Billion secs = 32 yrs, Trillion secs = 32,000 yrs


Visit USADebtClock.com to learn more!

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Bankster Mafia: Bushes Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Obama's Treasury Secretary Geithner

This is the smoking gun that proves the banksters are the real government of the USA

Oh yes, we’ve been had, they stole billions from us aided by Bush and Obama, two more crooks! Bush and Obama are both owned by the banksters.

Now do you understand the fa├žade of the Republican Democrat scheme to control us. A Republican president and a Democrat president seemingly at odds but both working towards the same goal, the new world order!

Wall Street runs the US government under both parties:

Moleck: Oxford University medical ethicists: babies not ‘persons’, argue for infanticide

God commanded the Israelites that they were not to sacrifice any of their children to Molech: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. …” Sacrificing to the Phoenician god Molech (king) was a popular form of idolatry; it consisted of burning children alive. The idol was heated and the children were placed in its hands. Think of Molech as the ancient pagans’ answer to partial-birth abortion.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion

A group of ethicists has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

FED to create more money out of thin air, Drudge appropriately posts pic of Monopoly money

This is how they steal our money, when they devalue the currency where does that lost value go? Strait into their dirty pockets!

Why are gas prices high, why are food prices high? The value of a piece of paper is not intrinsic, it’s worth no more than the material and labor costs to make it, really.

The true value is determined by how much of a good or service it will buy. A dollar bill could buy a gallon of gas a few years ago, now it takes four of those dollar bills to buy that same gallon of gas.

Two things affect the costs of that gallon of gas, how much gas is available and the value of the dollar bill.

The rise in the costs of gas is not due to a shortage of gas, we’re producing more gas than ever, the problem is with the value of the dollar bill. It is true that we could lower the costs of gas with greater production but that’s not the reason for the high prices. It’s the value of the dollar.

Say the total value of money in the US is 100 dollars, the FED pumps (creates out of nothing) 25 more dollars into the economy so now we have 125 dollars.

That 125 dollars will buy the same amount of stuff as the 100 dollars so now each dollar is worth only 80 cents instead of 100 cents.

That is what has been going on since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was foisted upon the nation by the banksters as shown in this chart. the dollar has lost 95% of it’s value since 1913:

Dollar-from-1913

 

FED CHAIRMAN BERNANKE WARNS: MORE PUMPING MAY BE NEEDED

Timmy “Tax Cheat” Geithner Arrested, Questioned & Released? Treasury’s Press Office neither confirms nor denies!

Was Treasury Secretary Arrested, Questioned & Released??

February 27, 2012, By Lawrence Sinclair

This afternoon we received a phone call informing us that their were reports Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was arrested, questioned and released by New York Police February 24, 2012. The caller informed us that they were unable to find a single mention of the “reported” arrest on any of the mainstream media outlets websites. After performing a simple Google search we came across a number of “blog” reports claiming Secretary Geithner was arrested in New York, was questioned and then released. Rather than attempt to contact the individual blogs which made the claims, we contacted the Department of the Treasury Press Office.

Speaking with a Ms. Mock in the Treasury Departments Press Office (All media inquiries should be directed to the Press Office at (202) 622-2960) who stated, “Can I ask you to email your request to Natalie Wyeth, as I cannot make any comment on your request. If you would email your request for comment to natalie.wyeth@treasury.govyour request will be resonded to faster.” We did as Ms. Mock requested and sent the below email to Ms. Wyeth who is listed on the Treasury Departments site as “Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public Affairs (International Affairs, Illicit Finance and Enforcement, Tax and Budget, and Economic Policy)”

From: News Room [mailto:newsroom@lsnewsgroup.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 4:18 PM To: Wyeth, Natalie Cc: larry.sinclair@lsnewsgroup.com Subject: Request for confirmation or denial of reports Treasury Secretary Geithner’s arrest in NY Feb 24, 2012

Ms. Wyeth:

Per instructions of Ms. Mock in Treasury’s Press Office please find LS News Group is seeking comment on reports Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was arrested, questioned & released in NY on Feb 24, 2012.

Can you confirm or deny these reports? If the reports are true can you comment on the reasons Secretary Geithner was arrested?

Respectfully,

LSnews Group Newsroom newsroom@LSNewsGroup.com

Ms. Wyeth responded with the following:

—–Original Message—–

From: Natalie.Wyeth@treasury.gov [mailto:Natalie.Wyeth@treasury.gov] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 4:34 PM To: newsroom@lsnewsgroup.com Cc: larry.sinclair@lsnewsgroup.com Subject: RE: Request for confirmation or denial of reports Treasury Secretary Geithner’s arrest in NY Feb 24, 2012

I haven’t seen those reports – can you please send?

We responded to Ms. Wyeth’s request by sending her the different links to the various reports claiming Secretary Geithner was arrested. In addition we again asked her if she was saying the reports were untrue, “Are you saying that there is no truth to the reports that Sec. Geithner was arrested, questioned and released by NY Police?”

Despite our timely response to Ms. Wyeth’s request for the reports to be sent her, she did not respond confirming or denying the reports. We find the Treasury Departments inability to comfirm or deny a very straight forward report somewhat disheartening coming from an adminstration which has repeatedly portrayed itself as being the most transparent administration in US history.

While the Treasury Department has neither confirmed or denied the report Secretary Geithner was arrested on Feb 24, 2012 we will continue to seek formal confirmation or denial of the report.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

NYT: Obama using Espionage Act to 'silence and prosecute federal workers'

The Obama regime is using community organizing tactics as they intimidate whistle-blowers by using the Espionage Act against them.

They also recently sent out intimidating emails to supporters who hadn’t donated to Obama. Those emails implied to the recipients, ‘we know who you are and are taking notes’! 

Blurred Line Between Espionage and Truth

By DAVID CARR

Last Wednesday in the White House briefing room, the administration’s press secretary, Jay Carney, opened on a somber note, citing the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, two reporters who had died “in order to bring truth” while reporting in Syria.

Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News, pointed out that the administration had lauded brave reporting in distant lands more than once and then asked, “How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistle-blowers to court?”

He then suggested that the administration seemed to believe that “the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here.”

Fair point. The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance “whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers,” has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers.

The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office.

Setting aside the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of stealing thousands of secret documents, the majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security.

In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people’s right to know is viewed as superseding the government’s right to hide its business.

In the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democratic staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agency’s interrogation program, which included waterboarding.

