February 10, 2012 2:13:55 PM · by Kaslin · 13 replies - Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | February 10, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here. Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to! JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles,...

· BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate - Friday, February 10, 2012 1:28:01 PM · by unique1 · 50 replies

Lifesitenews.com ^ | Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST | Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change...

· Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

Friday, February 10, 2012 1:36:19 PM · by Qbert · 14 replies - Jill Stanek.com ^ | 2/10/2012 | Jill Stanek

UPDATE, 12:14p: More evidence the “compromise” stinks: Planned Parenthood likes it. UPDATE, 12:02p: From a House source: This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference. The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell...

Health insurers question Obama birth control plan

Friday, February 10, 2012 5:39:10 PM · by Oldeconomybuyer · 1 replies - Reuters ^ | February 10, 2012 | By Lewis Krauskopf

(Reuters) - U.S. health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine. "We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that...

Obama Still Poised to Takeover Churches and Eliminate First Amendment

With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.

Obama's Big Compromise With The Catholic Church Is An Accounting Trick Catholics can't pay for it: morally it isn't much different than paying a Quaker in hand-grenades. The Church can't directly subsidize sin without being guilty… Read HERE

Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood And NARAL Come Out In Support of Obama’s Contraception “Compromise,” Catholic Bishops Already Shot It Down… – You know this is bad!!

Let us all ask ourselves again… Was the Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention? and let us not forget that a compromise now does not mean there is a change of ideology in the White House that will continue without compromise if Obama is re-elected.

AP Source Now Says Obama to Compromise

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Blaze has covered the religious freedom issues surrounding the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate extensively. President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.

Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday. ABC has more regarding what sources are saying the president is poised to present:

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. [...]

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception.

CBS News corroborates:

The exact nature of the clarification remains unclear, but any accommodation could largely follow what exists in a majority of states, like in Illinois where DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, offers an employee health plan that does cover contraception. Georgetown University offers a similar plan.

The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.

Video: A Compromise on Contraception

Republican leaders and religious groups, especially Roman Catholics, responded with intense outrage, saying the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.

The issue also pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that had been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama‘s health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans’ conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.

Republicans vowed to reverse the president’s policy, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country’s most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.

The measure also sparked an internal debate at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden, then-chief of staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women’s health and fairness.

'>'>'>Stephanie Cutter on CNN

The person with knowledge of Obama’s decision requested anonymity in order to speak in advance of the official announcement.

This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.

5 Reasons the Obama Admin May Be Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle

The Obama administration clearly underestimated the response it would receive from Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, after implementing a universal mandate on health plans that requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

As the Blaze has extensively documented, the response has been swift and hard-hitting. Many liberals who traditionally support these options for women have been jumping ship to side with Catholic leadership in agreement that the administration has overstepped its bounds — an event that so rarely happens in theological and political circles.

But it’s important to note that, despite very boisterous outcries, Obama does have support from some liberals on this issue; many of them are pointing to the fact that nearly all Catholic women use contraceptives as a defense. Using this argument, those who favor the mandate claim that the Church is out of touch and not accurately speaking for its followers on this important women’s health issue.

But is this the proper lens through which to view the issue? Free and religious speech advocates would argue that usage has little to do with views on government intervention in church affairs. In the end, it’s a complicated scenario with political capital for whichever side wins the public over. At the moment, the situation may not be as favorable for Obama as he would like. In an article published on Wednesday, Religion News Service’s David Gibson provides five reasons that the president may be losing the battle.

First, the debate, despite what the mandate’s supporters say, is about religious freedom — not contraception. Regardless of where one stands, the main issue at hand is whether the government has the right to interfere in church affairs and dictate what will be covered in health care plans. Gibson writes:

The bishops don’t have as much credibility with the laity as they used to, thanks to the clergy sex abuse scandal, among other things. But Catholics are still a potent tribe, and if outsiders are seen as attacking the church, Catholics can get defensive – and they can get even.

Then there’s the fact, as mentioned, that some liberal Catholics have abandoned the president on the issue. Regardless of where these individuals stand on use of these health care options, forcing Catholic institutions (among other faith-based groups) to violate their conscience just isn’t sitting right.

Now, let’s talk about those other faith groups. Many times, people of different religious traditions have a tough time coalescing, but on this issue, individuals with varying theological ideals are coming together. After all, it’s one thing to sit back and watch an attack on a rival faith group unfold, but when considering what could happen, should this mandate go unchecked, many religious people are fearful: “What’s next?,” they’re wondering. Gibson continues:

Even though evangelicals and other conservative Protestants generally don’t have religious objections to contraception, they do have a big problem with “big government” and with perceived infringements on religious freedom. Evangelicals – both their leaders and their troops – have never been big Barack Obama supporters anyway, so they were happy to provide any electoral and rhetorical muscle the Catholic hierarchy could not muster.

Video: Obama Administration, Catholic Leaders Clash Over Contraception Mandate

The fourth reason Gibson highlights is the fact that the “attack on religion” frame the issue is being explored through is an appealing one for Republicans. While many conservatives are wondering why Obama would approach this subject in an election year to begin with, others are noticing just how effective religious freedom rhetoric will be for the GOP nominee.

The rhetoric is already ratcheting up. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier this week.

And, of course, there’s the overwhelming fact that the president will need to secure the Catholic vote to ensure re-election. “While Obama won the overall Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent in 2008, he lost the white Catholic vote, 47 percent to 53 percent,” Gibson writes. It‘s hard to imagine the president won’t lose a portion of this important cohort as a result of his refusal, thus far, to compromise.

As GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have both said, “Obama has shown his hand and if he is re-elected, even if they walk this back now, this is the road that his administration will go down!”

Sure, he’s shown “openness” to the ideal of coming up with a viable solution that appeases both sides, but to those so staunchly opposed, such a notion isn’t good enough. The president will need to admit wrongdoing and back away from the mandate, should he wish to appease many of those individuals who feel wronged by the government’s newfound regulations. So far, there’s no evidence that he will take such a course.

Click here to read Gibson’s RNS article.

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!

Rubio Crushes Obama and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC; says it is a Constitutional issue!

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

2012-02-09T17:18:00.001-08:00

Is the Timing of the War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments… Another ObamaCare Revelation, God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention by Many Americans?

The present issue of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring (through ObamaCare) that all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after“ pill ”ella” that can induce early abortions is being framed as a fight over contraception. It is not an issue of contraception! It is an issue of religious liberty and an assault on the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

No politicians ever go after the Roman Catholic Church… Why? Because it is suicidal. Also, with everyone salivating to get the Hispanic voting block, who are almost all Catholics, this recent news of anti-religious freedom in ObamaCare resulting in a battle with the Catholic church could be Obama’s Waterloo.

Jews, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, a coalition of people of faith and even Atheists are standing with the Catholics on this matter. 90% of all Americans identify themselves as being related to some religion, even if not practicing.

So the question is, is the timing of this realization of one of the coming horrors in ObamaCare a huge mistake by Team Obama and perhaps an intervention by God in answer to all the prayers for help and guidance being said by God fearing Americans daily? Or is the primary focus of the left more about creating division and chaos to fundamentally transform America than getting elected… or re-elected?

Take a good look back at the famous ‘Fabian’ Window… the group the Progressives stem from. The Fabian Window is a view into the Heart of the New World Order Agenda, and yes that is former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair standing by that sinister Window!

The founders of the Fabian Society are depicted in the famous stained-glass Fabian Window^[1] designed by George Bernard Shaw. The window was stolen in 1978 and reappeared at Sotheby's in 2005. It was restored to display in the Shaw Library at the London School of Economics in 2006 at a ceremony over which Tony Blair presided.

The stained glass window was designed by George Bernard Shaw in 1910 as a commemoration of the Fabian Society, and shows fellow Society members Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease, among others, helping to build 'the new world'. Four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics with the money left to the Fabian Society by Henry Hutchinson. Supposedly the decision was made at a breakfast party on 4 August 1894. Artist Caroline Townshend (cousin of Shaw's wife Charlotte Payne-Townshend and daughter of Fabian and Suffragette Emily Townshend) created the Fabian window, according to Shaw's design in 1910. Also included in the window besides Shaw and Townshend themselves, were other prominent Fabians such as H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

Uber-Progressive and Obama puppetmaster and Hillary Clinton mentor, George Soros, is a graduate of the London School of Economics. Coincidence?

—Obama denigrates religion, covers up religious symbols when he speaks in churches, and proclaims that we are not a “Christian” nation. In fact, we are a Christian nation, but not exclusively so, and far more tolerant of all believers and disbelievers than the Arab countries from whom he courts favor. In those countries you may be maimed, banished or killed if you are not Muslim. Freedom of religion in those countries is but an empty phrase in constitutions that exalt Islam over all other religions. Is Obama remolding our religious heritage? …Taken from CFP’s Beware the Obama Fabian Window. Many feel that Obama is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing on the Fabian Window Coat of Arms.

Remember, Obama’s weakness is religious people. He doesn’t have the churches and true Bible reading/God fearing Americans behind him. So they are poking us to get us worked up to standup as a focus point making us the fringe and bringing us head to head with the left… the unions, OWS, avowed Progressives, etc.

Below are just a few of the article and perspective on this subject:

Obama appointee Muzzled Army Camplains and forbade them from reading Catholic Archdiocese Letter

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments

· Archbishop to U.S. Troops: Obamacare Reg ‘Blow to a Freedom You Have Fought

Monday, February 06, 2012 7:42:08 PM · by Nachum - Cybercast News Service ^ | 2/6/12 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was “a blow” to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle. “It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” the archbishop wrote.

· Updated: 167 Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate

Monday, February 06, 2012 7:39:21 PM · by Salvation · 8 replies - CatholicVote.org ^ | 02-06-12 | compiled by Thomas Peters

Updated: *167* Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate by Thomas Peters7 days ago In the past I’ve compiled a list of all the bishops speaking out on a particular controversial issue (for instance, over Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama) — here are the bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate.[See my ongoing coverage of Obama/HHS's war against religious liberty here, here, here and most recently here. I'm also tweeting more updates @AmericanPapist.] If I have missed anyone please let me know in the comments! And please double-check that your bishop really is not there...

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

If the federal government can succeed in forcing people to violate their faith, it will have the power to force anyone to do anything. It is therefore sad but not surprising that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius took to USA Today this week to spin rather than explain her boss’s decision to force people and entities all over the country to fund abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization against their consciences.

However, one of the most startling comments came from former Democrat Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper who said that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after“ pill ”ella” that can induce early abortions.

For those of us who have followed and fought against the passing of ObamaCare that knew about every ugly detail that has come to light since its passing… and there are many more to come, the amazement about its content keeps creating amazement for us. Government-run healthcare is the crown jewel of socialism and the ugliness contained within has only begun to surface. How dare an elected official who voted on this type of freedom changing bill say, “If I had known….” Read the bills, pay readers, have your staff read it. There really should be a penalty to pay by these people. Election 2012 or the Supreme Court Ruling will be our only chance(s) to rid ourselves of ObamaCare!!

This is not a matter that will just blow over, even though the White House is starting to back peddle on this issue for now; but this is a glimmer into our future if Barack Obama is re-elected. Those in the trenches know that any and all of the compromises we see during this election year will be rescinded as soon as Obama is re-elected.

This fight is much larger than this single issue… As Father Morris stated on Hannity the other night and again today on The Factor… “This is the fight over Freedom of Religion”, the very issue that America was founded on! The Left’s siege on churches has begun!!

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said! Similar remarks from Speaker Boehner, Senator Marco Rubio and congressional politicians from both sides of the aisle.

Ask Marion~

Beck Asks Panel: How Do You Teach People Values When They Are Raised in a Secular World?

Rubio Crushes Obama's and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC

Monsanto: A HORRIFYING PICTURE THAT WILL FREEZE THE BLOOD IN YOUR VEINS - UPDATED

2012-02-06T00:18:00.001-08:00

Film Review: The World According to Monsanto

Film: The World According to Monsanto – Full Length

Directed by Marie-Monique Robin
Review by Jeffrey M. Smith

How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage.

The Gazette says the movie "will freeze the blood in your veins." The Hour says it's a "horrifying enough picture" to warrant "fury." But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time.
The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.

Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet--with Monsanto in charge of determining if they're safe.

Deception, Deception, Deception

The company's history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can't be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto's PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto's toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, "How long you think I got?"

Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning.

They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."

Monsanto also produced the infamous Agent Orange, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, "thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits" because "Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen." But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, "If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result."

Secret documents stolen from the FDA also reveal serious health effects from Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, called rBGH or rBST. In particular, the amount of a powerful hormone called IGF-1 is substantially increased in milk from treated cows. Samuel Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, says that approximately 60 studies link IGF-1 to "breast, colon, and prostate cancers."

Cancer is also implicated in Monsanto's showcase herbicide, Roundup. According Professor Robert Belle's research showing disrupted cell division, "Roundup provokes the first stages that lead to cancer." Belle, who is with the National Center for Scientific Research and the Pierre and Marie Curie Institute in France, says, "The tested doses were well below those which people normally use."

Monsanto has promoted Roundup as harmless to both humans and the environment. But their advertised environmental claims, such as "biodegradable," "leaves the soil clean," and "respects the environment," were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. In fact, Monsanto's own studies showed that 28 days after application, only 2% of the product had broken down. They were forced to remove "biodegradable" from the label.

Above the law

When Monsanto's transgressions are reported to authorities, somehow the company is magically let off the hook.

When Monsanto finally did share information on PCBs with the government, for example, Ken Cook says "instead of siding with the people who were being poisoned, [the government] sided with the company. . . . It was outrageous!" When William Sanjour's EPA colleague, Cate Jenkins, asked the agency to review Monsanto's flawed Agent Orange studies, Sanjour says, "there was no investigation of Monsanto. . . . What they investigated was Cate Jenkins, the whistleblower! They made her life a hell."

When Richard Burroughs of the FDA held up approval of rBGH by demanding more rigorous and relevant testing, he was fired.

He says, "They figured: 'Well, if you're in the way, we'll get you out of the way. . . One day, I was escorted to the door and told that was it; I was done." Senior government scientists at Health Canada testified that their superiors were pressuring them to approve rBGH and that Monsanto had offered them an alleged bribe of $1-2 million. The scientists were later reprimanded, punished, and eventually "dismissed for disobedience." rBGH was never approved in Canada, Europe, and most industrialized nations.

When Professor Belle went to his administration "to let the public know about the dangers" of Roundup herbicide, he was "ordered" not to communicate his findings "due to the GMO question lurking in the background." That question about genetically modified organisms was in relation to Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops. Monsanto has the patent for 90% of the GMOs grown on the planet, and most of them are genetically modified specifically to tolerate applications of Roundup.

*One of the most frightening things is that Monsanto is practically a U.S. government agency!!* - Obama Appoints Monsanto’s Vice President Michael Taylor as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner at the FDA…

Dow and Monsanto Team Up on the Mother of All Herbicide Marketing Plans

America’s farmlands to be carpet-bombed with Vietnam-ear Agent Orange chemical if Dow petition approved

Are You Eating, Drinking and Breathing Monsanto’s New ‘Agent Orange’?

Monsanto Battle Continues After Suing Midwest Farmers for Saving Seeds

GM Foods Not Served in Monsanto Cafeteria

Would You Vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

George Soros and Food Safety

PDF File
Liar, Liar: FDA Secrets, Scandals & Slip Ups!

Dumbing Down Society Part 1: Foods, Beverages, and Meds (Media and Education)

Senate Bill S.510 Passed… Quickly Explained Here

UPDATED:

President Obama appointed former Monsanto vice president and lobbyist Michael Taylor as senior advisor to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

This is a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse. President Obama should isolate the FDA from corporate influence by asking Taylor to step down immediately.

That's why I created a petition to President Obama on SignOn.org. Click here to add your name, and then pass it along to your friends:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=269891&id=35461-19004089-AN_n6Yx&t=2

The petition says:

Will you sign the petition? Click here to add your name, and then pass it along to your friends:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=269891&id=35461-19004089-AN_n6Yx&t=3

Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child

2012-02-05T18:17:00.001-08:00

By former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin - Reprinted in its entirety from the Daily Beast

Last week, Rick Santorum and his family offered us a reminder of what really matters. When his 3-year-old daughter, Bella, born with Trisomy 18, was hospitalized with pneumonia, Rick left the campaign trail to be by her bedside. In the middle of this very heated campaign season, many of us prayed through tears for Bella’s health and added prayers of thankfulness for a public example of someone’s sacrifice made with the right priorities.

It’s a sacrifice every parent and caregiver of a child with special needs sympathizes with. Families of children with special needs are bonded by a shared experience of the joys, challenges, fears, and blessings of raising these beautiful children whom we see as perfect in this imperfect world.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, on rope lines at rallies across the country, my husband, Todd, and I met so many of these families and caretakers, and I’ll never forget them. There was an instant connection—a kind of mutual acknowledgment that said, “Yes, these children are precious and loved. Yes, we face extra fears and challenges, but our children are a blessing, and the rest of the world is missing out in not knowing this.”

Every parent struggles with juggling the commitments of work and family. Women, especially, know this well. Over the years, I’ve learned that women can “have it all,” just not all at once. For me, it was a lesson learned through the school of hard knocks, but it was one my own mother made me aware of when she calmly told me that as a working mom in the rough-and-tumble political arena, I would have to make tough choices. We all do. In making decisions about my career, I’ve put my family first, and I’ve never regretted it, although it has meant periodically putting particular pursuits on the back burner.

When I discovered early in my pregnancy that my baby would be born with an extra chromosome, the diagnosis of Down syndrome frightened me so much that I dared not discuss my pregnancy for many months. All I could seem to muster was a calling out to God to prepare my heart for what was ahead. My prayers were answered beyond my shallow understanding of what true joy could be. Yes, raising a child with special needs is a unique challenge, and there’s still fear about my son Trig’s future because of health and social challenges; and certainly some days are much more difficult than if I had a “normal” child.

Sarah Palin with her son, Trig., Jack Kurtz / ZUMA-Corbis

Many everyday activities like doctor’s appointments and social gatherings and travel accommodations and even mealtimes and a solid night of sleep are that much more difficult, but at the end of the day I wouldn’t trade the relative difficulties for any convenience or absence of fear. God knew what he was doing when he blessed us with Trig. We went from fear of the unknown to proudly displaying a bumper sticker sent to us that reads: “My kid has more chromosomes than your kid!” He may not be the next Wayne Gretzky, but our hearts are filled with so much pride watching Trig giggle with his sisters’ puppies, or sway to the rhythm of his Little Angels DVDs, it’s as if he were hoisting the Stanley Cup.Granted, I know I may be more fortunate than others to have loving friends and a big, supportive family I call on to help, including a husband who spends many sleepless nights with this restless little one. (And Todd actually makes Trig’s puréed baby food!) Others aren’t so fortunate, and in our thankfulness I am made more compassionate toward others who have less.I often think now, what would we do without Trig? He’s our “everything that really matters.”Trig is almost 4 years old now, and every morning when he wakes up, he pulls himself up, rubs the sleep out of his eyes, looks around, and then starts applauding! He welcomes each day with thunderous applause and laughter. He looks around at creation and claps as if to say, “OK, world, what do you have for me today?”

My family knows that Trig will face struggles that few of us will ever have to endure, including people who can be so cruel to those not deemed “perfect” by society. The cruelty is more than made up for, though, when someone simply smiles at our son. Nothing makes me prouder. As I explained in a Thanksgiving article, I notice it happens often in airports. Travelers passing by will do a double-take when they see him, perhaps curious about the curious look on his face; or perhaps my son momentarily exercises an uncontrollable motion that takes the passerby by surprise. Perhaps, as an innocent and candid child announced when she first met Trig, they think, “He’s awkward.” But when that traveler pauses to look again and smiles, and maybe tells me what a handsome boy I have, I swell with pride. I am so thankful for their good hearts. They represent the best in our country, and their kindness shows the real hope we need today.

My family understands that up ahead, some days will be better than others. We will adapt and juggle things and work through it. But Trig applauds the day. And that’s what he teaches us. That’s our priority, and we’re blessed by it.

*Both these politicians have a personal stake in overturning ObamaCare which includes rationing of healthcare, whatever your choose to call it.

Team Up for Down Syndrome

Susan G. Komen Foundation Reverses Stance on Cutting Funding for Planned Parenthood

2012-02-03T23:32:00.001-08:00

Pro-Life Groups Hail 'A Major Victory for Life' & Now Susan G. Komen Foundation Reversed Their Decision

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer charity has reversed its decision to halt funding of breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood, the organization announced Friday.

In a statement, Komen for the Cure Founder and CEO Nancy Brinker apologized for “recent decisions” and said the organization would continue to fund Planned Parenthood.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” Brinker said.

The reversal comes after three days of intense backlash over Komen’s announcement that it had adopted new criteria that excluded Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation. Planned Parenthood is currently at the center of a congressional probe into whether taxpayer money was used to fund abortions. Brinker said Friday they would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” she said. While the statement says Komen will not halt current funding, it does not necessarily guarantee future grants.

Brinker’s full statement is below, via the Dallas Morning News, which first broke the story:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

As The Blaze previously reported, the charity was accused of caving to anti-abortion activists opposed to funding Planned Parenthood because of the abortion services it provides.

Friday’s announcement is a dramatic about-face for the organization. On Wednesday, Brinker released a video vowing Komen for the Cure would “never bow down to political pressure.”

“The scurrilous accusations being hurled at this organization are profoundly hurtful to so many of us who put our heart, soul and lives into this organization,” she said. “But more importantly, they are a dangerous distraction from the work that still remains to be done in ridding the world of breast cancer.”

According to the Associated Press, the grants that Planned Parenthood affiliates used for breast exams and related services totaled $680,000 last year. At least one top Komen official quit over the decision to halt funding, and 26 U.S. senators signed a letter urging the charity to reconsider.

Both Komen and Planned Parenthood reported donation spikes in the aftermath of the initial announcement: Brinker said Thursday donations had been up 100 percent in the last two days, while Planned Parenthood reported bringing in about $650,000 in 24 hours. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself pledged $250,000 to Planned Parenthood in the wake of Komen’s decision.

This post has been updated since it was first published at the Blaze

Evelyn Lauder, Founder of Pink Ribbon, Dies at 75, of Non-Genetic Ovarian Cancer

UPDATED: How to donate: Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation

ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY ALTERING MORAL JUDGMENT

2012-02-03T16:23:00.001-08:00

Moral judgments can be altered ... by magnets

By disrupting brain activity in a particular region, neuroscientists can sway people’s views of moral situations.

By Anne Trafton, MIT News Office - Graphic: Christine Daniloff - Originally Posted - March 30, 2010

To make moral judgments about other people, we often need to infer their intentions — an ability known as “theory of mind.” For example, if one hunter shoots another while on a hunting trip, we need to know what the shooter was thinking: Was he secretly jealous, or did he mistake his fellow hunter for an animal?

MIT neuroscientists have now shown they can influence those judgments by interfering with activity in a specific brain region — a finding that helps reveal how the brain constructs morality.

Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people’s intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects’ ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people’s intentions — for example, a failed murder attempt — was impaired.

The researchers, led by Rebecca Saxe, MIT assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences, report their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of March 29. Funding for the research came from The National Center for Research Resources, the MIND Institute, the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, the Simons Foundation and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

The study offers “striking evidence” that the right TPJ, located at the brain’s surface above and behind the right ear, is critical for making moral judgments, says Liane Young, lead author of the paper. It’s also startling, since under normal circumstances people are very confident and consistent in these kinds of moral judgments, says Young, a postdoctoral associate in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

“You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior,” she says. “To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people’s moral judgments is really astonishing.”

Thinking of others

Saxe first identified the right TPJ’s role in theory of mind a decade ago — a discovery that was the subject of her MIT PhD thesis in 2003. Since then, she has used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the right TPJ is active when people are asked to make judgments that require thinking about other people’s intentions.

In the new study, the researchers wanted to go beyond fMRI experiments to observe what would happen if they could actually disrupt activity in the right TPJ. Their success marks a major step forward for the field of moral neuroscience, says Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of philosophy at Duke University.

“Recent fMRI studies of moral judgment find fascinating correlations, but Young et al usher in a new era by moving beyond correlation to causation,” says Sinnott-Armstrong, who was not involved in this research.

The researchers used a noninvasive technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to selectively interfere with brain activity in the right TPJ. A magnetic field applied to a small area of the skull creates weak electric currents that impede nearby brain cells’ ability to fire normally, but the effect is only temporary.
In one experiment, volunteers were exposed to TMS for 25 minutes before taking a test in which they read a series of scenarios and made moral judgments of characters’ actions on a scale of one (absolutely forbidden) to seven (absolutely permissible).

In a second experiment, TMS was applied in 500-milisecond bursts at the moment when the subject was asked to make a moral judgment. For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.