For those of you keeping score, none of the individuals who engaged in or authorized the waterboarding of terror suspects have been prosecuted, but Mr. Kiriakou is in federal cross hairs, accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times.

Mr. Tapper said that he had not planned on raising the issue, but hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention.

“I have been following all of these case, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,” Mr. Tapper said. “These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”

Mr. Carney said in the briefing that he felt it was appropriate “to honor and praise the bravery” of Ms. Colvin and Mr. Shadid, but he did not really engage Mr. Tapper’s broader question, saying he could not go into information about specific cases. He did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment.

In one of the more remarkable examples of the administration’s aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison.

His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would. (He turned out to be right, by the way.)

He was charged with 10 felony counts that accused him of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. Last summer, the case against him collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, of misuse of a government computer.

Jesselyn Radack, the director for national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, was one of the lawyers who represented him.

“The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability,” she said. “All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law.”

Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this month that he was “sort of shocked” by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. “We would have gotten hammered for it,” he said.

As Mr. Liptak pointed out, it has become easier to ferret out leakers in a digital age, but just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be.

These kinds of prosecutions can have ripples well beyond the immediate proceedings. Two reporters in Washington who work on national security issues said that the rulings had created a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies.

During a point in history when our government has been accused of sending prisoners to secret locations where they were said to have been tortured and the C.I.A. is conducting remote-controlled wars in far-flung places, it’s not a good time to treat the people who aid in the publication of critical information as spies.

And it’s worth pointing out that the administration’s emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the “secret” operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission.

There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently.

E-mail: carr@nytimes.com;

Twitter.com/carr2n

Monday, February 27, 2012

Don’t look for this in the news: Ron Paul Michigan State University Auditorium Intro and Crowd

The banksters don’t want anything to do with him, as evidenced by their lapdogs in the media who will not report this crowd reaction in their papers or TV newscast.

Neither do the Democrat and Republican party leaders who are owned by the banksters too.

The people who hear him, and not them, do. Don’t listen to them, listen to him! Listen to the crowd at MSU!

Ron Paul gets no respect except from the public, that should tell you something!

The Washington Post Twitter Tracker

Newt Gingrich 67,937   Twitter mentions in the past week
Ron Paul 156,661         Twitter mentions in the past week

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Green company, A123 Systems,‘stimulus success story’ gets $390M subsidies, lays off 125

The president, directed by his masters, continues to throw money we don’t have down the green hole in accordance with their plan to bankrupt America, the greatest impediment to their new world order!

Green company gets $390M subsidies, lays off 125...

A123 Systems, an electric car battery company once touted as a stimulus "success story" by former Gov. Jennifer Granhom, D-Mich., has laid off 125 employees since receiving $390 million in government subsidies -- but is still handing out big pay raises to company executives.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Informed trading pre-911 means foreknowledge of attacks

The biggest false flag in the history of the world

Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11

by Kevin Ryan, November 18, 2010

Just after September 11th 2001, many governments began investigations into possible insider trading related to the terrorist attacks of that day. Such investigations were initiated by the governments of Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States, and others. Although the investigators were clearly concerned about insider trading, and considerable evidence did exist, none of the investigations resulted in a single indictment. That’s because the people identified as having been involved in the suspicious trades were seen as unlikely to have been associated with those alleged to have committed the 9/11 crimes.

This is an example of the circular logic often used by those who created the official explanations for 9/11. The reasoning goes like this: if we assume that we know who the perpetrators were (i.e. the popular version of “al Qaeda”) and those who were involved in the trades did not appear to be connected to those assumed perpetrators, then insider trading did not occur.

That’s basically what the 9/11 Commission told us. The Commission concluded that “exhaustive investigations” by the SEC and the FBI “uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” What they meant was that someone did profit through securities transactions but, based on the Commission’s assumptions of guilt, those who profited were not associated with those who were guilty of conducting the attacks. In a footnote, the Commission report acknowledged “highly suspicious trading on its face,” but said that this trading on United Airlines was traced back to “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.”[1]

With respect to insider trading, or what is more technically called informed trading, the Commission report was itself suspect for several reasons. First, the informed trades relating to 9/11 covered far more than just airline company stock. The stocks of financial and reinsurance companies, as well as other financial vehicles, were identified as being associated with suspicious trades. Huge credit card transactions, completed just before the attacks, were also involved. The Commission ultimately tried to frame all of this highly suspicious trading in terms of a series of misunderstandings. However, the possibility that so many leading financial experts were so completely wrong is doubtful at best and, if true, would constitute another unbelievable scenario in the already highly improbable sequence of events represented by the official story of 9/11.

In the last few years, new evidence has come to light on these matters. In 2006 and 2010, financial experts at a number of universities have established new evidence, through statistical analyses, that informed trades did occur with respect to the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, in 2007, the 911 Commission released a memorandum summary of the FBI investigations on which its report was based.[2] A careful review of this memorandum indicates that some of the people who were briefly investigated by the FBI, and then acquitted without due diligence, had links to al Qaeda and to US intelligence agencies. Although the elapsed time between the informed trades and these new confirmations might prevent legal action against the guilty, the facts of the matter can help lead us to the truth about 9/11.

Early signs

Within a week of the attacks, Germany’s stock market regulator, BAWe, began looking into claims of suspicious trading.[3] That same week, Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Martino, made it clear that he had concerns by issuing this public statement: “I think that there are terrorist states and organisations behind speculation on the international markets.”[4]

Within two weeks of the attacks, CNN reported that regulators were seeing “ever-clearer signs” that someone “manipulated financial markets ahead of the terror attack in the hope of profiting from it.” Belgian Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, said that there were strong suspicions that British markets were used for transactions.[5] The CIA was reported to have asked the British regulators to investigate some of the trades.[6] Unfortunately, the British regulator, The Financial Services Authority, wrote off its investigation by simply clearing “bin Laden and his henchmen of insider trading.”[7]

Conversely, German central bank president, Ernst Welteke, said his bank conducted a study that strongly indicated “terrorism insider trading” associated with 9/11. He stated that his researchers had found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading.”[8] Welteke suggested that the insider trading occurred not only in shares of companies affected by the attacks, such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [9]

The extent of the 9/11-related informed trading was unprecedented. An ABC News Consultant, Jonathan Winer, said, “it’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan to the US to North America to Europe.”[10]

By October 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the four other options exchanges in the US had joined forces with the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate a list of 38 stocks, as well as multiple options and Treasury bonds, that were flagged in relation to potential informed trades. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt gave testimony to the House Financial Services Committee at the time, saying, “We will do everything in our power to track those people down and bring them to justice.”[11]

Mary Bender, chief regulatory officer at the CBOE, stated “We’ve never really had anything like this, [the option exchanges are] using the same investigative tools as we would in an insider-trading case. The point is to find people who are connected to these heinous crimes.”