In both experiments, the researchers found that when the right TPJ was disrupted, subjects were more likely to judge failed attempts to harm as morally permissible. Therefore, the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments.

“It doesn’t completely reverse people’s moral judgments, it just biases them,” says Saxe.

When subjects received TMS to a brain region near the right TPJ, their judgments were nearly identical to those of people who received no TMS at all.

While understanding other people’s intentions is critical to judging them, it is just one piece of the puzzle. We also take into account the person’s desires, previous record and any external constraints, guided by our own concepts of loyalty, fairness and integrity, says Saxe.

“Our moral judgments are not the result of a single process, even though they feel like one uniform thing,” she says. “It’s actually a hodgepodge of competing and conflicting judgments, all of which get jumbled into what we call moral judgment.”

Saxe’s lab is now studying the role of theory of mind in judging situations where the attempted harm was not a physical threat. The researchers are also doing a study on the role of the right TPJ in judgments of people who are morally lucky or unlucky. For example, a drunk driver who hits and kills a pedestrian is unlucky, compared to an equally drunk driver who makes it home safely, but the unlucky homicidal driver tends to be judged more morally blameworthy.

NORTH TEXAS (CBSDFW.COM) – The FAA has confirmed a meteor likely passed across the sky of the Southwest United States Wednesday night, with many people in the Dallas/Fort Worth area hearing and feeling the sonic boom.

The meteor, which was reported from everywhere from San Antonio to Oklahoma City, was spotted around 8:00 p.m. Wednesday.

Kevin Palivec, a former television photographer in the Abilene area captured video of the meteor on two remote cameras 60 miles apart. Images from the cameras show a bright streak passing overhead. See Video Here and Here.

TUNGUSKA GENETIC ANOMALY AND ELECTROPHONIC METEORS
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/vol36/pdf/v36p0935.pdf

Leaving America behind

2012-02-02T19:09:00.001-08:00

James Cameron has announced he is leaving America and moving to New Zealand. His motive? He likes New Zealand.

Someone else is planning to leave America too. His motives are much different.

Who is it?

It is me.

That may come as a huge shock to many people, but I have begun planning an exit strategy from America. I’m not doing it yet.

You might ask yourself why I would do such a thing?

One word. Obamacare.

Anyone who is a baby boomer or older who is not now looking at this option is being foolish. As Obamacare kicks in, care for seniors is going to go. Sarah Palin railed against “death panels” and people laughed. They may want to stop laughing because those death panels are being set up.

As of now, the magic age is 72.

If you are rushed to the hospital with a serious illness, you have a big problem. Let’s say you have a stroke. If you are over 72, the presumption is going to be that the American medical system is now only going to give you comfort care. We will not treat your serious illness only make you comfortable.

Serious medical conditions can be treated if an ethics board meets and decides it is appropriate to treat you. Imagine you are rushed to the hospital and you are over 72 years old. Right now, if they get you to the hospital quickly, there are treatments that can be given that will stop a stroke and even prevent some of the massive damage a stroke can do. But you cannot get that treatment, if you are over 72 unless the medical ethics board meets and agrees that you should.

Think about this for a second. Seconds count in these kinds of emergencies. How the hell are you going to get a board together to vote when you only have minutes to act? How are you going to do it if it is at 3 AM?

Obamacare represents the final step from freedom to tyranny. In a free society, the society does everything it can to protect life. The citizens own the government. In a tyranny, the government owns the citizens and they are treated just like any other commodity. Their value is calculated and if the cost of the treatment, at least according to a bureaucrat, exceeds the value of the person then there is no treatment.

I’m 52 and I am now waiting. I am hoping the Supreme Court totally strikes down Obamacare. If not, Obama will veto any attempt to repeal it. The Republicans have not shown any willingness to even try to repeal it. We can only hope that the next president vetoes it if the GOP candidate is elected. But I wonder if some of them might just adjust it instead of vetoing it completely, leaving the door open and perhaps the rationing part in tact?

If the Supremes do not save America, I am working on my exit strategy. Fortunately, at least for the moment, I have twenty years to figure it out.

The good news is there are countries that will be willing to accept wealthy American retirees and offer the kind of medical care we have grown accustomed to. Unfortunately, there will be many Americans who will not be able to escape and will be killed by the same government that is now killed the best health care system in the world.

Let’s hope we can all grow our income before we need it.

By Judson Philips – Tea Party Nation

House votes to repeal part of 2010 health care law

2012-02-01T22:13:00.001-08:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican-led House on Wednesday voted to repeal a financially troubled part of the 2010 health care law that was designed to provide affordable long-term care insurance.

The House vote comes months after the Obama administration suspended the Community Living Assistance Services and Support program, known as the CLASS Act.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in October said she was unable to find a way to make the program financially solvent.

Still, the White House has said it does not support repealing the program, under which workers would pay a monthly premium during their careers and collect a daily cash benefit if they become disabled later in life.

Republicans have targeted the program as part of their overall goal of dismantling the health care overhaul law. Action on the bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate is uncertain.

The House vote was 267-159, with 28 Democrats joining all 239 voting Republicans in support.

The Senate has ignored House votes in the past year to repeal the entire health care law or to block funding for parts of it. One of the few changes Congress has been able to bring about concerned a requirement for small businesses to file more health care paperwork.

The CLASS Act was supposed to address the crisis in long-term care coverage. Currently some 10 million Americans need long-term care, and that number is expected to hit 15 million by 2020. But only about 8 percent of people buy private long-term care insurance.

Under the voluntary program, a priority of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, monthly premiums would be used to finance benefits of at least $50 a day for those needing long-term care. The money would go for services at home or to help with nursing home bills.

But government actuaries determined that unless a large number of healthy people signed up, premiums would have to soar to unaffordable levels to meet the growing needs of the disabled.

Experts have concluded, said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., that "the CLASS program can't be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency." Unless it is terminated, he said, "it poses a clear danger to the fiscal health of our budget and to the American taxpayer."

The administration finally has come to the conclusion "that we knew even before the bill passed, that this was unsustainable, it was unworkable, it was fatally flawed," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La.

But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the Republican goal was to "tear down and dismantle programs that provide health care in the United States." He said "the solution is to amend the program to make it work, not just repeal it and leave nothing in its place."

Breitbart.com via Free Republic

Great news for coffee drinkers - Men–Have another cup of coffee!

2012-02-01T18:53:00.001-08:00

Sometimes it seems like the only kind of news I bring you is bad news. So, today we’re shifting our focus to a couple of pieces of VERY good news. Grab a cup of coffee — you’ll see why in a second — and get to reading!

Sometimes it seems like the only news I write about is bad news. So, today we’re shifting our focus to a couple of pieces of VERY good news.

Grab a cup of coffee — especially you men — and read on.

The first piece of good news comes from a study published in the journal Diabetic Medicine. Researchers in Hong Kong have added another item to the list of reasons you should be getting plenty of omega-3s, and this one is especially good news for diabetics.
Because it turns out that those wonderful fatty acids may actually improve your kidney health if you have diabetes. People who supplemented with omega-3s saw a big drop in creatinine levels in their blood, a common measure of kidney damage.

In the 12-week study, participants received either 4 grams per day of fish oil or a placebo—olive oil. (Side note: When’s the last time you saw the contents of a placebo disclosed by a Big Pharma drug study?)
At the end of the study, those who had taken fish oil had significantly lower creatinine levels than those who had been taking olive oil. So there’s one more reason to keep taking that fish oil — as if you really needed another one!

The second piece of good news gets us back to that cup of coffee. Men, this is particularly welcome news for you. Especially if you can’t get through the day without several cups of Joe.

Recently, a 20-year study involving 50,000 men showed that coffee-drinkers are at a lower risk for prostate cancer.

And the more coffee you drink, the lower the risk…For men who drank the most coffee (six or more cups a day), the risk fell a whopping 60%. Even men who drank only one to three cups per day had a 20% lower risk.

Now, what if you’re a decaf drinker? That doesn’t seem to matter — guys who drank decaffeinated coffee saw the same benefits. Researchers say that coffee impacts insulin, glucose metabolism, and sex hormones — all of which play a role in the development of prostate cancer.

They want to do more research to determine what component of coffee gives this protection, but in the meantime you can harness the benefits with a hot, steaming cup of coffee every morning.

This article from Dr. Jonathan V. Wrigth, MD website www.wrightnewsletter.com

Sources:
“Be a Java Junkie: New Study Reveals Coffee May Prevent Deadly Prostate Cancer,” Alternative Health Journal (www.insidershealth.com)

“Omega-3 may boost kidney health in diabetics: Study,” NutraIngredients (www.nutraingredients-usa.com)

Did Pam Bondi really defend RomneyCare? I Don’t Think So….

2012-01-31T23:16:00.001-08:00

There is some bluster going around the internets about Pam Bondi’s interview with Greta last night, suggesting that she not only defended RomneyCare, but that she will also help Romney institute it when/if he becomes president. But I’ve listened to the interview and I believe this is NOT TRUE.

I’m not a Romney supporter and I am not going to bat for him here. I just hate when misinformation gets thrown out there and people latch on to it as if it were true.

If you listen to the interview below, you’ll first hear Rush talking about the similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Greta then asks Pam Bondi, who is currently fighting ObamaCare in court, what she thinks about what Rush had just said. But for some reason, instead of commenting on what Rush said about RomneyCare, she does a switcheroo and compares what Rush said to Romney’s current plan on health care that he would implement as president. You’ll notice she uses the word “would” a lot in her answer. She’s obviously looking in the future and not in the past, which is weird, because she was asked specifically about RomneyCare.

Bondi said Romney “has the vision and experience necessary to turn our economy around and restore prosperity to our nation.”

You can speculate as to why she did that – perhaps she didn’t want to sit there and defend RomneyCare. But the way she answered the question has led people to believe she was talking about RomneyCare, and, because she said she’s been offered a job in the Romney administration helping implement his health care plan, after ObamaCare has been overturned and removed…

So people now believe she’s going to help Romney implement RomneyCare. I didn’t hear it that way.

You can listen and decide for yourself, but that’s my take HERE. <--

**Romney has pledged over and over again that he will immediately after his inauguration give every state a waiver from ObamaCare. He has also explained over and over the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare; about the things in RomneyCare that he tried to veto or were added since he left the Governorship and has explained that Massachusetts saw the option of Romneycare as a state’s right.**

‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate

2012-01-31T17:34:00.001-08:00

We’ve covered the Catholic Church’s ongoing battle with the Obama administration over contraception health care mandates for quite some time. Over the weekend, though, the stand-off took an unusual turn, as Catholic churches across America read a letter to congregants that perfectly encapsulated the church’s stance against the impending federal requirements.

The Church’s vocal arguments against the Obama administration are centered upon a Health and Human Services Department requirement that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in health-care coverage. While this requirement doesn’t apply to houses of worship, it will force Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Christian groups to provide these drugs despite their faith-based opposition to them.

Many of these organizations, despite not being, themselves, churches, are intrinsically rooted in religious belief systems that stand firmly opposed to medications and procedures that would terminate the life of an unborn child. These deeply-rooted moral codes, which drive the groups’ work, will be impeded, Catholic leaders say, should the Obama administration continue with its planned mandate.

Recently, the federal government made one small concession surrounding the requirement, as officials decided to give church-affiliated hospitals and organizations another year before they will be forced to comply with the coverage restrictions.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan (AP)

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently said.

Over the weekend, the Catholic Church’s letter went beyond simply issuing oppositional rhetoric to media. Instead, priests read an open note to congregations across the country, dubbing the administration‘s take on women’s health and religious violations as an attack on their faith. In the letter, Bishops highlighted what they called “an alarming and serious matter,“ as their words contended that the federal government has ”dealt a heavy blow” to the Catholic population.

Free Birth Control Under New Health Guidelines by NewsyVideos

In it, Catholic leaders went on to say that the Church “cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law,” as it violates the Catholic conscience. Additionally, the church says that it is faced with a difficult decision — either comply and violate its faith or drop coverage for employees and suffer the consequences. The letter urges congregants to take action and to call Congress in an attempt to overturn the regulation.

While there were some variations in the letter, as it was personalized by each Bishop, here’s the text that was sent out by the Bishop of Marquette (Michigan):

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,
including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture,
only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

This is the latest development in the spat between the federal government and the Catholic Church. While contraception is a major problem dividing the two parties, other developments have added to the relational deterioration. Among the developments, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops last year.