The people ultimately found included an unnamed customer of Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown (DBAB). This involved a trade on United Airlines (UAL) stock consisting of a 2,500-contract order that was, for some reason, split into chunks of 500 contracts each and then directed to multiple exchanges around the country simultaneously.[12] When the 9/11 Commission report pointed to a “single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda,” it was referring to either DBAB or its customer in that questionable trade.

Michael Ruppert has since written about DBAB, noting that the company had previously been a financier of The Carlyle Group and also of Brown Brothers Harriman, both of which are companies closely related to the Bush family. Ruppert also noted that Alex. Brown, the company purchased by Deutsche Bank to become DBAB, was managed by A.B. (Buzzy) Krongard, who left the firm in 1998 to join the CIA as counsel to director George Tenet.[13] Krongard had been a consultant to CIA director James Woolsey in the mid 1990s and, on September 11th, he was the Executive Director of the CIA, the third highest position in the agency.

1 2 3 4 Single Page

Madness after girl, 4, draws gun pic at school

This is how ‘they’ plan to disarm us. This was not about the parents, it was about teaching the next generation. What was the message sent to all the kids at that school; that owning a gun is bad.

‘They’ are the men who have been planning and scheming for decades to rule the world. It doesn’t matter what you call them; the Illuminati,  the globalists, the shadow government, the elites, etc., etc., etc., I’ve settled on the banksters of late.

They have decided that this is the generation, now is the time…

I know this happened in Canada but similar things are happening here as a student got in trouble recently because her handbag had a gun decoration on it, another because he pointed his finger as though it was a gun, there is even legislation being drawn up outlawing toy guns. 

Dad: 'I'm picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I'm locked up'

Gun_picture

A father has been arrested, strip-searched and hauled in for questioning – all because his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school.

“I’m picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I’m locked up,” Jessie Sansone, 26, told the Waterloo Region Record in Canada. “I was in shock. This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school.”

Sansone, a Kitchener resident, had arrived at Forest Hill public school to pick up his children when he was called to the principal’s office. Three police officers informed him he was being charged with possession of a firearm. Then he was escorted out of the school, handcuffed and locked in the back of a police car.

According to Sansone, he didn’t learn what had caused the investigation until hours after his arrest. Other officers arrived at his home, where they instructed his wife to come to the police station and took his other three children to Family and Children’s Services to be questioned.

“Nobody was given any explanation,” Sansone’s wife, Stephanie Squires, told the paper. “I didn’t know why he was being arrested. He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them. ‘You’re making a mistake.’”

Sansone was forced to undergo a full strip search.

The school principal, police and child welfare officials said there would need to be an investigation to determine whether he had a gun in his home that children could find.

Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services, told the Record, “From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child.”

Waterloo Regional Police Inspector Kevin Thaler said Forest Hill public school had complained that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

He told the paper the school officials’ concern wasn’t based merely on the girl’s picture. Neaveh, Sansone’s daughter, also purportedly made remarks about the drawing that troubled officials.

When a teacher asked Neaveh who the man in the picture was, she purportedly said, “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”

Sansone said several hours after his arrest a detective apologized and informed him that he would be released without charges.

“To be honest with you, I broke down,” Sansone told the Record. “My character got put down so much. I was actually really hurt, like it could happen that easy. How do you recognize a criminal from a father?”

After his release, authorities asked Sansone to sign a document allowing a search of his house. He said he signed it, even though he had the option to decline.

“I just think they blew it out of proportion,” his wife said. “It was for absolutely nothing. They searched our house upside down and found nothing. They had the assumption he owned a firearm.”

She added, “The way everything happened was completely unnecessary, especially since we know the school very well. I don’t understand how they came to that conclusion from a four-year-old’s drawing.”

Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services, said the agency was required to investigate after the school reported the incident.

“Our community would have an expectation if comments are made about a gun in a house, we’d be obligated to investigate that to ensure everything is safe,” she said. “In the end, it may not be substantiated. There may be a reasonable explanation for why the child drew that gun. But we have to go on what gets presented to us.”

According to the report, she acknowledged, “I’m sure this was a very stressful thing for the family.”

As for the strip search, Thaler said the procedure was required “for officer safety, because it’s a firearms-related incident.”

He noted, “At the point in the investigation when it was determined it was not a real firearm, the individual was released unconditionally.”

Friday, February 24, 2012

After 16 vacations, Michelle O Raps the Rich -- at Swanky Fundraiser

Michelle Obama's pitch: Share the wealth

Paul Bedard

First lady Michelle Obama has joined her husband's bandwagon to hit the rich and spread the wealth, questioning how well-off families can feel good if others are struggling.

To about 300 supporters wealthy enough to pay $300-$10,000 to attend the mid-day event, the first lady said, "If a family in this country is struggling, we cannot be satisfied with our own families' good fortune."

She also rapped the rich, as has her husband. "Who do we want to be?" Obama asked. "Will we be a country where success is limited to the few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off."

Fundraising in Cincinnati, Ohio as her husband raised cash in Florida, she also said that the change President Obama offered in 2008 "does not come easy." And she added, "change is slow, but we will get there," according to a pool report of the event.

Below is the full report:

First Lady Michelle Obama delivered a vigorous defense of her husband’s administration to about 300 supporters at a fundraising at a downtown Cincinnati hotel Thursday afternoon, saying President Obama’s work “is not done.”

“If any family in this country is struggling, we can not be satisfied with our own families’ good fortune," said the First Lady, who spoke before an audience at the Westin Hotel who had paid anywhere from $250 to $10,000 for the mid-day event.

Mrs. Obama spoke for nearly half an hour to the people in the ballroom. Before that, she appeared at a private reception with big donors where attendees had an opportunity to have their picture taken with the First Lady.

Mr. Obama, dressed in a sleeveless black dress, was introduced by Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, who called her “a woman of poise, a woman of elegance, a woman of grace, and, I would say, a woman of intelligence.”

Her speech was largely devoted to reciting the accomplishments of the Obama administration and telling the crowd that her husband – raised by a single parent, with the help of his grandmother – understands the problems of struggling families “because he has lived them.”

“Who do we want to be?,’’ Mrs. Obama asked. “Will we be a country where success is limited to a few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off.”

Her husband came to office three years ago, she said, to bring about change; and said change “does not come easy.”

“Change is slow, but we will get there,’’ Mrs. Obama said. “We are fighting for our sons and our daughters, our grandchildren, and what kind of future they will have.”

She praised the passage of health care reform legislation that she said has already “saved millions of seniors in this country an average of $600 a year for prescription drugs.”

“Now, there are some folks talking about repealing that reform,’’ Mrs. Obama said. “Are we going to let that happen? Are we going to allow children to be denied health care coverage who have cancer or other serious diseases? We can’t do that.”

She also praised President Obama for getting rid of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy toward gays in the military.

“Never again will our young people have to lie about who they are,’’ Mrs. Obama said.

She exhorted the supporters in the crowd to go to work for the re-election campaign.

“Will we let everything we worked for just slip away?,’’ she asked.

It was Mrs. Obama’s first visit to Cincinnati since Sept. 2008, when her husband was running for president. Then, she spoke at a National Baptist Convention at the Duke Energy Center.

Catholic blog says Romney lied in debate about morning-after pills being “voluntary” for Catholic Church

Fact-Check: Did Romney Lie About Cardinal and Contraception During Wednesday Debate?

As readers know, if there is one thing that gets under our skin here at BCI, it is deception. This one by former Gov. Romney about a situation here in Massachusetts affects how the country perceives values important to many Catholics, so BCI felt we could not let it sit without a response.

In the Republican Presidential debate Wednesday evening at about 8:50pm or so, former Gov. Mitt Romney said he never infringed on the rights of Catholics as governor of Massachusetts by requiring the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims–it was “entirely voluntary” on the part of the Catholic Church.

If providing morning-after pills was “voluntary” on the part of the Catholic Church, then that would mean that Cardinal O’Malley volunteered to have Catholic hospitals give out abortifacients.

That is simply not true.

Here is a link to a transcript of the debate. Some of the quick transcription is a little off, but the gist of it is accurate:

KING (Moderator): Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the governor to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics’ rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement.”

Problem is, what Gov. Romney said in the debate is not correct. BCI reported all of the details in our post last month, “Pro-family advocates misrepresent Romney’s record on life.”

In 2005 Romney vetoed a bill to provide access to the so-called “morning-after-pill,” knowing his veto would be overridden, but months later, he decided Catholic hospitals did have to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Key points to note:

  1. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals
  2. He reversed his own July 2005 veto against abortifacients by signing an October bill seeking a federal waiver to expand distribution of Plan B abortifacients.
  3. On December 7, 2005, Romney’s Department of Public Health said that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections
  4. On December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims. He was quoted as saying, ““I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

Does that align with what Romney said in the debate? No. Here is an excellent chronology, and below we have re-published all of the details for those who want them.

1975. Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

2002: When Mitt Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and in response to a question, “…Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?” Romney said: “Yes.”

2004: the Massachusetts legislature considered an “emergency contraception” mandate. It would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such “emergency contraceptives” and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion. Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state’s Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

That bill passed in the State Senate, but not in the House.

2005: Emergency contraception bill passes Senate and House, with veto-proof majority in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith. Here is more:

At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. (July 2005 Mass Catholic Conference Notes from the Hill) The House had included language to “expressly apply” the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply “notwithstanding” any existing law.

“In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill,” said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. “House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals’ right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect.”

The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved — or so it seemed.

July 25, 2005: Romney vetoed the bill — even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. “The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception,” he wrote. “The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.” Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state’s abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined, “Private hospitals exempt on pill law“. The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, “respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.”

“The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”

December 8, 2005: The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: “A Plan B Mistake.” “The legislators failed, however,” the Globe said, “to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services.”

Liberals joined in attacking Romney’s defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.

“On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

December 9, 2005: Boston Globe reports, “Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law“.“Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.”

Lifesite News reported at the time, “Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill”:

In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

A constitutional law expert advising BCI says that the legislative intent was clearly to allow the 1975 statute to prevail. The formulation of the regulations is supposed to follow the legislative intent. Romney actually violated the law and his oath of office by NOT going with the legislative intent, and overruling the legislative intent (as well as the Constitution).

But t was not merely a legal interpretation by the legal counsel to Romney. Romney said he personally thought it was the “right thing” for hospitals to provide access to emergency contraception for any rape victims. See this Dec 9, 2005 AP report:

Romney: Catholic hospitals not exempt from offering emergency contraception
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press writer

BOSTON –Facing opposition from women, the Democratic Party and even his own running mate, Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans yesterday to exempt religious and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.The governor had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his Department of Public Health, which said the new law conflicts with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.

The interpretation would have allowed hospitals operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, to forego compliance with the new regulation. Opponents accused Romney, a Republican considering running for president in 2008, of trying to assuage social conservatives.

Despite defending the Health Department regulations as late as Wednesday, Romney opened a news conference yesterday by declaring that a fresh analysis by his legal counsel concluded the new law supersedes the old law, and that all hospitals must be required to offer the so-called morning-after pill.

“On that basis I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape,” he added.

The Bottom Line:

When Romney was asked in the debate if he had required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and had infringed on Catholics’ rights, he responded, “No, absolutely not. Of course not.” That was untrue.

When Romney said “for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims…was entirely voluntary on their part”, that was also untrue.

For him to suggest to the citizens of the United States on national television that Cardinal O’Malley and the Catholic Church would “voluntarily” provide morning-after pills is an egregious misrepresentation of Catholic Church teachings and an egregious misrepresentation of what actually happened in this situation.

BCI hopes that the media and other candidates call him out on this.

Obama’s "constant round of apologies" … “only helping Taliban” … “fan flames”

Take another ‘bow’ Mr. faux-president…

U.S. response to Koran burning could fan flames, analysts warn

By Judson Berger, Published February 23, 2012, | FoxNews.com

As protests rage across Afghanistan for the third day in response to the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base, some are questioning whether the parade of apologies from the U.S. government may do more harm than good.

The latest installment came Thursday, when the U.S. ambassador delivered an apology letter from President Obama to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That follows apologies from Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen, the White House, NATO's International Security Assistance Force and other Pentagon officials.