Pope Benedict XVI (AP)

Rather than continuing to allocate money to a special program the bishops group oversaw to assist victims of modern-day slavery (i.e. human trafficking), the administration, instead, chose to give the funds to three non-Catholic groups. The bishops conference had refused to refer trafficking victims to receive contraceptives or abortions, so the American Civil Liberties Union sued and HHS decided to provide funds to groups that would refer women for these services.

Then there’s gay marriage — another contentious issue. The administration’s stance of not defending traditional marriage also contradicts Catholic teaching.

As for the health care regulation — a tenet that abortion-rights groups heralded when it was introduced last summer — there’s no telling how the situation will end, as the Church seems adamant about its refusal to comply.

In September, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the regulation “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” In November, The Catholic Advocate PAC launched an attack campaign against the Obama administration as well. To these responses, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said late last year that the Church’s “conscience thing” puts woman at risk (yes, she’s a Catholic).

In the end, there will be dire results, it seems, should the administration proceed as planned.

Source: The Blaze

Shock Article: Bioethicists Suggest Killing Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’ Is Not Morally Wrong

2012-01-30T19:30:00.001-08:00

What has Glenn Beck so fired up that he said on his radio show “If this doesn’t wake your a** up this morning, then nothing will?” How about this quote from prominent bioethicists comparing killing a human being to pulling weeds from a garden.

Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Duke University (Photo: Duke University)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of practical ethics from Duke, and Franklin Miller, a senior faculty member in the NIH Department of Bioethics, state in their abstract ”What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.“ They argue that if no abilities remain then the ”dead donor rule,” which is the ethical practice that a person must be declared dead before removing vital organs, should apply to patients whose hearts have stopped and are being removed from a respirator.

This discussion has been ongoing for several years and continues with this article. BioEdge, a publication discussing bioethical news, brings a few segments from the subscription-only journal in which Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller publish their opinion. BioEdge reports that the authors are seeking to make a case for organ donation after cardiac death when a person is taken off of a respirator. Once off the respirator, the person’s organs would be immediately harvested, but even at this point, BioEdge states, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller believe the person is not yet dead because there is the possibility that his or her heart could start beating again.

Miller has written on this topic before for the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s some of what was written in his co-authored piece from 2008 “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation:”

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

In the more recent Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller article, BioEdge reports the authors as stating that “these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.”

Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller argue that the dead donor rule is already being violated in many cases and that recognizing this violation and stopping organ donation in these conditions would drastically reduce an already limited number of donor organs for those in need. They suggest sidestepping this issue by rethinking the “norm of killing.” BioEdge has more from the authors:

“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”

[...]

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”

Franklin Miller of the National Institute of Health. (Photo: NIH Department of Bioethics)

While Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make this argument, BioEdge reports in a separate article that several doctors have called for a moratorium on donated organs in the event of cardiac death until the issue is resolved from an ethical standpoint. The doctors state this opinion in the journal Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.

In the abstract, these doctors calling for a moratorium write:

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been “worked out” and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule.

[...]

Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are “straw-man arguments,” such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate.

The issue, however, isn’t an isolated incident. The Blaze has recently published articles about a disabled man in the U.K. who is seeking the “right” to die and a 3-year-old whose parents were told she couldn’t have kidney transplant because she was “mentally retarded.” And last year, we posted the disturbing video of a British advice columnist who said if a child were disabled a loving mother would “put a pillow over its face” to smother it. Watch that clip:

Eugenics in Action

United Nations Preparing to Manage Global Mental Health

2012-01-29T23:43:00.001-08:00

Brandon Turbeville - Activist Post

In a world where national sovereignty is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, announcements that the United Nations will be taking the lead on any variety of topics is no longer shocking. Indeed, there is a real push across the world to view the United Nations as the ultimate authority on virtually every issue, from human rights to nutritional content in food.

Through decades of propagandizing, the United Nations has developed an undeserved reputation for humanitarianism and democracy. As a result, the vast majority see the United Nations as a benevolent organization which they can call on to defend human rights in their home countries. Unfortunately, national sovereignty rarely enters into the equation anymore, as the average citizen tends to look straight to the United Nations to address their concerns, bypassing their own governments.

As case in point, a recent report by AFP, entitled, “Experts urge U.N. to address mental health,” discusses how a recent article in PLoS Medicine, a reputable medical journal, has called for the United Nations General Assembly to develop a plan to tackle mental, neurological, and substance-abuse disorders (MNS).

The article was authored by Vikram Patel of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Judith Bass from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in the United States, among other contributors. They write, “The time has come for recognition at the highest levels of global development, namely the U.N. General Assembly, of the urgent need for a global strategy to address the global burden of MNS disorders.”

They also state that investment is needed in three different, but key, areas – “expanding knowledge about mental health disorders, better access to evidence-based programs of care and treatment, and protection of human rights.”

Although the further understanding of mental health disorders and their treatment is a laudable goal, it is also one in which both the Psychiatric/Psychological complex and the United Nations have a horrible track record.

Indeed, even within individual national boundaries, the Psychiatric/Psychological complex has vastly more authority that it needs or deserves. When one multiplies that oppressive authority with the global jurisdiction of the United Nations, as well as the U.N’s tendency to introduce tyrannical guidelines in its own right, we can see a clear recipe for disaster.

In an excellent breakdown of the situation, the Daily Bell writes,

The ultimate element of this charade (and probably the reason for it) will be a People’s Charter for Mental Health that will provide the opportunity for the elites to create yet more command-and-control bureaucracies.

To begin with these bureaucracies may seem innocent and even innovative. But over time it will become apparent that the UN is setting up some sort of worldwide mental health apparatus to evaluate people’s emotional and intellectual stability.

Worst case – if it gets that far – the UN will try to provide itself not only with the authority to evaluate people’s mental competence but also the authority to send people to mental institutions and re-education camps if they are not sufficiently docile and open to the appropriate level of mind control.

Although this analysis may appear extreme to some, the fact is that it is not nearly as extreme as it may sound at first. Considering the level of control that the Psychiatric/Psychological complex currently wields over our lives, the transition of this undeserved authority from a national level to that of an international body is not at all far-fetched.

Indeed, an authoritarian standard-setting UN-based organization in the areas of mental health would no doubt be an issue for all to be concerned with. The UN has, on virtually every occasion, shown its aptitude toward oppressive legislation, lack of concern for human dignity and individual rights, as well as forcing its guidelines upon the rest of the world by stealth and economic sanctions.

For instance, the standard-setting organization for food, Codex Alimentarius, has consistently forced its guidelines on national governments by virtue of the WTO trade dispute settlement mechanisms. Codex Alimentarius guidelines involve reducing the level of nutrition available in vitamin and mineral supplements, allowing for the increased proliferation of genetically modified food, and unlimited irradiation of food products. (See my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom)

U.N.-related organizations like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) are also highly successful at implementing austerity programs on debt-ridden countries like Greece as a pre-condition for more loans, which are themselves nothing more than an increase of irrational debt by virtue of the sacrifice of living standards and tangible physical wealth.

Even the WTO (World Trade Organization), another U.N.-related agency is famous for dismantling any protectionist tariffs or subsidies imposed by nation states upon cheap products being dumped into their economies. It is also well-known for punishing any nation that even slightly steps away from the agenda of globalism.

A U.N.-controlled bureaucracy overseeing the treatment and diagnosis of mental health disorders, addiction, or anything else that would so greatly involve the individual, is without a doubt a recipe for disaster.

The Psychiatric/Psychological complex already wields entirely too much authority over the lives of supposedly free human beings. This authority, as it currently exists, must be taken away.

We cannot afford to give this industry any more control over our lives, much less give international authority to the detriment of national sovereignty.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost@gmail.com.

Food Fights and Class Warfare

2012-01-27T20:29:00.001-08:00

There was a time when full tables signified prosperity and thick waistlines were considered attractive. The ability to eat one's fill was what separated the gentry from the peasant making do with a few crusts and salted leftovers. Fat was in because it represented leisure and wealth. Thin meant you were on the road to the poorhouse or to consumption, which meant your body was being consumed, not that you were the one doing the consuming.

Then feudalism went the way of the dodo, agriculture was revolutionized and starvation went extinct in the West. Between the widespread availability of cheap food and social welfare programs covering everything from soup kitchens to food stamps, it became hard to starve. Not only was the availability of food no longer associated with prosperity, but even the poor had begun to eat so well that fat began to carry working class and lower class associations.

Fat was no longer wealth, instead conscientious fitness became a mark of prosperity. The laden table made way for micro portions and exotic but barely edible foods. Thin was in on the plate and the waistline.

In Third World countries where feudalism never ended and the agriculture revolution never mattered, the values often never flipped. Instead of anorexia, teenage girls suffer from being force fed to make them more marriageable. The wealthy are fat and the feasts at the top never end.

In the West, weight stands in for class, at a time when explicit classism has become politically incorrect. When Europeans sneer at how fat Americans are, and American coastal elites sneer at the rest of the country for being fat, it's a class putdown that dressed up longstanding contempt in the colors of the welfare state.

Just because the left and its class warfare worldview, which pretends to be concerned about the plight of the underclass, dominates Western societies does not mean that it is not classist. The left is elitist and its underclass protectionism creates a new wave feudalism with a vast government funded upper and middle class dedicated to caring for the underclass, subsidizing it, caring for it and taxing it to pay for all those services.

The obesity concern trolling is a combination of classism and nanny statism that brings to mind the days when their ideological forebears thought that the way to deal with the poor was to sterilize those who seemed less capable than the rest to improve the breed. There is something equally Darwinian in the sneers aimed at Paula Deen. The breed being culled while the elites try to teach their less evolved cousins to survive by eating their arugula.

The nanny state is built on a technocratic confidence in the ability to create one size fits all solutions, overlaying that on a map of the current medical wisdom leads to the creation of single standards, which often have less to do with health than they do with the status symbols of the leisure class. 19th century popularized medicine created so many of these fads that some of them are still around today. The 20th century created even more.

Death though is not only inevitable, but it cannot be dodged with a one size fits all standard. Fitness guru Jim Fixx who helped kickstart the running craze died in his early fifties of a heart attack. Fixx had quit smoking and lost weight, and still died at an early age. Jackie Gleason who spent his life looking like a walking health attack, smoking and drinking, outlived him by nearly twenty years.

Medicine is individual and the collectivization of medicine is a technocratic solution that leads nowhere except to few doctors and ranks of unionized medical personnel nudging patients into following the script handed down to them by professors who have never actually practiced medicine a day in their life. This is the outcome of a nanny state outlook that sees individuals as dispensable, that is concerned only with group outcomes.

This view requires seeing all people as endowed with certain problems that require broad stroke solutions, like adding calories to menus and other rats in a maze tactics designed to modify human behavior on a national level. The targeting of fast food restaurants, public school meals and food stamps reeks of the same elitist arrogance that drives the nanny state.

The politicization of food by the elites of the left always comes down to class, no matter how it may be disguised in liberal colors. From exotic to locally grown, the trajectory of food politics follows the upselling of food prices The only difference is that the dominance of the left has wrapped the added cost with no added value in their own politics. The more affordable food becomes, the more the left finds ways to add cost to food, without adding value.

But the politicization of food goes beyond the fair trade and locally grown fetishes of the politically correct elites, the more politics ends up on your plate, the more the elites are driven to involve everyone else in their food fights. What begins as a way of raising prices while diminishing value to assert wealth and privilege becomes imposed on everyone in the name of their political morality. Once everyone else is paying more and getting less, then the classist left demands new ways to set its superior moral eating habits apart. Instead of everyone ending up with more food, everyone ends up with less.

The cultural ascendance of the left has meant that instead of conspicuous consumption, the consumption has to be disguised with conspicuous political pieties. The food may cost twice as much, but it's locally grown on a farm run by handicapped union workers who visit Cuba to receive free health care or by the indigenous peoples of Tuba-Tuba with the proceeds going to a complete sonic library of their chants and ceremonies. The entire thing is meaningfully meaningless, but it disguises the consumption in a hairshirt, which is the entire point.

Conspicuous consumption is now for the poor while conspicuous conservation is for liberal elites. Al Gore may live in a mansion but he still has the carbon footprint of a mouse. The problem is the truck driver whose vehicle emissions are killing the planet. Whole Foods is just fine, but we need to do something about McDonald's.

Conspicuous conservationism has made America a poorer country, destroyed millions of jobs and outsourced them overseas. Now it's beginning to make America a hungrier country. In a moment of horrifying tone deafness that makes Marie Antoinette seem enlightened, the left is cheering that fewer Americans are eating meat, without seeming to understand that it's because fewer Americans are able to afford it because of their economic policies.
What the left's food police can't accomplish with nudges and shaming, they can finish off with policies and regulations that end up raising the price of food or by making it too difficult to sell. As the left tries and fails to sell the general public on conservation as a status symbol, it moves in the heavy bureaucratic artillery.