The backlash began after Korans were burned with garbage at a military base in Afghanistan. Officials said they were removed from the detention center library because the detainees were using them to pass secret and what were described as "extremist" messages to one another. Afghans stepped in to rescue the books, though some were already burned. One official said it was a "breakdown in judgment, not a breakdown in our respect for Islam."

Meanwhile, nearly a dozen people have died in the aftermath, including two U.S. troops. And some analysts are criticizing the U.S. response.

"It just feeds the sense of grievance," Nina Shea, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, said of the "constant round of apologies."

Shea, who sits on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, agreed with the U.S. decision to quickly apologize after the incident late Monday and order an investigation.

But she noted that the subsequent apologies "don't seem to have any effect."

Obama's letter on Thursday reportedly apologized for the "error" and assured Karzai that the U.S. government would take "appropriate steps" to make sure such an incident doesn't happen again, "to include holding accountable those responsible."

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an Army Reserve officer who served in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004, concurred that the burning was "patently stupid" -- not just because it's religiously insensitive but because the messages inside the Korans by detainees could have been used for intelligence purposes.

"These are all threads. These things are threads that can be used to build that tapestry of an intelligence picture," Shaffer said.

But Shaffer said for the U.S. government to repeatedly apologize for the incident is only helping the Taliban.

"They will use that to again flame their own fire," he said. "The more they apologize, the more it's going to inflame them."

At a time when the U.S. is trying to engage elements of the Taliban in peace talks, Shaffer said the apologies just strengthen the Taliban's negotiating position.

Shaffer and Shea said the U.S. should be urging Taliban officials who want to play ball in the broader talks to call off the protests to the extent they can.

Shea said the burning has been inevitably exploited for political purposes. She also said this incident should compel the U.S. to reconsider the decision to provide Korans at prisons in the first place -- since mistakes are bound to happen when Westerners handle them, with deadly results.

"It's a very tricky business, providing Korans to prisoners of war," she said. "It becomes unmanageable."

But Ahmad Majidyar, senior research associate with the American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. is taking the right approach by stressing the sincerity of its remorse. And he suggested the protests are not as widespread as they're made out to be.

"Many other people, they accepted the apology by the Americans ... and they're just moving on with their lives," he said.

The test, Majidyar said, will be Friday sermons. Fiery sermons, he warned, could lead to more violence -- he urged the United States to go beyond apologies and make sure it's reaching out to all corners of Afghan society to calm down the backlash and avoid that outcome.

Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, also said in an email that the Obama administration dealt with the mistake "appropriately," and described the president's letter as a "sincere demonstration of respect for the Afghan people and their religious sentiments."

Going forward, she called on Karzai to try and calm the protests and "expose" the Taliban's role in "exploiting the situation."

The incident follows protests last April over a Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran. Afghans stormed a U.N. compound at the height of the clash, killing several employees.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday said the president's latest response via the Karzai letter was entirely appropriate due to the sensitivities involved.

First Lady Clintonesque? Secret Service agent boner?

First Lady Secret Affair?

Bombshell charges are whipping through Washington that Michelle Obama is sneaking out of the White House to romance a secret hunk as the President fights to stay in the White House. You'll learn why the rumors are flying and who insiders believe the First Lady is meeting up with - only in the current GLOBE.

Michelle Obama Secret Affair Rumors Surface
Gateway Pundit ^ | September 10,2011 | Jim Hoft

Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:15:49 AM by Hojczyk

Maybe this explains all of those extravagant vacations?

It’s a good thing her last name is not Cain or this story would be making major headlines by now. America’s Conservative News reported:

The Globe magazine just released a bombshell and is reporting that Michelle Obama is having a “steamy secret affair” with a Secret Service Agent. According to The Globe, rumors started to circulate that Obama may be having an affair after her recent admission to NBC’s Al Roker that she frequently “sneaks out” of the White House; and the ever increasing time she is spending away from the White House may be a cover to hide “a sizzling affair she’s carrying on with a Secret Service agent.”

According to The Globe’s anonymous source: “The rumors are that she’s getting it on with a Secret Service agent who is not part of her detail. … Her frequent outings away from the White House give her and him an opportunity to get together.” The source adds: “Something has been going on for a couple of months and there’s no question Barack is embarrassed about her increasingly frequent excursions away from him at the White House.”

The allegations are, of course, unsubstantiated and only time will tell if the allegations will fizzle or blow up into a major issuing in the upcoming presidential campaign. Typically, the media will not report unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources, but the recent media feeding frenzy over unsubstantiated allegation against businessman Herman Cain, which literally sank his candidacy, leave the question open: will the media pursue, or even bother to investigate this story?

When it comes to the Mainstream Media, anything goes. That much is clear. But will the media apply the same standard to Obama as to Cain? Only time will tell.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Stand up for women by telling Senator Phil Leventis to sit down today!

Palladian View

Philleventiselection2002t180

A Troglodyte. It sounds like some fearsome, ancient beast, gone extinct millions of years ago. What it really means is a person with outmoded, caveman-like views.

One would hope those are extinct too, but unfortunately a troglodyte is alive and well in the South Carolina Senate, and his name is Senator Phil Leventis. He filibustered for three hours yesterday against confirming Catherine Templeton to lead DHEC, and has begun already again today.

As we’ve discussed many times, Catherine is extraordinarily qualified to lead DHEC. Some, like Leventis, are simply targeting her because she is a conservative woman. It’s played out time and time again in our state, when a conservative woman stands, people like Leventis are there to tell them to sit back down.

Senator Leventis, YOU are the one who needs to SIT DOWN and let this confirmation proceed.

Call Senator Leventis today, and tell him to SIT DOWN. You can reach him at 803-212-6000 or 803-469-2047. You may also email him at pl@scsenate.org.

Stand up for women by telling Senator Phil Leventis to sit down today!

Agenda 21 will break home owners not already broken by the housing crisis

Septic tank issue just tip of the iceberg

Wake County Commissioner and Congressional Candidate Paul Coble Appears in Goldsboro

By Bill Johnston·February 23, 2012·

Wake County Commissioner Chairman Paul Coble

Wake County Commissioner Chairman Paul Coble was in Goldsboro yesterday at the invitation of Linda Harper, President of the Wayne County Tea Party.

Coble appeared at Lane Tree Golf Club and Conference Center to talk about issues he has been working on with the commissioners, as well as his quest to become the Republican candidate for District 13, United States Congress.