It isn't unusual for elites to use the legal system to enforce their own values on the general public, though it was the kind of thing that the universal franchise was supposed to put a leash on, but there is something grim about their growing preoccupation with the habits and mortality of the population. It's the kind of concern that has a habit of ending in eugenics and the more medicine is universalized, the easier it is to start cutting off access to medical treatment for those who haven't been nudged far enough in the right direction.

Social medicine politicizes food consumption and a globalized economy politicizes food production. And the politicized American plate has less on it and at a higher price. While the left obsessively pursues its mission of destroying fast food in the name of lowering social medicine costs and being fairer to farmers, what they are truly accomplishing is to take affordable and filling food off the shelves, as they have done with countless other products that they have targeted.

By the time the left was done with Russia, it had gone from a wheat producer to a wheat importer and many basic food staples were hard to come by even in a country filled with collective farms. Finding modern day examples of that isn't hard. We only have to look as far south as Venezuela to see empty store shelves under the weight of government food policies. But one day that may be the local grocery store if the left gets its way.

By Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish

Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia

2012-01-23T23:37:00.001-08:00

(Chart taken from CDC National Vital Statistics 2000 report page 9)

Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Chemtrails contain “the oxides of metals,” according to this geo-engineering patent. These substances are supposedly sprayed into our atmosphere for “beneficial” climate manipulation, or geo-engineering, and residue tests indicate excess aluminum oxide in water and soil after heavy chemtrailing. Fluoride is put in our water to “prevent tooth decay.” Both of these actions, geo-engineering and fluoridation, on the surface, appear to be beneficial, with only good intentions behind their implementation. Really!

Aluminum is implicated in Alzheimer’s disease:

Certain aluminum compounds have been found to be an important component of the neurological damage characteristics of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Much research over the last decade has focused on the role of aluminum in the development of this disease. At this point, its role is still not clearly defined. Since AD is a chronic disease which may take a long time to develop, long-term exposure is the most important measure of intake. Long-term exposure is easiest to estimate for drinking water exposures. http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/alzheimers.htm

“Subacute to chronic toxicity: Aluminum may be implicated in Alzheimers disease.” (Material Safety Data Sheet)

…and dementia:

Dementia develops when the parts of the brain that are involved with learning, memory, decision-making, and language are affected by one or more of a variety of infections or diseases. The most common cause of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease, but there are as many as 50 other known causes. Most of these causes are very rare.

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/alzheimers-dementia

Fluoride “enhances the bio-availability of aluminum,” allowing it to cross the blood-brain barrier easier, thus making it more toxic. The following study is from 1998:

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND DEMENTIA – IMPORTANT NEW STUDY SHOWS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS FROM INTERACTION OF ALUMINUM AND LOW DOSE FLUORIDE

The latest edition of the peer-reviewed medical journal, Brain Research, (vol.784:l998), reveals that aluminum-induced neural degeneration in rats is greatly enhanced when the animals were fed low doses of fluoride. The presence of fluoride enhanced the bio-availability of aluminum (Al) causing more aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier and become deposited in the brain. The aluminum level in the brains of the fluoride-treated group was double that of the controls.

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html

So why are we fluoridating our water supply? Considering that the secret is out about the effectiveness or lack thereof of fluoride to prevent tooth decay as referenced by the following report, how exactly is it that this potentially deadly combination has gone relatively unnoticed by the medical establishment? And probably the most important question of all is, why are we standing by and blindly accepting our poison without so much as a whimper?

Fluoride, Dentists “Magic Bullet” is Shooting Blanks

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Poor Not Helped; Money Wasted; Kids in Dental Pain; Viable Alternatives Shunned

New York – January 20, 2012 — Despite decades of water fluoridation in New York State, the Journal of the American Dental Association reports that emergency treatment for NYS toddlers’ severe tooth decay has grown substantially in numbers and costs, many require general anesthesia, (1)reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

Fluoridation is touted as an effective cavity preventive that will save money. But this study and others proves it’s doing neither.

In 72% fluoridated NYS, 25,622 children, under six-years-old, made cavity-related emergency dental visits from 2004 though 2008. Visits grew from 4,361 in 2004 to 5,683 in 2008. Seventy-five percent required general anesthesia, up from 35% in 2004. Total costs: $121 Million ($18.5 million in 2004 increased to $31.3 million in 2008), most borne by taxpayers.

“There is a limited number of dentists willing to treat patients younger than 6 and/or accept Medicaid” write the NYS researchers.

More Statistics Show Fluoridation Fails New York State

NYS Department of Health statistics reveal that, even when water is fluoridated, cavity-rates are extremely high in low-income third-graders. (2)For example:

85% of low-income third graders have tooth decay in WayneCounty(74% fluoridated)

83% in OntarioCounty(61% fluoridated)

82% in CayugaCounty(not fluoridated)

82% in AlleghenyCounty(14% fluoridated)

81% in LivingstonCounty(55% fluoridated)

67% in SchuylerCounty(not fluoridated)

58% in NassauCounty(not fluoridated)

Fluoridation not only fails New YorkStatebut nationally children, the elderly and poor lack dental care.The General Accounting Office estimates that 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid had untreated tooth decay in 2005.(3)

Oral health complications may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.

Annually, 164 million work hours and 51 million school hours are lost due to dental problems, according to the Instituteof Medicine. (4)Also, a 2008 study of the armed forces reveals 52% of new recruits had oral health problems needing urgent attention, reports the Pew Charitable Trust.

“The American economy is hurt by dentists’ refusal to treat low-income Americans and by organized dentistry’s lobbying to outlaw cheaper dental care by viable dental professionals, such as dental therapists,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “Fluoridation is a false concept that must be abandoned.”

Past Studies Show that when fluoridation ceases so do cavities (5 )

Cavity rates decreased six years after fluoridation was stopped in Kupio, Finland.

Seven years after fluoridation ended in LaSalud, Cuba, cavity-free children increased dramatically

Following the cessation of water fluoridation in the East German cities, Chemnitzand Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed.

After fluoridation ended in the East German cities, Spremberg and Zittau, cavities in 12-year-olds significantly decreased

During an 11-month fluoridation break in Durham, NC,cavity rates remained stable but dental fluorosis declined in children born during that period

In British Columbia, Canada, “the prevalence of caries decreased
over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged
in the fluoridated community.”

In 1973, the Dutch town of Tielstopped fluoridation. Decayed, missing and filled surfaces dipped in 15-year-olds. Never-fluoridated Culemborg’s 15-year-olds had 72% less cavities over the same period.

Beeber says, “The multi-billion dollar Pew Charitable Trust continues to waste its resources promoting fluoridation in Iowa, Arkansas, Austin and elsewhere with misinformation. However, we agree with their findings that ‘Support for CWF (Community Water Fluoridation) is soft, especially among the following groups…Those who report being more knowledgeable of Community Water fluoridation.’”

Contact: Paul Beeber, Esq, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com

http://www.Fluoridation.Webs.com

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Research shows that fluoridation does not reduce cavities but quite possibly increases them, yet we fluoridate our water, then spray aluminum from the sky to pollute that water, the soil, and air. We unwittingly ingest this aluminum, take a nice cool drink of fluoridated water, and end up a few years down the road wondering where we misplaced our minds and health. This is a two-part mix that leads to a crippling disease.

Our brains and nervous systems are under attack, and we end up paying dearly for the privilege of being poisoned to death. Insane? Yes. But very real. Whether you believe we are being subjected to an intentional depopulation agenda or simply hapless victims of reckless corporate greed, it’s happening! You can’t refute the facts. Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia. The combination is deadly. They know it, I know it, and now you know it.

Notes:

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/alzheimers-dementia

http://www.nanomaterialstore.com/alo_alpha_msds.php

http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/aluminum.html

Source: Farm Wars

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant ...

2012-01-23T23:26:00.001-08:00

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant Because She Is “Mentally Retarded”

You are about to read about a 3 year old girl named Amelia that was denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded". The doctor that made this decision felt as though Amelia would not have a good enough "quality of life" to justify the procedure. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of eugenics in action and this is the kind of thing that starts happening when human life becomes cheap. When a society decides that life is not precious, all sorts of nightmarish things begin to occur. Women start aborting babies that are discovered to be less than "perfect". Life support systems are terminated for those that are considered to be "vegetables". Medical procedures are denied to elderly patients because they would be a "waste of resources". Terminally ill children are regarded as "not worth saving". We often look back in horror on the human sacrifices of past civilizations, but many of the things that we do today are extremely barbaric as well. And as the population control agenda of the global elite continues to be promoted in the classrooms of thousands of colleges and universities around the globe, the value placed on human life is going to continue to decline.

The following comes from an account by Amelia's mother of what it was like to hear a doctor tell her that her daughter was being denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be "mentally retarded". You can read the full account right here. After dropping this bomb on Amelia's mother, the doctor and the social worker that were talking with her just got up and left the room. Unfortunately, scenes like this play out all over America every single day....

I am beginning to realize I want this over with so I can move onto the next person who will help me with the transplant. So I say the words and ask the questions I have been avoiding.

“So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!”

“Yes. This is hard for me, you know.”

My eyes burn through his soul as if I could set him on fire right there. “Ok, so now what? This is not acceptable to me. Who do I talk to next?”

“I will take this back to the team. We meet once a month. I will tell them I do not recommend Amelia for a transplant because she is mentally retarded and we will vote.”

“And then who do I see?”

“Well, you can then take it the ethics committee but as a team we have the final say. Feel free to go somewhere else. But it won’t be done here.”

They both get up and leave the room.

Fortunately, there has been a great outcry over this story and this decision is being reconsidered. But the eugenics agenda has been promoted so hard for so long in this country that there are a lot of voices out there that are actually supporting the decision to deny the kidney transplant to Amelia.

For example, the following is from a Huffington Post editorial that supports denying a kidney transplant to this little girl because it would be "a waste of an organ".....

The stark reality then, is that a kidney that goes to one patient means it does not go to another. Giving a kidney to Amelia means that someone, whose name you will probably never know, but who will be loved just as fiercely as Amelia is, won't get one in time.

Which is why there are rules -- unemotional, clinical, detached rules -- for a situation that is none of those things. And it is why there are forms like the ones placed in front of Amelia's parents. Amelia is not being denied a donor transplant because she is, as her mother writes, "mentally retarded." She is being denied a donor transplant because she has a cascading syndrome that will shorten and limit her life, meaning that kidney will not "save" her in the way that it might someone who starts out healthier. In cold clinical terms this means that everything it takes to undergo a transplant -- the medications, the repeated biopsy procedures afterwards, the constant monitoring and machinery -- are difficult and sometimes impossible compared with a child who is less impaired. The less mobile a patient is, the far greater the likelihood that she will develop an infection, or pneumonia, or a host of other complications that make it probable that the transplant will eventually fail. Which, in those same cold clinical terms, would make it a waste of an organ.

If you feel like losing your lunch after reading that, it is perfectly understandable.

Somehow, millions upon millions of Americans have been convinced that just because a child is sick or disabled that they are not going to have a good enough "quality of life" to be worth saving.

In other instances, decisions about medical care come down to money.

The goal of health insurance companies is to make as much money as possible. When they can get away with refusing to pay for expensive treatments and procedures that increases their profits.

Anyone that has ever had a claim denied by a health insurance company knows what I am talking about. They will gladly take your money, but when the time comes that you really need them many of them will do whatever they can to wiggle out of paying.

Many health insurance companies even treat our injured veterans very badly. The following example comes from CBS News....

John Woodson, a 51-year-old contractor from Oklahoma who was featured on ABC's 20/20 in 2009, lost an eye and a leg when the truck he was driving hit a roadside bomb in Iraq. He is covered by an AIG government benefits program for employees of U.S. contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan. But AIG refused to provide him with the new plastic leg his doctor had ordered, and even fought against paying for a wheelchair and glasses for his remaining eye. (He has only 30 percent vision in his remaining eye.) The insurance company eventually provided him with a better artificial limb made of replacement parts, but not the one his doctor ordered, according to ABC.

Can you believe that?

But at least that solider did not end up dead.

Other "health insurance victims" are not so fortunate.

This next example comes from a Huffington Post article....

Hilda and Krikor Sarkisyan went to CIGNA's Philadelphia headquarters, along with supporters from the California Nurses Association, to confront the CEO Edward Hanway over the death of her 17-year-old child.

In 2007, Nataline Sarkisyan was denied a liver transplant by the company, on the grounds that the operation was "too experimental" to be covered. Nine days later it changed its mind, in response to protests outside its office. It was too late: Nataline died hours later.

"CIGNA killed my daughter," Nataline's mother Hilda told security. "I want an apology." Sarkisyan was not able to speak to Hanway; a communications specialist talked to her instead. After their conversation, employees heckled the group from a balcony; one man gave them the finger. CIGNA called the police and had the family and their friends escorted from the building.

The health insurance system in America is completely and totally broken. At some health insurance companies, employee bonuses have actually been based on who can deny the most claims.

Hopefully you are with an ethical health insurance company. If not, you may not have the coverage that you think that you have. If there is the smallest thing wrong on your health insurance application, they will find it. And when they find it they will use it as justification to deny your claim.

We live in a very cold-hearted society.

Even the government is cold-hearted.

If something has gone wrong with your health insurance and you are slowly dying at home, the government is not going to save you.

But the government is very concerned about making sure that your kids get pumped full of toxic vaccines.

After all, they have to do what they can to increase the profits of the pharmaceutical companies, right?

Recently, the CDC has been ramping up efforts to put even more pressure on parents across the United States to vaccinate their children.

Unfortunately, that is probably going to mean that we are going to see even more healthy children become disabled or die. The following example comes from VacTruth.com....

It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.

Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”

State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.

What is even worse is when pregnant mothers get injected with vaccines. The immune systems of their babies are simply not developed enough to be able to handle the toxic vaccines and many of them die.

For dozens and dozens of stories of miscarriages that were caused by vaccines, please see this article and the comments that follow.

So why isn't the government doing more to protect us?

Well, that becomes easy to understand when you realize that most of the people in our government and most of those that make up the "global elite" actually believe that the world is massively overpopulated.

That is why they spend so much money promoting "family planning" programs around the globe. They are obsessed with finding ways to get us to have less children.

In fact, the global elite promote their population control agenda all over the world in dozens of different ways. If you are interested in learning more, please see the following articles....

#1 From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

#2 Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control

#3 Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations

#4 Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch

#5 The Dangerous Myth Of Overpopulation

#6 One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth

#7 Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

#8 New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change

#9 The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

#10 To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control

If we do not stand up for what is morally right now, in the future it will become "normal" to routinely deny kidney transplants to "mentally retarded" children because their lives will be considered "not worth living".

We look back in horror at the eugenics programs of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, but most Americans don't realize that the Nazis got most of their ideas about eugenics from America.

Now many of those same concepts are being repackaged for a new generation.

If we do not value human life, our society will fail.

It is as simple as that.

Throughout human history, whenever the value placed on human life in a society declines dramatically, mass death has usually never been far behind.

And with ObamaCare this will only get worse! We have embarrassed abortion for so long that this is the natural next step… rationing for special needs patients, then will come the the rationing or death panels for seniors… and then?

So what do all of you think about the 3 year old girl that was denied a kidney transplant because she was considered to be "mentally retarded"? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below....

Source: The American Dream – h/t to AJ

The Aspartame Trap: You May Be Unknowingly Ingesting this Toxic Sweetener

2012-01-23T11:45:00.001-08:00

Andre Evans - Activist Post

The risk of artificial sweeteners is still very real. Aspartame is used as a substitute sweetener in thousands of products. Most diet sodas, processed foods and candies contain this ‘alternative’ to sugar.

If you aren’t careful, you’ll easily run into it somewhere in your food.

Aspartame is marketed not by its real name, but through products like Equal and NutraSweet. This is because aspartame itself has a bad reputation as a dangerous excitotoxin. An excitotoxin is named for its ability to ‘excite’ the cells of the body into overproducing a particular chemical, thus burning them out prematurely. Aspartame in particular has been found to affect brain cells, by mimicking the response to sweetness and producing an artificial form of it.

One study actually found that 67% of female rats exposed to aspartame developed tumors roughly the size of golf balls or larger.

When you consume an aspartame-sweetened product, its effect can translate into a number of neurological symptoms like headaches, fatigue, vision problems, and anxiety. These will continue to manifest until the user eliminates it from their diet completely.

However, if aspartame usage is continued, a physical addiction to the substance occurs. Most people know at least one person who can’t seem to kick their diet drinks, and when they try to, they end up with a number of these symptoms. Aspartame is considered addictive, and a chemical dependency begins to form when aspartame is consumed regularly, and is hard to break.

Aspartame Linked to Cancer, Contains Genetically Modified Bacteria

Due to the neurological effect aspartame has, its continued use can be expected to lead to many forms of neurological diseases as well as cancer. Aspartame has been suggested as a prominent cause for certain forms of brain cancer as well. It is also interesting to note that aspartame is also created using Monsanto’s genetically modified bacteria, raising further cause for alarm.

But who is most at risk for unknowingly consuming aspartame?

Older people and diabetics are more likely to consume aspartame due to their desire to replace sugar with a ‘healthy’ alternative. Of course aspartame is far from a healthy alternative. Its effects can easily accelerate or compound health concerns that these individuals may already have. Similarly, children are more likely to consume aspartame due to its prominent usage in all forms of candy, snacks, and soft drinks. This would easily serve to compromise their ability to achieve optimum health, as they are still in their formative stages, and therefore aspartame can cause irrevocable damage.

Avoid this addictive drug-like substance at any cost, and replace it with a real healthy alternative like stevia. Furthermore, it will benefit you to reconsider your stance on sugar consumption in general.

Rather than look for what seems to be a shortcut or alternative, consider that simply consuming less sugar is healthier.

The Governments" philosophy has become "Delay, Deny - Until You Die."

Stand up and Occupy Your Food ...
Official US registry for Dow's petition for GMO "Agent Orange" approval. WE HAVE UNTIL FEBRUARY 27, 2012. can you please leave you comment on this link Thank you - h/t to AJ

Splenda – Safer Than Aspartame But Is It Really Safe?

Your Are What You Eat: 7 Food Additives That Are Secretly Making Us FAT

The 76 Dangers of Sugar

Obesity in a Lo-Cal Can

MILLER: Simple entitlement reform

2012-01-20T11:07:00.001-08:00

Small change in Social Security/Medicare retirement age saves billions

Illustration: Entitlements by A. HUNTER for The Washington Times.

Rick Perry’s exit from the presidential race Thursday left the field with one less reformer willing to take on the single most important budgetary issue: entitlements. Social Security and Medicare’s growing liabilities are driving this nation toward a Greek-style debt crisis. Politicians know the current system is unsustainable and that raising the retirement age is a necessary reform. Few are brave enough to risk doing the right thing.

Democrats have tried to scare seniors into thinking the slightest adjustment to these programs will send them over the proverbial cliff - even though nobody is suggesting changes that would affect anyone currently over the age of 55. The reality is Social Security and Medicare are outdated and must adapt to the baby-boom generation’s longer life spans and increased health care costs. The full retirement age for Social Security is 66 years, just one year more than it was when FDR set up this Ponzi scheme.

As Mr. Perry pointed out during the campaign, Social Security was not created with the idea that Americans would live 15 or more years beyond retirement. In the 1940s, life expectancy was 61 years for men and 65 for women. Now, it’s 76 for men and 80 for women. While we’re all happy to see our parents and grandparents live much longer lives, each senior in retirement is being supported by only three younger workers. That’s why we have to borrow so much money to keep the government checks in the mail.

Republican front-runner Mitt Romney understands the problem. “I’d also add a year to two to the retirement age under Social Security,” the former Massachusetts governor said in the Fox debate on Monday. He would adjust how benefits are indexed for inflation and wealthier Americans. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum would do the same. Texas Rep. Ron Paul wants to shuttle the whole program after paying out to current retirees.

Medicare’s eligibility age of 65 years has not changed at all since the program began in 1966. Mr. Romney supports “a slightly higher retirement age” and shifting the program to the premium-support optional plan that was recently crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Unless something is done, Medicare’s own trustees say it will go belly-up in only eight years.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said last week that raising the Social Security retirement age gradually to 70 would reduce outlays 13 percent. Raising Medicare’s age gradually to 67 would reduce costs by 5 percent. Small changes in age mean billions in savings. As a side benefit, raising the retirement age means people would stay in the work force longer, increasing the output of the economy. In turn, that would also lead to more tax revenue in Washington to help balance the budget.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. The only alternatives to raising the eligibility are reducing benefits and hiking taxes on younger workers. Our next president needs to be someone who realizes those aren’t acceptable options.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

2012-01-18T09:06:00.001-08:00

Forbes ^ | 1/16/12 | R Ungar - Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:26:26 AM · by Recovering_Democrat · 4 replies

A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

Image via Wikipedia

Despite the bravado exhibited by the GOP presidential candidates—each angling to outdo the other when promising to enter the White House with guns ablazin’ for the Affordable Care Act—their rhetoric is fraught with some very real dangers to their party—not to mention the nation—when it comes to actually pulling the trigger.

While it may be de rigueur for conservatives to proclaim their hatred of Obamacare in its entirety, there is no getting around the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans very much like certain elements of the law – parts that Republicans would find themselves struggling to save should the Supreme Court strike down insurance mandates and the GOP succeed in taking control of both the legislative and executive branches of government.

Certainly, I acknowledge that a large number of Americans suffer from anxiety attacks when it comes to the costs of expanding Medicaid and the imposition of taxes on benefit-packed Cadillac insurance policies, just as I understand that many are highly allergic to the very mention of government telling us that we must buy a health insurance policy.

But I also know that when it comes to keeping our kids on our health insurance policies until they are 26 or finally being permitted to purchase health insurance on a community rated, guaranteed issue basis even if we suffer a pre-existing health problem, people feel very differently. Americans like these parts of Obamacare—and we aren’t going to be happy if we are required to give these benefits back.

Indeed, agreement on this topic is coming from some very surprising and unlikely places, beginning with the mega-conservative American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) health care policy expert —and devout Obamacare opponent—Joseph Antos.

I can’t see a Republican getting rid of guaranteed issue,” Antos said, referring to the provision that requires insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their medical history. “Certainly no Republican is going to change the provision that says children under 26 can sign on to their parents’ plans.” Via Politico

Joe’s statement provides me with the very rare opportunity to agree with an opinion emanating from the AEI —because he is absolutely right.

Americans are most assuredly not going to happily accept the idea of a GOP dominated government snatching away the availability of health insurance at a community rated price and a return to denying coverage to those who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. Yet, that is precisely what must happen should the Supreme Court strike down the individual mandate requirements of the ACA.

You simply cannot require an insurance company to sell policies to people with pre-existing conditions if there is no mandate requiring millions of healthy Americans to buy in as, to do so, would completely destabilize the insurance pools. As a rule of thumb, a functioning insurance model requires 80 percent of the pool to be healthy to support the cost of the 20 percent who get sick. Thus, requiring an insurer to sell policies to people more likely to get sick, without the requirement that healthy people participate, will necessarily cause the insurance pools to fail, leaving health insurance companies to flee the business even faster than their inevitable exit due to their business model no longer being viable.

While the public has been slow to grasp the inescapable connection between the private insurance mandates and making coverage available to all, including those who have had illness in their past, the inability or unwillingness to grasp this truth does not diminish the reality that you simply cannot have one without the other —unless you are prepared to replace our current model with a universal, single-payer health care system.

Like it or not, those are the choices —and the only choices.

Thus, while Republican candidates may bask in the political opportunity presented by the vilification of Obamacare as they wave their pom-poms in support of SCOTUS’ opportunity to rid the land of this blight, should the Supreme Court answer their prayers, a Republican president with a Republican controlled legislative branch wll instantly find himself in some very hot water with the people who sent them to Washington to destroy Obamacare.

Oh…the irony.

So here is a thought — if you are one of the many Americans who favors the idea of guaranteed issue at fair prices yet despise the government’s requiring you to buy the insurance coverage that is necessary to make it all possible, consider asking your friendly, local GOP presidential candidate how he can support the death of the insurance mandates and still deliver on giving Americans those parts of Obamacare that they like.

I know I’ll be anxiously awaiting the answer – and so should you as you are likely to discover that you should be much more careful with what you wish for.