The candidate spent a great deal of time talking about Agenda 21. That is considered “global legislation” enacted by the United Nations designed to ultimately shift resources and energy from the United States to countries that don’t have energy today.

Coble was recently presented a study with recommendations to the Wake County Commissioners that, if enacted, would have had a significant impact on everyone. He cited septic tanks as an example. Agenda 21 would call for all septic tanks to have a monitor that would tell homeowners if the tank needed servicing.

He said the monitor would cost about $1,500, yet only ½ of 1% of septic tanks need repair annually, and of those less than half are faulty. But Agenda 21 would have had made it law to install the monitor on over 64,000 homes.

When asked about what he would do about the Eastern North Carolina economy, his message was to cut regulation and get out of the way of business owners. “The best ideas I have come from people in meetings just like this.”

Coble has not decided if he wins if he will open a congressional office in Goldsboro. Wayne County Commissioner Steve Keen commented about the benefit of having congressional influence by tying Wayne County to Wake County.

Curtis Media 2012. Written by Bill Johnston.

Was technology for safe, cheap nuclear energy with no waste product quashed

I ran across this story and thought it interesting enough to share with you. Sadly, the company founded by Brown seems to have abandoned the nuclear energy technology mentioned in the article.

Was it because the technology was bogus or were they bought off or coerced? Here’s the latest press release on from the company:

Update from the C.E.O.

Dear Shareholders,

I wanted to highlight some notable events since my last letter to you. We are proud to announce that we have changed our name to U.S. Fuel Corporation. Additionally, we have continued development efforts on our first CTL fuel project in Muhlenberg Kentucky and improved our corporate governance structure to better support our efforts.

With our company’s singular business model being CTL plant development, we felt that is appropriate that our name reflect the singular focus of producing high-grade synthetic fuels from America's abundant coal supplies. Thus U.S. Fuel Corporation came into being.

 

The strange Legacy of Paul M. Brown Ph.D

Posted by Mike Kremer on Jan 18, 2002 at 23:35

Paul M. Brown of Boise, Idaho has been in the nuclear power business since 1978, when he was still a student.He has a Ph.D in nuclear physics, and became involved in new ways to generate useful electricity using genuinely safe nuclear processes.

Thru his own company he developed a range of small nuclear batteries which worked by using the energy given off by radio-active Strontium 90. In 1988 his first prototype was claimed to produce 100,000 times as much energy, per gram of Stron: 90 than the most powerful nuclear battery yet in existence.

More recently Brown developed a technology that offered the world, not just a new energy source, but a solution to the huge problem of nuclear waste. "Photodeactivation of Nuclear Waste" by Paul M.Brown

Brown built a small prototype plant, which bombarded radioactive elements with high energy photon radiation, in the form of X-rays produced by an accelerator. Many people thought he was spouting pseudo-science.

But the Russians became interested. He began to receive threats....we will kill your family....set fire to your house etc.

He was not spouting pseudo-science, his ideas were based upon sound nuclear textbook theory. "It is well known that X-ray or Gamma-ray bombardment of nuclei can induce nuclear decay"

Browns trick was to apply this to highly radio active elements, such as iodine-129 which has a half life of 1,700,000,000 years. He announced that he was able to transmute iodine-129, into iodine-130, ...which only has a half-life of 12.4 hours, and which will decay naturally to Xenon-130, a safe and stable gas, plus electrons.

After this announcement Paul M.Brown was subject to yet more threats. His home was robbed three times, and vandalised on four occasions. He became increasingly worried about threats to himself, after his Mothers car was pipe bombed.

Keeping a low profile he sold his "Nuclear Battery
Co" to Bell Labs/Lucient Technologies.

Later his wife was assaulted,...and while trying to sell his house and move, he was investigated by the tax man. {Then the Securities and Exchange Commission) In spite of his problems, Brown, formed the NASDAQ- quoted Company-'Nuclear Solutions'.

He stated later that he had found similar reactions to make the more dangerous radio-active isotopes found in radio-active waste, safe. He also said, that his process produced large amounts of heat energy, which can be captured and used. If true, Paul M.Brown will have made a major contribution to our planet's safety. A Russian 'portable' plant is expected to produce 10 megawatts, to power a thousand homes.

Unfortunately, on April 7th 2002, to the great shock of many in the energy research field, Paul M.Brown was killed in a car crash. There has been speculation re involvement of other agencies in this accident, but nothing proven.

The new directors of his company -Nuclear Solutions-
has promised to develop his technology through to commercial success.
*******************
A RECENT PRESS RELEASE
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 18, 2002--Today, Nuclear Solutions Inc. (OTCBB:NSOL - News) announced that on Monday, October 21, 2002, it is releasing the first disbursement of funds for the commercial development of GHR radioactive wastewater treatment technology. The funds are intended for the Institute for Industrial Mathematics, Inc (IIM), in Beer-Sheva, Israel, which is contracted with Nuclear Solutions, Inc. to develop the commercial-grade GHR wastewater treatment units.

AND A FURTHER PRESS RELEASE.
1. Water contaminated with tritium is produced in significant quantities as a by-product of nuclear reactor operations and weapons complex activities. While Tritium has a half-life of only 12.5 years, it poses a significant heath risk since tritiated water is absorbed by plants, animals and humans like ordinary water. Tritium can also become transformed into other chemicals or proteins needed by the body, as well as integrating itself into DNA. Tritium is also known to affect developing fetuses. Regulations for restricting the concentrations of tritium in drinking water are based primarily on cancer risk to adults.

2. The GHR process, which is envisioned for rapid processing as well as low energy usage, has the potential to offer a cost-effective solution to industry as well as be profitable to operate.

3. NSOL plans to capitalize on GHR technology by forming strategic alliances and joint ventures with well-established leaders in the nuclear cleanup industry. Continued revenue streams are expected through operation and licensing of the technology.

for Nuclear Solutions, Inc.: END
******************************
My thoughts...I found the whole story rather unsettling, perhaps, because I have not heard about it before? Maybe more in this we are told, how much technical truth, how much share ramping hype?

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Fresh farm cows milk 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized says Feds

They load our drinking water with rat poison (fluoride), put mercury in our vaccines, Bisphenol A in our food containers, and tell us cows milk is dangerous.

Feds: Fresh milk 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized dairy

By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, February 21, 2012

**FILE** Mark McAfee (right), founder of Fresno, Calif.-based Organic Pastures Dairy, leads a Nov. 1, 2011, protest in front of the Food and Drug Administration headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., against the FDA's ban on interstate transport of raw milk. (Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times)**FILE** Mark McAfee (right), founder of Fresno, Calif.-based Organic Pastures Dairy, leads a Nov. 1, 2011, protest in front of the Food and Drug Administration headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., against the FDA’s ban on interstate transport of raw milk. (Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times)

The federal government said Tuesday that fresh milk is 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized milk — a finding that bolsters the government’s argument as it goes after farmers who sell unpasteurized milk across state lines.

After a 13-year review, the taxpayer-funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said states where so-called “raw milk” is available had twice the rate of dairy-related disease outbreaks as states where those sales are banned.

And disease outbreaks from fresh milk are more serious in nature, according to the study, which found 200 out of 239 hospitalizations during the study stemmed from cases of fresh milk.

“Restricting the sale of raw milk products is likely to reduce the number of outbreaks and can help keep people healthier,” said Dr. Robert Tauxe, director of CDC’s division of foodborne, waterborne and environmental diseases. “The states that allow sale of raw milk will probably continue to see outbreaks in the future.”

Fresh milk devotees say pasteurization — the process of heating food to kill off bacteria — removes some of the health benefits of milk, and argue that when consumers know their suppliers, diseases from raw milk are not an issue.

Related:
'Propaganda'...
Gov't launches war on fresh milk, hair dryers...

Sale of Philadelphia newspapers to Dem operatives raises bias concerns

The secret, that everyone who pays attention to knows, is that the media is owned by the liberal NWO banksters anyway, the owners of these are just more blatantly apparent.

I think they think they can do anything they want to now and we can’t stop them! They forced Obamacare down our throats in spite of overwhelming public opposition with an unconstitutional legislative maneuver on a Christmas Eve and got away with it. They think they are now bullet proof.

One group led by ex-governor Rendell

By Dave Boyer, The Washington Times, Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell leads a group seeking to buy Philadelphia's two daily newspapers. "Nobody wants to stifle news," he said of concerns about his ownership. (Associated Press)Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell leads a group seeking to buy Philadelphia’s two daily newspapers. “Nobody wants to stifle news,” he said of concerns about his ownership. (Associated Press)

Philadelphia’s two daily newspapers have long been accused of liberal bias, but critics say a group of potential buyers led by former Gov. Ed Rendell would turn the papers into mere mouthpieces of the Democratic Party in a 2012 swing state.

Mr. Rendell, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is teaming with George Norcross, the Democratic Party boss of southern New Jersey, and others in an effort to purchase the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Daily News and the company’s website, philly.com.

There is reportedly at least one other bidder for the media company, the most influential in Pennsylvania, though that party has not publicly identified itself.

“The prospect of Rendell’s group owning the newspapers is like the foxes watching the henhouse and all of the sacred cows,” said Paul Davies, former deputy editorial page editor at the Inquirer. “Essentially, the Inquirer will cease to exist as a legitimate newspaper. It will become the insiders’ house organ.”

Mr. Rendell said on a talk-radio show this week that this deal would not be the first time powerful people with an “ideological bent,” such as Rupert Murdoch, have tried to purchase a media company. He also noted that the 183-year-old Inquirer was owned for decades by Republican businessman Walter Annenberg, and said his group is simply trying to save the financially troubled papers.

“Nobody wants to stifle news,” said Mr. Rendell, a two-term mayor of Philadelphia in the 1990s.

Journalists at both papers are so concerned that nearly 300 of them signed a public statement last week calling on the current and any future owners to protect the integrity of their reporting. They said the current owner, Philadelphia Media Network (PMN), has censored their coverage of the sale.

“As The Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com have gone up for sale once again, we watched with dismay as our own coverage of the process was compromised and censored,” the statement says.

PMN Publisher Greg Osberg denied any censorship.

PMN acquired the papers in bankruptcy proceedings in 2010 from a local group of owners led by Republican businessman Brian Tierney.

During his turbulent tenure as publisher in the heavily Democratic city, Mr. Tierney came under fire for bringing aboard conservative columnists at the Inquirer such as Rick Santorum, now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and John Yoo, a Bush administration official who helped write the legal justification for “enhanced interrogation techniques” against terrorism suspects.

Enhanced interrogation was on the mind of the loquacious Mr. Rendell, who became so exasperated at the uproar about his potential ownership of the papers that he pledged not to talk about it anymore.

“You’re going to have to waterboard me,” he told a reporter.

His vow of silence ended two days later, when he told WPHT-AM in Philadelphia that his group of investors would consider a pledge of noninterference with the newspapers’ coverage.

“Our group, I’m certain, would be willing to enter into some agreement with the reportorial staff that we wouldn’t influence any of their news reporting,” Mr. Rendell said.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

‹‹ previous1 2 next ››

Thanks Obama: Floridians spending nearly $6 a gallon for gas

Moratorium on drilling, killed the Keystone pipeline, said while campaigning he wanted energy costs to skyrocket

Florida Drivers Shelling Out Nearly $6 A Gallon At Some Gas Stations

By Matthew L. Higgins, February 22, 2012 11:47 AM

A gas pump displays a sale of $58.74 at a gas station in Miami Beach, Fla. (credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A gas pump displays a sale of $58.74 at a gas station in Miami Beach, Fla. (credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

TAMPA (CBS Tampa) — Talk about pain at the pump! Some Florida drivers are spending nearly $6 a gallon to fill up their gas tanks.

According to GasBuddy.com, motorists are shelling out $5.89 for a gallon of regular gas at a Shell station in Lake Buena Vista, topping out at $5.99 a gallon for premium. It doesn’t get better at a Suncoast Energy station in Orlando, where drivers are paying $5.79 for a gallon of regular.

“Prices over in the Disney World area are much higher than any other place in Florida,” Jessica Brady, AAA spokeswoman, told CBS Tampa, adding that people regularly complain about gas prices in that area.

The Sunshine State is opening up its wallet, paying an average of $3.67 a gallon of unleaded gas, 12 cents more than the national average. And it’s only expected to go up.

“It doesn’t look like we will have relief at the pump anytime soon,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “I do think we will see prices surpass $4 a gallon. I think we will see that closer to spring time.”

Dow tops 13,000: The market is stupid!

Don’t Overthink the 2012 Rally

  • Wall StreetJeff Macke

    Four words could be used to summarize the reaction of Wall Street professionals to the news that the Dow topped 13,000: "The market is stupid!"

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Santorum warned of Satan’s attack on America, why is that a shock to liberals

Actually it’s not, they just act shocked to try to draw attention away from the fact or they’re just foolish idealists who’ve bought into this Mother Earth green movement as honorable instead of insidious. 

Look around, Satan has infiltrated the leadership of just about every entity on the planet. He has the leadership position in the United States, he rules the Congress, he’s entrenched in the Supreme Court, he owns academia,  and what’s true at the national level is true at the local level in varying degrees.

The bigger the entity, the greater the influence, rest assured the UN is his playground!

'SATAN HAS SET HIS SIGHTS ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'


SANTORUM'S SATAN WARNING

State warned Obama fails ballot requirements

Will anyone be able to stand up to this tyrant? He has ignored court orders by judges who were courageous enough to try to hold him to the law and the Constitution, though they haven’t gone that further step of holding him in contempt.

He issues mandates that he hasn’t the authority to issue. He can’t tell us what to do. He is supposed to work for us. Who does he think he is, Caesar?

'Both of candidates' parents must be U.S. citizens at time of candidate's birth'

Published: 11 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

obama-fail

A complaint has been filed asking Pennsylvania state officials to set aside Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential candidacy, because he cannot meet the state’s eligibility requirements.

It’s another case in what is developing into a long list of states in which Obama’s candidacy is being challenged legally. A complaint recently was filed in Indiana, and Georgia’s dispute already is moving to the appellate level. Cases also are reported to be developing in Mississippi, Alabama and other states.

The Pennsylvania case was raised by Dale Laudenslager and Charles Kerchner, whose previous legal challenge to Obama’s term in the White House also was based on eligibility concerns and reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices refused to look at any evidence.

According to a report from the team whose members filed the complaint, Kerchner asserted that after years of research, it “has been determined” that Obama is not eligible to hold the office president because he is “not a natural born citizen” under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Candidates for the U.S .Senate and U.S. House only must meet the requirement of being a “citizen, while a president must be a “natural born citizen.”

Get Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Kerchner, who works through the Protect Our Liberty website, said Obama is ineligible because of his father.

“Until candidate Obama came along, no president since the founding generation has had a foreign-born father who never immigrated to the U.S.A.,” he said.

He noted Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen or tried to be one. He returned to his native Kenya after a few years of school in the U.S.

“Candidate Obama was born a British subject/citizen via his foreign-national, non-U.S. citizen father and basic U.S. citizen via his mother and thus was born with dual citizenship and not sole allegiance at birth to the U.S.A.,” he said.

“A dual citizen at birth is not a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’ to constitutional standards,” Kerchner’s report said.

He said the correct definition of a “natural born citizen” is “someone born in the country from parents that are both U.S. citizens (born or naturalized).”

“The Founders reasoned that unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth to one nation and only one nation was a prerequisite to the office of president,” his report said. “This requirement was entered into the U.S. Constitution for national security reasons as a ‘strong check against foreign influence’ and allegiance claims via birth status on the person who would be the commander of our armies.”

Kerchner explained that while the accurate assessment is that a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two U.S. citizen parents, “Obama slipped through the vetting system cracks as to his constitutional eligibility in the 2008 primaries.

“But he will not be permitted to do so in the 2012 primaries,” he said.

There remain questions about Obama’s citizenship status primarily because he has withheld so many documents that ordinarily would be available about a sitting president. Those include his passport and school records, records from his term as a state lawmaker and documentation on whether he was adopted by his mother’s second husband, an Indonesian.

In a letter to the chief clerk’s office in Pennsylvania, attorney Karen L. Kiefer submitted a “Nomination Petition Objection.”

“In Pennsylvania, the Department of State printed candidates ‘packet of required qualifications and instructions’ provided by the Pa. Secretary of States’ office, Jonathon M. Marks, commissioner and the Department of State website acknowledge the U.S. constitutional authority and state that to be eligible … for the office of president of the United States, a candidate must be a ‘natural born citizen.’

“Obama, who is not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States, has filed a nomination petition” even though the petition requires a person to have parents who were citizens at the time of the birth, she argues.

“Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a foreign national at the time of his birth and candidate Obama admits in his book, “Dreams From my Father,” at page 215, that in mid 1960s ‘the government (Kenya) revoked his (father’s) passport, and he (Obama Sr.) couldn’t even leave Kenya,’” the report said.

“Candidate Obama’s father was never an immigrant to the United States, nor a permanent resident; Candidate Obama’s father never filed for or attained U.S. citizenship status; therefore, candidate Obama fails to meet U.S. constitutional and Pennsylvania requirements for the office.”

“Obama … has declared he is eligible for the office of president, and, therefore, has the burden of proving to this honorable court the truth of the matter,” the challenge explains.

The submission includes an analysis by attorney Mario Apuzzo, who handled Kerchner’s court case.

He explained, “The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional republic, the office of president and commander in chief of the military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the ‘natural born citizen’ clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the constitutional right to have any certain person be president. But … they do have a constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their president is constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the office.”

Even Obama is aware of the natural-born citizen problem, the submission contends, based on the fact he co-sponsored a Senate resolution regarding Sen. John McCain, determining although McCain was born outside the boundaries of the U.S. while his father served in the military, he is a “natural born citizen” because he was “born to American citizens.”

In Indiana, there is an interesting curve in the eligibility dispute, as state officials there recently removed from office the state secretary of state over eligibility issues.

The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud:

Occupiers could have a ball if they just followed Obama’s!


Michelle hits the slopes in Aspen month after Hawaiian holiday...
16th vacation in 3 years...

Meanwhile back in the real world: For Baby Boomers, it's now 'work til you drop'...

Monday, February 20, 2012

UN Agenda 21's Masdar initiative, no private property and no cars

The banksters plan is to put you in cages and let the animals roam free!


This is not in the US but in Dubai by the way. If you look at the BioDiversity map of the US you'll find very little land set aside for us humans. It looks like the plan is to punish us for abusing Mother Earth and either kill us off or banish most of us to another continent altogether, say in Asia.


A funny thing happened as I was browsing the internet newsites a short while ago. I saw this story where someone using Google Earth found these brand new cities in China that were completely empty. What do you suppose they are doing building empty cities? The story went on to say that they are planning on building 20 cities a year for 20 years. I'm sure they wont stay empty.