Supreme Court Allows New Plaintiffs in Health Care Law Challenge

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:39:08 PM · by maddog55 · 2 replies

Fox News ^ | January 17, 2012 | Shannon Bream

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the addition of two new business owners to a suit challenging the health care law that was in question because one of the original business owners attached to the case has gone bankrupt. Supporters of President Obama’s health care law argued that her bankruptcy made Mary Brown ineligible to continue on as a plaintiff, suggesting the entire case could fall apart because of a lack of standing. Other business owners were attached to the case, but the Justice Department would not stipulate that they met the standards for establishing standing in this case.

h/t to MJ

Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot

2012-01-16T19:51:00.001-08:00

It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.

Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”

State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.

Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot

A family in Vermont is mourning the loss of their child.

Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”

State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.

A report on Seven Days, Vermont’s Independent News, (1) stated Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen made it clear that in his opinion it was extremely unlikely that Kaylynne’s death was related to the vaccine and he is worried that scaremongering will deter parents from vaccinating their children.

Chen said deaths after a vaccine are very rare and that a death after the flu shot has never before been reported in Vermont.

News reporter Ken Picard wrote:

Chen and other state health officials are more worried about the effects of news reports prematurely linking the Barton girl’s death to the flu shot: specifically, that more parents will opt out of immunizing their children, or themselves, against seasonal influenza.

A 7yr child dies just days before Christmas after receiving a ‘so called safe vaccine’ and all state officials are worried about are the effects her death will have on vaccination statistics! His behavior in my opinion was disgusting and highlights the inhumane way officials treat grieving parents to further their own ends.

So are deaths after flu vaccines as rare as Chen has stated and are the vaccines as safe as we are led to believe?

From the research that I have found neither the flu vaccine nor the Swine flu vaccine has been found to be particularly safe. In November last year an article highlighted two deaths occurring just hours after the Swine flu or H1N1 vaccine in China. (A point to remember here is that the H1N1 vaccine is included in this years flu shot.) (2)

The Ministry of Health in China reported that two people had died after receiving swine flu shots. They were clear to point out however, that death after immunization does not necessarily mean that the death was caused by the vaccine. (3)

Nurses Boycott Flu Vaccine

UK Nurses are also saying that the flu shots are unsafe and have been reluctant to have the vaccines. A report on the website Nursing Times.net (4) states that unvaccinated nurses taking part in a survey said that they did not have the flu vaccine because of safety concerns. The report states:

When asked why they had not had the vaccine, the majority of unvaccinated respondents highlighted concerns about vaccine side effects.

The Nursing Times stated that researchers had found that concerns about side effects and efficacy were the two most frequent reasons for nurses refusing the flu vaccine.

If nurses are not having the vaccine through fears that they are unsafe, then surely this must indicate that these vaccines are unsafe? Could the reason for this be, that they are seeing a higher than average number of adverse reactions coming into the hospitals?

Senior Flu Shots Are Proving To Be Exceptionally Dangerous

If you still feel that the vaccines are safe then I suggest you take a look at an article written by Dr Mercola which was highlighted this week. Dr Mercola (5) stated that the new flu vaccine being give to seniors is proving exceptionally dangerous. He says that according to the CDC there are more frequent reports of side effects after the High Dose Fluzone vaccine.This is the vaccine which is being given to seniors. Mercola wrote:

“The safety profile of Fluzone High-Dose vaccine is similar to that of regular flu vaccines, although adverse events (which are also reported after regular flu vaccines) were reported more frequently after vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.

The most common adverse events experienced during clinical studies were mild and temporary and included pain, redness and swelling at the injection site and headache, muscle aches, fever and malaise.”

Mercola continued:

A total of 6.1 percent of seniors injected with the regular Fluzone vaccine experienced a serious adverse event, compared to 7.4 percent of those receiving the newer high-dose version. According to the package insert the SAE’s reported during the post-approval use of the vaccine include:

• Thrombocytopenia (abnormally low platelet count, which can result in abnormal bleeding)
• Guillain-Barre syndrome
• Myelitis (spinal cord inflammation)
• Optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve)
• Lymphadenopathy (enlarged lymph nodes)
• Facial palsy (Bell’s palsy)
• Paresthesia (numbness/tingling of the skin)
• Itchy skin
• Anaphylaxis (life-threatening whole-body allergic reaction)
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome
• Vasculitis (inflammatory destruction of blood vessels)
• Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath
• Chest pain
• Brachial neuritis (excruciating unilateral shoulder pain, followed by paralysis of shoulder)
• Pharyngitis and rhinitis (inflammation of the throat or pharynx, and the nose, respectively)
• Convulsions, fainting, dizziness

I feel that if doctors and nurses are avoiding these vaccinations they are doing so for a reason and if the vaccine manufacturers are writing lists this long on their information leaflet, then they are writing it to cover themselves should anyone have an adverse reaction. Let’s fact it how many pensioners would actually ask to read this leaflet before they have the vaccine?

I have decided that given the evidence stating that flu vaccines are proving unsafe. I will take my chances and not have either of the flu vaccines; one thing is for sure if I do get the flu I have a better chance of recovery than I would from the side effects mentioned in the list above.

References
1. Seven Days – Vermont’s Independent News http://www.7dvt.com/2012flu-shot-or-not-state-health-officials-warn-against-alarmist-reaction-young-girls-death
2. Flu Vaccine NHS website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Flu-jab/Pages/Introduction.aspx
3. Two People Died After Getting Swine Flu shots – Hometesting blog http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=5005
4. Nursing Times – Vaccine side effects top of nurses’ concerns about flu jab http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/immunology/vaccine-side-effects-top-of-nurses-concerns-about-flu-jab/5039337.article
5. Mercola http://www.care2.com/greenliving/dangerous-new-flu-vaccine-for-seniors.html

Source: VacTruth.com - h/t to MJ

Alternatives to Flu Shots

Anyone Recall Jane Bergermeister and the Lethal Vaccines???

Research Firm Blows Hole in Big Pharma Vaccination Lie

Experts Admit Swine Flu Jab ‘May Cause’ Deadly Nerve Disease and Here

Sterilization of Our Children Has Begun With H1N1 Vaccine

Drug Companies Shift Emphasis to Vaccines

Athlete Crippled by Flu Shot

How to Starve Cancer Out of Your Body - Avoid These Top 4 Cancer-Feeding Foods

2012-01-15T14:03:00.001-08:00

Video: Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Christine Horner

Download Interview Transcript

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Story at-a-glance

Dr. Christine Horner, a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, shares her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro’s and con’s of various screening methods
There are many all-natural cancer-prevention strategies, and research shows that most of them can cut your risk in half. Consequently, by implementing multiple strategies, you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer as well as other chronic disease
Your diet is the one of the best ways to either feed or prevent cancer. Processed foods, soft drinks, red meat from CAFO-raised animals, trans fats, all forms of sugar, and any food containing or contaminated with xenoestrogens promote cancer growth. Plant foods, particularly cruciferous vegetables and flax seed, as well as many herbs and spices are cancer-preventive
Healthy fats of particular importance for cancer prevention are omega-3 and omega-9, which effectively slow down tumor growth in estrogen-sensitive cancers such as breast-, prostate- and colon cancers

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Christine Horner began her career as a board certified general- and plastic surgeon, performing breast reconstructive surgeries on women who'd had full mastectomies due to breast cancer.

In this interview, she shares her extensive knowledge about breast cancer—its causes and its cures, and the pro's and con's of various screening methods.

Her interest in breast cancer began while she was still in college, when her mother developed the disease.

Thirteen years later, when her mother's cancer returned, Dr. Horner became very active with the American Cancer Society.

For a time, she was a vice-president and the Kentucky state spokesperson for the American Cancer Society on breast cancer issues.

"We were trained to say that we don't know what causes breast cancer and we have no known cures; the best things that women can do are breast exams and mammograms," she says.

"… In my practice, I was watching women get younger and younger when I was doing breast reconstruction on them.

Finally, I was doing women in their 20s. I thought something is way wrong with this picture." I thought why don't we just look through the medical literature and see if there's anything that research shows that women can do, that's within our control that will lower our risks. I had no idea what I was going to find… But when I looked, I instantly found thousands of studies that show exactly why we have a cancer epidemic…"

What's Causing the Cancer Epidemic?

What Dr. Horner discovered was that there are a number of habits we've stopped doing in our modern culture that are highly protective. We've dramatically altered our diets—shunning our native, whole-foods cuisine for highly processed fare—and engage in very little physical activity, for example.

"We're telling women that all they can do is mammogram [screening], and it's extremely disempowering," Dr. Horner says. "You feel like you have no control over it. But if you look at epidemiological studies… we know that people that live in Asia have a very low incidence of breast cancer or prostate cancer… [W]e have the studies showing that if an Asian woman moves to the United States and adopts our American diet and lifestyle, within one generation her risk will match that of an American woman's. It's like "Hello? What are we doing or not doing that they're doing or not doing that's making such a big difference? "

Dr. Horner was eventually introduced to the system of Ayurvedic medicine, and the more she learned about it, the more she felt there were answers therein that needed to be shared with people on a wider scale.

'[T]here are so many really simple things people can do that can have a dramatic effect on their health," she says. "Basically, the more you learn about natural medicine, the more you'll realize that we're just telling our patients lies– not on purpose, but from what we have been taught from the pharmaceutical companies and so forth."

She pitched the idea to television stations in Cincinnati to let her talk about complementary and alternative medicine, and ended up being the first syndicated segment on the news related to complementary and alternative medicine, which ran from 1999 through 2002. At that point, she decided to quit her surgery practice to focus on teaching people how to become and stay healthy naturally, and wrote the book: Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer. Dr. Horner's book won the IPPY award in 2006 for "Best book in health medicine and nutrition."

"[W]e have the answers to the breast cancer epidemic," she says. "We truly do– and it's very simple. If you have a terrible diet and lifestyle and you do just one thing, you cut your risk in half. You do more than one thing and they will multiply up together. They don't add up together. They multiply up together, so it becomes extremely easy to dramatically lower your risk of breast cancer."

It's worth mentioning that the same strategies apply for other types of cancer as well. Prostate and colon cancer tumors, for example, are similar to breast cancer tumors, as certain hormones cause them all to grow. Hence, protective strategies that are effective against breast cancer also work on these other types of cancer. Cancer prevention strategies will also virtually eliminate most other chronic disorders.

The Problem with Conventional Cancer Screenings

While diagnostic screenings have their place, some cancer screens are just about worthless… The wisdom of using the PSA test, for example, which checks for prostate cancer, has recently been questioned. Ditto for mammograms.

"Looking at the diagnostic tests that are currently available, none of them are perfect," Dr. Horner says. "Everything has its pros and cons… [M]ammography produces radiation, which has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer. It's like, "Why are you doing the test to look at a disease when it's actually causing the disease, too?" … It does pick things up at earlier stages, but the problem is that it's not very specific. So when it looks and it sees something… that looks suspicious, it is wrong 80 percent of the time. In the United States, there's roughly a million breast biopsies done per year, and 800,000 of them are unnecessary."

One of the best cancer screening methods is self-examination. But you need to make sure you're doing it correctly. For more information about how to do a breast self exam, please see this previous article.

MRI's, which do not use ionizing radiation, are not a practical tool as they are very expensive, and, like mammograms, MRI scans are not very specific. Ultrasound is another technique used in Western medicine. The traditional ultrasound can see whether a mass is cystic or solid. But while a solid mass is generally considered to be something that might be of concern, this is not 100 percent certain either, as cancer tumors can sometimes have cysts in them.

"Now there's a relatively new ultrasound that uses a color mode," Dr. Horner says. "It's called elastography. But there aren't very many centers in the United States that use it. I go to the Center of the Hoxsey Clinic, to Dr. Arturo Rodriguez at Tijuana. It has a color scale that measures the elasticity of the cell membranes. Cancer cells are very stiff, whereas normal cells have more fluidity to them. It'll show up as red if it has a lot of stiffness to it, as a cancer cell, or blue if it has elasticity… It's a very good tool."

On Thermography

Another form of cancer screen, which is still considered controversial in conventional medicine, is thermography, which gives you an infrared image of your body. By looking at heat and blood vessel patterns you can determine whether there are areas of concern.

"[B]efore you even get a tumor formation, the very first thing that happens is new blood vessels start to grow into the area where the tumor may form. Those blood vessels grow abnormally. They grow an abnormal amount of patterns and they produce an abnormal amount of heat. That's what thermography is checking for," Dr. Horner explains.

As with most new technologies, thermography hit some snags in its earlier stages, and fell out of favor in the early 70s. However, the technology has gotten a lot more sophisticated over the years, and is now computerized; eliminating the need for highly trained technicians to evaluate the results.

"The problem we still have today with thermography is that we don't have standardization," Dr. Horner explains. "We don't have a uniform way that people are tested and trained with uniform equipment, and so forth… But there's definitely a movement… to do standardization, and to get that technology available for women, because this is a technology that has no health detriments associated with it. It does not use radiation or anything harmful to your body."

Unfortunately, the advocates of mammography perceive thermography as a threat to their business model. So there's tremendous pressure against it, including from the federal regulatory agencies.

"It's unfortunate," Dr. Horner says, "but our country is run by big business. It's just is, so anytime we want to shift anything culturally like that, and we're going against established business, we have trouble because it's all about money."

For example, many of the presidents of the American Cancer Society were members of the Radiological Association, which is the industry supporting the mammography component. The entire medical field is littered with massive conflicts of interest.

'We can see that everywhere. You look in the FDA—there are people from Monsanto that work in the FDA. Unfortunately, people think, "the United States is not very corrupt." But actually, it's extremely corrupt," she says.

Still, there are many good reasons for considering thermography. To ensure you're getting the highest standard of care, Dr. Horner recommends using a practitioner certified by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography, an independent non-profit organization that provides objective, third-party certifications. Their website lists qualified thermography centers across the US, Canada, and some other countries, such as France, Trinidad, and Zambia.

Most Natural Prevention Strategies Can Reduce Your Cancer Risk by Half...

Through her research, Dr. Horner has gathered a large number of cancer-prevention strategies—about 50 in all! Even more astounding is the rate of effectiveness of many of these strategies.

"[I]f you look at the studies, virtually every single thing that has an influence [causes] almost a 50 percent reduction in cancer risk… and if you combine them, like I said, you'll get these synergistic results where they'll multiply up as far as their effect is concerned.

I'd say the most important thing is what you do or do not put in your mouth… because you can have huge influences by the foods you consume– the spices, the herbs, and so forth. And, the things that you avoid, that's going to give you the biggest results. … Vitamin D cuts your risks in half. Turmeric and anti-inflammatories cut your risk in half. I could go through each thing—and I'm telling you the research shows that there's about 40 to 50 percent reduction [in risk]—so… to say that one is necessarily better than anything else, that's a really hard thing to claim."

The Top Four Cancer-Promoting Foods

Dr. Horner brings up an excellent point, and that is that in order to be effective, you must first STOP doing that which is promoting cancer growth (or poor health in general), and then all the other preventive strategies have the chance to really have an impact. Addressing your diet should be at the top of your list, and rather than adding certain foods, you'll want to eliminate the most dangerous culprits first.

Naturally, processed foods and soft drinks do not belong in a cancer-preventive diet...

Dr. Horner, believes red meat from animals reared in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO's) is also a MAJOR contributor to cancer. These animals are given antibiotics, growth hormones and other veterinary drugs that get stored in their tissues. Additionally, cooking the meat over high heat creates heterocyclic amines, which further add to its carcinogenic effect.

While I do recommend eating meat, I agree that there is absolutely NO benefit to eating CAFO beef. The ONLY type of meat I recommend is organically-raised, grass-fed meats. It's hard for a lot of people to grasp the difference between CAFO and organic meat, but truly, they are like two different species in terms of their nutritional content. One is health harming while the other is beneficial.

So when we're talking about the detrimental impact of red meat on your health, especially in terms of feeding cancer, please understand that we're talking specifically about CAFO beef, aka "factory farmed" meat. Next on the list of cancer-promoters is sugar (this includes ALL forms of sugar, including fructose and grains).

"To me, sugar has no redeeming value at all, because they found that the more we consume it, the more we're fuelling every single chronic disease," Dr. Horner says. "In fact, there was a study done about a year ago… and the conclusion was that sugar is a universal mechanism for chronic disease. It kicks up inflammation. It kicks up oxygen free radicals. Those are the two main processes we see that underlie any single chronic disorder, including cancers. It fuels the growth of breast cancers, because glucose is cancer's favorite food. The more you consume, the faster it grows."

Next is the type of fats that you consume. It's important to remember that every cell membrane is made out of fat, as is your brain. According to Dr. Horner, bad-fats in the diet are a major contributor to ill health and cancer. On the list of fats to eliminate are:

Animal fats from CAFO-raised animals

Trans fats

Partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated fats

Healthy fats of particular importance for cancer prevention are omega-3 and omega-9. According to Dr. Horner, omega-3 in particular serve to effectively slow down tumor growth in estrogen-sensitive cancers such as breast-, prostate- and colon cancers. Fourth on the list of cancer promoters is ANY item that contains xenoestrogens (chemicals that mimic estrogen). This can become a rather long list once you start including any food contaminated with such estrogen-mimicking chemicals, such as BPA, found in the linings of canned goods and in plastics. The list gets truly unwieldy when you include personal care products that contain such chemicals as well…

"There are case reports of five- and six-year-olds going through secondary sex characteristics because of the shampoo that they were using... There are all sorts of different sources where we're exposed to these chemicals from our foods and from the products that we use.

What we're seeing is younger and younger puberty. Around the world, the average age is about 16 years old. In the United States, it's 10 years old now, and sometimes even younger. The problem is that with each menstrual period there is a surge of estradiol, which is the strongest, most abundant form of estrogen, and the one that's most associated with breast cancer. If you start your period very young, you'll have more periods in your lifetime than what a person would have, obviously, if they started at an older age.

In addition to that, when a girl goes through puberty, her breast cells become really sensitive to environmental toxins, radiation, and so forth. They're considered immature. They haven't differentiated– as a more scientific term for it– so there's a longer period of time that they're exposed to these toxins where they have a greater sensitivity."

Dr. Horner reviews a number of other important factors that influence your cancer risk, so for more details, please listen to the interview in its entirety, or read through the transcript.

Eating for Cancer Prevention

According to Dr. Horner, the research clearly shows that the one food that is the most important for optimal health is plant foods.

"Plants are packed full of nutrients, vitamins, and minerals that are crucial for our health. They also have hundreds of phytochemicals in them. These don't have any nutritional or caloric value, but they are like natural medicines, and some of them behave exactly like chemotherapy," she says.

"Every plant has some anti-cancer properties to them. There are some that are standouts. Cruciferous vegetables are something that I really recommend. They're a family of vegetables that include broccoli, cauliflower, kale, collards, and Brussels sprouts…

All of them have several different chemicals in common. They've got indole-3-carbinol, Calcium D-glucarate, and sulforaphane. They have big anti-cancer properties to them, and they inhibit the growth of breast, prostate, colon cancer and a variety of other ones. Of all the families of vegetables to consume, [cruciferous vegetables] are the ones to be aware of, so you can make sure you're including that in your diet frequently."

Naturally, you'll want to make sure the vegetables are fresh, and ideally locally grown and organic. Besides cruciferous veggies, another standout plant for cancer-prevention is flax seed. The lignans in flax seed inhibit the growth of cancer in about a dozen different ways, including the exact same mechanism as the anti-cancer drug Tamoxifen and Arimidex, which shut down an enzyme in fat cells called aromatase that converts androgens into estrogens.

"I hear from patients, "Oh! My oncologist told me not to take flaxseeds, because they're estrogenic,"" Dr. Horner says."They don't understand how plant estrogens or "phytoestrogens" work.

There are all sorts of different strengths to estrogens. Let's say estradiol, which is the strongest, most abundant form– if it hooks on to the estrogen receptor, it may cause a thousand cell divisions. But if a plant estrogen hooks on, it may cause one. When you flood your system with these plant estrogens, I'd say it's kind of like a game of musical chairs. There are only certain numbers of receptors, and whoever gets their first, gets it. They're blocking the strong estrogens from getting on, so that's why it has an inhibitory effect."

Other Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk

Other lifestyle factors that have been found to have an impact on chronic disease and cancer include:

Vitamin D—There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. As mentioned earlier, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial. The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:

Regulating genetic expression

Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)

Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells

Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)

Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous

To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.

Getting proper sleep: both in terms of getting enough sleep, and sleeping between certain hours. According to Ayurvedic medicine, the ideal hours for sleep are between 10 pm and 6 am. Modern research has confirmed the value of this recommendation as certain hormonal fluctuations occur throughout the day and night, and if you engage in the appropriate activities during those times, you're 'riding the wave' so to speak, and are able to get the optimal levels. Working against your biology by staying awake when you should ideally be sleeping or vice versa, interferes with these hormonal fluctuations. According to Dr. Horner:
"If we, for instance, go to bed by 10, we have higher levels of our sleep hormone melatonin; there's a spike that occurs between midnight and 1am, which you don't want to miss because the consequences are absolutely spectacular. Melatonin is not only our sleep hormone, but it also is a very powerful antioxidant. It decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. It also boosts your immune system… And it interacts with the other hormones.
So, if you go to bed after 10… it significantly increases your risk of breast cancer."

Effectively addressing your stress: The research shows that if you experience a traumatic or highly stressful event, such as a death in the family, your risk of breast cancer is 12 times higher in the ensuing five years.

Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.
One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.
The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.

More Information

For more information, please see Dr. Horner's book, Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer. You can also learn more about Dr. Horner on her website, www.DrChristineHorner.com.

Source: Video Transcript - Dr. Mercola - h/t to MJ

Related Links:

Cancer Will Kill 13.2 Million a Year by 2030

The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down

Dramatically Effective New Natural Way to Starve Cancer and Obesity

How to Donate to Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation

Check out Sanoviv Medical Center

Knockout

True Health Is True Wealth!!

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Meeting Today on Health Care/Eligibility Challenge

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

More Doctors 'Fire' Vaccine Refusers

Pediatricians fed up with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children out of concern it can cause autism or other problems increasingly are "firing" such families from their practices, raising questions about a doctor's responsibility to these patients.

Read More About Vaccines

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

‘Un-American Act’: Palin Slams Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate as Violating Constitutional Rights

Londonderry School Uses Therapy Dog in Classroom

A Healthy and Fun Valentines Day

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

· Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth … – Since this piece was written the AG’s of 12 states have joined the suit being prepared and expected additional states of join the fight.

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle... But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!

· Obama Didn't Cave on the HHS Mandate; He's Making an Unprecedented Power Grab

· BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate - Friday, February 10, 2012 1:28:01 PM · by unique1 · 50 replies

· Contraceptive “compromise” worse than original mandate: Eliminates any exceptions

Health insurers question Obama birth control plan

Obama's Big Compromise With The Catholic Church Is An Accounting Trick Catholics can't pay for it: morally it isn't much different than paying a Quaker in hand-grenades. The Church can't directly subsidize sin without being guilty… Read HERE

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

Obama appointee Muzzled Army Camplains and forbade them from reading Catholic Archdiocese Letter

· Archbishop to U.S. Troops: Obamacare Reg ‘Blow to a Freedom You Have Fought

· Updated: *167* Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate

Monsanto: A HORRIFYING PICTURE THAT WILL FREEZE THE BLOOD IN YOUR VEINS - UPDATED

Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child

Susan G. Komen Foundation Reverses Stance on Cutting Funding for Planned Parenthood

ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY ALTERING MORAL JUDGMENT

Moral judgments can be altered ... by magnets

Leaving America behind

House votes to repeal part of 2010 health care law

Great news for coffee drinkers - Men–Have another cup of coffee!

Sometimes it seems like the only kind of news I bring you is bad news. So, today we’re shifting our focus to a couple of pieces of VERY good news. Grab a cup of coffee — you’ll see why in a second — and get to reading!

Did Pam Bondi really defend RomneyCare? I Don’t Think So….

‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate

Shock Article: Bioethicists Suggest Killing Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’ Is Not Morally Wrong

United Nations Preparing to Manage Global Mental Health

Food Fights and Class Warfare

Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant ...

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant Because She Is “Mentally Retarded”

The Aspartame Trap: You May Be Unknowingly Ingesting this Toxic Sweetener

Andre Evans - Activist Post

MILLER: Simple entitlement reform

A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

Supreme Court Allows New Plaintiffs in Health Care Law Challenge

Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot

Nurses Boycott Flu Vaccine

Senior Flu Shots Are Proving To Be Exceptionally Dangerous

How to Starve Cancer Out of Your Body - Avoid These Top 4 Cancer-Feeding Foods

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Story at-a-glance

What's Causing the Cancer Epidemic?

The Problem with Conventional Cancer Screenings

On Thermography

Most Natural Prevention Strategies Can Reduce Your Cancer Risk by Half...

The Top Four Cancer-Promoting Foods

Eating for Cancer Prevention

Other Lifestyle Factors that Influence Your Cancer Risk

More Information

Related Links:

· Updated: 167 Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate