What's really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


• Aluminum - A light metal that causes dementia and Alzheimer's disease. You should never inject yourself with aluminum.

• Antibiotics - Chemicals that promote superbugs, which are deadly antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.

• Formaldehyde - A "pickling" chemical used to preserve cadavers. It's highly toxic to the nervous system, causing blindness, brain damage and seizures. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services openly admits that formaldehyde causes cancer. You can see this yourself on theNational Toxicology Program website, featuring its 12th Report on Carcinogens.

There, the formaldehyde Fact Sheet completely neglects to mention formaldehyde in vaccines. This is the "dirty little secret" of government and the vaccine industry. It does state, however, that "...formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia, and rare cancers including sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancer."

• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) - A neurotoxic chemical called an "excitotoxin." It causes brain neurons to be overexcited to the point of death. MSG is toxic even when consumed in foods, where it causes migraine headaches and endocrine system damage. You should NEVER inject MSG into your body. But that's what health workers do when they inject you with vaccines.

• Thimerosal - A methyl mercury compound that causes severe, permanent nervous system damage. Mercury is highly toxic to the brain. You should never touch, swallow or inject mercury at any dose. There is no safe dose of mercury! Doctors and vaccine pushers LIE to you and say there is no mercury in vaccines. Even the CDC readily admits vaccine still contain mercury (thimerosal).

In addition, National Toxicology Programs admits in its own documents that:

• Vaccinations "...may produce small but measurable increases in blood levels of mercury."

• "Thimerosal was found to cross the blood-brain and placenta barriers."

• The "...hazards of thimerosal include neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity." (This means brain and kidney toxicity.)

• "...similar toxicological profiles between ethylmercury and methylmercury raise the possibility that neurotoxicity may also occur at low doses of thimerosal."

• "... there are no existing guidelines for safe exposure to ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal."

• "...the assessment determined that the use of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines might result in the intake of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded recommended guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)..."

• ..."In the U.S., thimerosal is still present as preservative in some vaccines given to young children, as well as certain biological products recommended during pregnancy. Thimerosal remains a preservative in some vaccines administered to adolescents and adults. In addition, thimerosal continues to be used internationally as a vaccine preservative."

The report then goes on to say that the FDA studies thimerosal and somehow found it to be perfectly safe. It also states that vaccine manufactures are "working" to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but in reality it's still being manufactured right into the vaccines.

By the way, this report also reveals that the FDA requires preservatives like thimerosal only in so-called "multi-dose" vaccines -- vials that contain more than one dose of the vaccine. Drug companies could, if they wanted to, produce "clean" single-dose vaccines without any mercury / thimerosal. But they choose not to because it's more profitable to product mercury-containing multi-dose vaccines. As the report admits, "Preservatives are not required for products formulated in singledose vials. Multidose vials are preferred by some physicians and health clinics because they are often less expensive per vaccine dose and require less storage space."

So the reason why your child is being injected with vaccine boils down to health care offices making more money and saving shelf space!

"Mercury in vaccines is a conspiracy theory!

I've been told by numerous "skeptics" and doctors that there's no such thing as mercury in vaccines, and that any such suggestion is nothing more than a "wild conspiracy theory." That just goes to show you how ignorant all the skeptics, doctors and health professionals really are: They have NO CLUE what's in the vaccines they're dishing out to people!

All they have to do is visit this CDC vaccine additives web page, which openly admits to these chemicals being used in vaccines right now. It's not a conspiracy theory, it turns out. It's the status quo of modern-day vaccine manufacturing!

And just in case the CDC removes that page, here's a screen shot, taken October 22, 2012, showing exactly what was on the CDC vaccine additives page:

Feel that headache after a vaccine? That's the feeling of chemicals eating your brain

Now, consider this: The most common side effect of a vaccine injection is a headache. The CDC admits that over 30 percent of those receiving vaccines experience headaches or migraines. Gee, think about it: What could possibly be in vaccines that would cause headaches, migraines and brain damage?

Ummm, how about the mercury, the formaldehyde, the aluminum and the MSG!

Even if you believe in the theory of vaccines as a helpful way to train the immune system to recognize pathogens, why would anyone -- especially a doctor -- think it's okay to inject human beings with mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum?

The argument of the vaccine pushers is that each vaccine only contains a tiny dose of these highly toxic substances, and therefore it's okay to be injected with them. But this argument makes a fatal error: U.S. children are now receiving over twenty vaccines by the time they're six years old! What's the cumulative effect of all these vaccines, plus the mercury from dental fillings and dietary sources? What's the effect of injected mercury on an immune-suppressed child living in a state of chronic nutritional deficiency?

Scientists don't know that answer because such studies have never been conducted. So they pretend that nothing bad will happen and keep pushing more and more vaccines on infants, children and even expectant mothers. They're playing Russian roulette with our children, in other words, where every injection could cause a seizure, coma, autism or death.

Why doesn't the vaccine industry offer "clean" vaccines free from all toxic additives?

If vaccines are supposed to be good for you, why do they contain so many additives that are BAD for you? You wouldn't want to eat mercury in your tuna fish. You wouldn't want MSG in your sandwich, and you certainly wouldn't want formaldehyde in your soda. So why would you allow yourself to be injected with these deadly substances?

And just as importantly, why wouldn't the vaccine industry offer CLEAN vaccines? Without any brain-damaging additives?

Think about it: When you buy health food, you want that health food to have NO mercury, NO MSG, NO aluminum and certainly no formaldehyde. No sane person would knowingly eat those neurotoxic poisons. And yet, astonishingly, those same people literally line up to be INJECTED with those exact same brain-damaging poisons, with the justification that, somehow, "This injection is good for me!"

Absurdly, the vaccine industry says these toxic ingredients are intentionally added to vaccines to make them work better! Yes, that's the reason: Mercury makes vaccines work better, they insist. Click here to see a video news report actually claiming mercury makes vaccines work better,granting children "improved behavior and mental performance."

No, I'm not making this up. The mainstream media literally claims that mercury is GOOD for babies. Vitamins might kill you, they say, but mercury is good for you!

But hold on a second: I thought the theory behind vaccines was that weakened viruses would give the immune system a rehearsal so that it would build up antibodies to the real thing. Where does mercury, MSG or formaldehyde fit anywhere in that theory? Does your body benefit in any way from exposure to formaldehyde? Of course not. The very idea is ludicrous.

So are there such things are clean vaccines? I challenge you to try to find one. They simply don't exist for the population at large. Nearly all vaccines for the masses are deliberately formulated with neurotoxic chemicals that have absolutely nothing to do with the science of vaccinations, but everything to do with autism, Alzheimer's disease, early-onset dementia, immune suppression, and the mass dumbing down of brain function.

Vaccines are designed with chemical additives to poison the population, not to protect the population

That's the real purpose of vaccines: Not to "protect children" with any sort of immunity, but to inject the masses with a toxic cocktail of chemicals that cause brain damage and infertility: Mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum. The whole point of this is to dumb the population down so that nobody has the presence of mind to wake up and start thinking for themselves.

This is precisely why the smartest, most "awake" people still remaining in society today are the very same ones who say NO to vaccines. Only their brains are still intact and operating with some level of awareness.

The system wants you to stay dumbed down, of course. It makes you easier to control. Watch George Carlin brilliantly explain the concept of "Obedient Workers" (explicit):



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2E1fuFsjR

Do vaccines cause autism? Rep. Carolyn Maloney grills CDC in Congressional inquiry.

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms

Ethan A. Huff
(naturalnews.com)
May 06, 2012



If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted -- but never has -- for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys' sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)

"This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children," said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. "SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen."

Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

"The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal," said Wrangham. "But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency."

Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

Sources for this article include:

http://vran.org

http://www.safeminds.org/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html

New GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow tumors, 70% of females die early

Mike Adams
naturalnews.com
September 19, 2012

Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That’s the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.


The study has been deemed “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors… tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.

“Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in ‘shocking’ new cancer study” wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsanto-weedkiller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article

It reported, “Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.”

The Daily Mail reported, “Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM-foods-French-study-finds-rats-fed-controversial-crops-suffered-tumours-multiple-organ-failure.html

It goes on to say: “The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.”

The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.

Findings from the study

Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organic damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

The Daily Mail is reporting on some of the reaction to the findings:

France’s Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s commission for agriculture and known as a fierce opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorizations of GM crops. ‘This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes,’ he said in a statement. ‘National and European food security agencies must carry out new studies financed by public funding to guarantee healthy food for European consumers.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM-foods-French-study-finds-rats-fed-controversial-crops-suffered-tumours-multiple-organ-failure.html

Read the study abstract

The study is entitled, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.” Read the abstract here: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

That abstract include this text. Note: “hepatorenal toxicity” means toxic to the liver.

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Here are some quotes from the researchers:

“This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.” – Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King’s College London.

“We can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health.” – Dr Antoniou.

“This is the first time that a long-term animal feeding trial has examined the impact of feeding GM corn or the herbicide Roundup, or a combination of both and the results are extremely serious. In the male rats, there was liver and kidney disorders, including tumors and even more worryingly, in the female rats, there were mammary tumors at a level which is extremely concerning; up to 80 percent of the female rats had mammary tumors by the end of the trial.” – Patrick Holden, Director, Sustainable Food Trust.

Source:  http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

Spread the word: GMOs are toxic!

See the "What is a GMO" video by Nutiva:
http://www.youtube.com/user/nutiva?feature=watch

Watch the new video on GMOs by Jeffrey Smith:
http://www.geneticroulettemovie.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html#ixzz2AxqoLCui

Aspartame is linked to leukemia and lymphoma in new landmark study on humans

(NaturalNews.com) As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.

The most thorough study yet on aspartame - Over two million person-years
For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants' aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.

One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas
The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

• 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
• 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
• 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)

These results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Note that diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame (by far) in the U.S. Every year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is found in diet sodas.

Confirmation of previous high quality research on animals
This new study shows the importance of the quality of research. Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The fact that it also shows a positive link to cancer should come as no surprise, because a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006: aspartame significantly increased the risk for lymphomas and leukemia in both males and females. More worrying is the follow on mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers in which aspartame has been implicated (brain, breast, prostate, etc.)?

There is now more reason than ever to completely avoid aspartame in our daily diet. For those who are tempted to go back to sugary sodas as a "healthy" alternative, this study had a surprise finding: men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (even worse than for diet soda). Perhaps the healthiest soda is no soda at all.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418

About the author:
Ethan Evers is author of the award-winning medical thriller "The Eden Prescription," in which cutting-edge researchers perfect an effective, all-natural treatment for cancer, only to be hunted down by pharmaceutical interests which will stop at nothing to protect their $80 billion cancer drug cash machine. The Eden Prescription is based on the latest science and draws on real historical events stretching back to the beginning of the "War on Cancer." Ethan has a PhD in Applied Science.

Source:

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops

IMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)

(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.

In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.

The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.

The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year’s end.

Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, “GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops.” He says, “Consumers don’t need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org.”

Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.

The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.


Source

U.S. government panel now pushing "vaccinations for all!" No exceptions

(NaturalNews) An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is known to be unsafe.

"Now no one should say 'Should I or shouldn't I?'" said CDC flu specialist Anthony Fiore.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu vaccines hazardous. If accepted by the CDC, this recommendation will then be publicized to doctors and other health workers.

The CDC nearly always accepts the advisory committee's recommendations.

Current CDC recommendations call for the yearly vaccination of all children over the age of six months, all adults over the age of 49, health care workers, people with chronic health problems and anyone who cares for a person in one of these groups. These recommendations cover 85 percent of the US population.

Excluded are adults between the ages of 19 and 49 who do not come into close contact with people in high-risk groups. The new recommendation, if adopted, would close that gap, bringing an end to a 10-year campaign by supporters of universal vaccination. In the past, the advisory committee has been reluctant to recommend universal vaccination for fear that it might produce vaccine shortages that place members of higher risk groups in danger. Yet even with current recommendations, only 33 percent of the public gets vaccinated every year, leaving millions of doses to be disposed of.

The H1N1 swine flu scare of the past year played a major role in the committee's about face, both because the disease killed many people falling outside the current recommended vaccine demographic and because it raised public awareness of and demand for vaccines.


Source

FDA Proposes Dangerous Vaccine Rule Change 6-21-2010

Obama Administration admits rationing panels exist in ObamaCare

Sarah Palin was right! Of course, when she mentioned it liberals went nuts claiming that she was fear-mongering. Now, President Obama’s Budget Director is heralding the cost cutting measure.

Just a reminder from the Governor:

Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:


“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

Source

We blundered over swine flu, admit health chiefs

Global health chiefs have finally admitted that they may have overreacted to the swine flu 'pandemic' - landing governments with millions of unused vaccines.

The World Health Organisation has conceded that it may have been guilty of failing to communicate 'uncertainties' about how virulent the new virus was.

Critics say the UN agency was too quick to designate the influenza a pandemic in June after it spread from Mexico.

Keiji Fukuda, its top influenza expert, yesterday admitted a six-phase system for declaring this was confusing and the bug was not actually as deadly as bird flu.

'The reality is there is a huge amount of uncertainty (in a pandemic),' he said.

'I think we did not convey the uncertainty. That was interpreted by many as a non-transparent process.'

He admitted the scale may be flawed as it takes into account the geographic spread of a virus but not its severity.

'Confusion about phases and level of severity remains a very vexing issue,' added Mr Fukuda.

He was addressing a meeting of experts reviewing the WHO's handling of the first influenza pandemic in 40 years.

Last week it emerged Britain wasted up to £300million on vaccines that will never be used.

H1N1 has killed 17,770 people in 213 countries, the WHO says.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1265530/We-blundered-swine-flu-admit-health-chiefs.html#ixzz0l3grZYLx


Source

H1N1 Spread Linked to Seasonal Flu Shots

The four new studies conducted by Canadian researchers conclude that the traditional seasonal flu vaccine seems to have boosted the risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 swine flu by almost double.

In one study, the researchers revealed to use ongoing sentinel monitoring system in order to assess the frequency of prior vaccination with the seasonal flu vaccine in people suffering from H1N1 swine flu in 2009 compared to people without swine flu.

The study discovered that seasonal flu vaccination was linked with a 68 percent boosted risk of falling in prey to swine flu.

“I do think that they did the best they could with the data they had”, said Dr. Mark Loeb, an infectious diseases expert at McMaster University in Hamilton who was not part of the study and who seems to be sceptical about the study’s conclusion.

The studies, published April 6 in the online journal PLoS Medicine, attributed to the combined of over 40 researchers including many of Canada’s top influenza experts. The data is reported to be fetched from four studies that draw cases from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

However, the studies failed to show the presence of a true cause-and-effect link between seasonal flu vaccination and subsequent swine flu illness, or it is due to presence of a common factor among the people in the study.


Source

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

Many state governments -- which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies -- also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

"It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.

At least in the short term, regulators will be able to do little more than require insurers to publicly explain why they want to raise rates. Consumer advocates think that will not be an effective deterrent against premium increases such as the 39% hike that Anthem Blue Cross sent some California customers last year.

"The irony here is that it was the Anthem rate increase that breathed new life into the healthcare bill," said Jerry Flanagan, medical policy director of Consumer Watchdog, a longtime supporter of tougher premium regulation. "But there is nothing in this bill to guarantee that it doesn't happen again."

The lack of muscle is stoking concerns that more rate jumps -- and an angry backlash from ratepayers -- could undermine support for implementing the healthcare overhaul.

Insurance industry officials say that talk of more regulation is misguided and have urged federal officials to focus instead on containing rising medical costs, which help drive up premiums.

"Politicians are much more comfortable looking at healthcare premiums," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm.

Ignagni, as well as some independent healthcare experts, said policymakers should look at ways to control what hospitals and other providers charge, although few elected officials have shown much appetite for doing so.

Obama endorsed Feinstein's insurance proposal this year, including it in the healthcare blueprint he unveiled in February as Democrats were struggling to revive their proposals. But congressional rules prevented Democratic leaders from including the rate control provision in the final healthcare package.

Many consumer advocates think this enhanced regulation -- known in the industry as "prior approval" authority -- is the only real way to protect ratepayers from insurers, particularly for-profit companies under pressure to generate returns that satisfy Wall Street investors.

Prior approval requires insurers to submit proposed rate increases to regulators, who can then comb through companies' financial and actuarial data to see if the proposals are justified.

Insurers cannot raise premiums without explicit permission from the regulator.

Some states have given prior approval authority to their insurance commissions and have used it to force down premiums.

In New York, the state insurance department reduced nearly a quarter of the proposed premium increases between 1990 and 1995, according to a recent department analysis.

More recently, state regulators in Kansas successfully pushed Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas to reduce a proposed premium increase for some of its elderly customers, according to state Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger.

California, which does not have the power to block health plan increases, has been using similar authority to control property and auto insurance premiums for more than 20 years, said Dwight M. Jaffee, a real estate and finance professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "It has been very successful," said Jaffee, who studied the state's experience.

Health insurance, however, is more complicated than property and auto coverage. And even the most active state regulators typically cannot investigate every proposed change in every segment of the insurance market.

In Maine, where an aggressive Bureau of Insurance reviewed 186 rate filings in 2009, regulators focus on the so-called individual market, where people buy coverage if it is not available through their jobs.

Maine is battling Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which regulators last year blocked from raising premiums an average of 18.5% on its individual customers.

Many states do far less, often requiring insurers only to file their proposed rate increases with the state insurance commissioner before passing them along to consumers. New York switched to that approach in 1996, a move that state regulators say resulted in "excessive rate increases."

A handful of states, such as Missouri, do not even require insurers to publicly disclose rate hikes.

The new federal healthcare law would step up oversight of health insurers in states with such limited regulation.

The bill directs the secretary of Health and Human Services to work with state regulators to develop a process for reviewing proposed premium increases to determine if they are unreasonable.

Insurers that propose such hikes would be required to post justifications on their websites.

For the first time, all insurance companies would have to dedicate at least 75% of their premiums to paying medical claims; this would reduce the proportion of companies' revenue that could go to administrative expenses, such as executive salaries and stockholder dividends. Some analysts think that requirement could restrain premium growth.

"These provisions are powerful forces that will help end sky-high premium hikes," said Nick Papas, a spokesman for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

On Monday, the department announced it would accelerate the development of new regulations.

But more intensive oversight would not begin until 2014, when states set up new regulated insurance markets, or exchanges, where consumers who do not get insurance at work would shop for coverage.

The healthcare bill allows regulators to ban insurers from the exchanges if their rates are deemed unjustified.

Even some regulators wary of greater Washington control over state affairs say that more federal protections may be needed before then.

"Some consistency there is probably warranted," said Praeger, a Republican and former head of the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners. Praeger criticized Obama's original proposal to give the federal government authority to block rate increases.

But she said last week that the insurance commissioners association was now talking with the administration about how the federal government could set a stronger minimum national standard for regulating medical insurance companies.

That could encourage more states to require insurers to get state approval before raising premiums.

On Capitol Hill, Feinstein said she was looking at ways to move her premium regulation bill forward, perhaps by attaching it to other legislation with bipartisan support.

Stepping up regulation doesn't promise to be easy. Insurance companies in Maine and Massachusetts have sued state regulators who tried to block rate increases.


Source

Don’t Be Fooled: Republicans Love Government Enforced Healthcare

Forget all the self-serving diatribes by Republicans about Obamacare. They are for government enforced health care. “Republicans were for President Barack Obama’s requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it,” the Associated Press reports this morning.

Republicans trumpeted the “obligation” (at gunpoint) that Americans buy health care insurance from large monopolistic corporations for decades, long before Hill and Bill attempted to foist their version on the plebs.

Republican statists view health care at gunpoint as a “free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare.”

Of course Republicans don’t support Medicare. It does not fit the narrow confines of their partisan political ideology. Medicare was included as part of the Social Security Act of 1965, signed into law by president Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat.

Republicans are miffed because Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. Republicans are not opposed to totalitarian care, they are simply opposed to the Democrat version.

If you believe Republicans are serious about controlling costs, look no further than Bush’s $3 trillion budget proposal in 2008 (a record at the time). When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.

Mitt Romney — who was billed as the man who would save us from Obama and the “socialists” during the selection, er election — forced the residents of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. Lord Romney said government mandated health care is “a personal responsibility principle.”

Government invariably demands “personal responsibility” on the part of the plebs while it engages in corruption, starts wars under false pretense and kills millions of people, and enslaves future generations to bankster debt.

Romney’s health care at gunpoint was backed by Scott Brown, the Republican that had Democrats and the usual suspects at MSNBC and CNN chattering about a fascist rightwing takeover of Congress.

Brown replaced the late Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. It was said his appointment would almost certainly lead to the collapse of Obamacare. Brown says his opposition to the new shakedown for large insurance corporations is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal “over-reach” — because Democrats are doing the reaching — on a matter that should be left up to states. It was a different story when his buddy Mitt was forcing gunpoint healthcare down the throats of Massachusettans.

In the case of states’ rights, Brown might want to look at the example set by the former leader of his party, George W. Bush. The Bush administration violated the Tenth Amendment by repeatedly meddling in the states in regard to medical marijuana, the federalization of education, and state control of the National Guard.

“The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,” health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School told the Associated Press. In 1991, Pauly published a paper explaining how a “mandate” (government coercion) could be combined with tax credits to force the commoners into compliance. Pauly’s paper was embraced by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Republicans like to tell you they are opposed to taxation. Instead, they use taxes as a carrot and a stick to force government mandates down your throat.

Nixon before Bush backed the idea of a mandate that employers provide insurance. Even the Heritage Foundation back in the day supported this government imposed “individual requirement.”

Later today in Nevada, the Republican Tea Party will gather and demand the ouster of Democrat Sen. Harry Reid and the Democrats for passing Obamacare. The event will be led by the darling of the establishment Tea Party, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. On Friday, Tea Party Sarah threw her support behind the establishment stalwart John McCain.

McCain’s latest authoritarian outrage is the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010″ that, if passed, would turn the country into a military dictatorship. It was introduced with the participation of the notorious warmonger Joe Lieberman. Apparently the legislation is backed by Tea Party Sarah.

The Nevada event was organized by the Tea Party Express, an organization in bed with Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which is closely affiliated with the Republican-affiliated consulting firm Russo Marsh & Associates. In other words, the event in Nevada will be strictly an establishment Republican affair. The objective is not to get rid of government enforced health care, but to get of rid of Reid and put in a Republican. It is another example of the false right-left paradigm in action.

In January, the Tea Party Express supported Scott Brown. As noted above, Brown supported Romney’s version of Obamacare in Massachusetts.

Republicans will shamelessly exploit the compromised Tea Party and the efforts of the states to repeal Obamacare in order to win seats in Congress during the mid-term elections. If they manage to overturn the Democrat majority in Congress, they will not work to repeal Obamacare. They may nibble around the edges of the bill but will leave it largely intact. Republicans have no problem with the government forcing you to shell over your money to large insurance companies. Republicans are enforcers for the global elite and transnational corporations.

Both Republicans and Democrats need to be trounced in November. Obamacare needs to be challenged on Constitutional grounds. The establishment controlled Supreme Court, however, cannot be counted on to repeal the bill. It may take civil disobedience on the part of millions of Americans before this bill ends up in the dust bin of history where it belongs.


Source

The Shadow Government’s Healthcare Bill Rules

I recently wrote what I had hoped was a satirical article, poking fun at the fact President Obama could not feasibly have read all the legislation he has signed into law, centering on the on the mammoth 2,700 page Healthcare Reform Bill. And although some people appreciated the article, a couple of readers did not.

One lady reader condemned the piece as being negative, with no discernible point; while, she invested no more of her own thought in it than that. A male reader (who showed some thought) bought the truth that while Obama probably didn’t read the Healthcare bill – due to time constraints – he was certainly briefed with a detailed summary of it, highlighting the bill’s major points.

This gentleman, like many others, does not see the absurdity of legislation that is so long it could take weeks or months to read; after all, our Constitution was handwritten on about four or five pages.

Our Declaration of Independence was handwritten on one sheet of paper.

Our lawmakers and president should not be briefed on proposed laws, they should scrutinize every line, of every proposed law, as it is that important to the American people. And the American public should be given the opportunity to do the same, as President Obama promised.

Our presidents should veto any bill they cannot comfortably read and understand in one sitting. In fact, if there are legislative passages the average, literate Americans cannot understand, those too should be vetoed. Convoluted, long passages in legislation is simply an effort to hide tyrannical intentions. And with “voice votes” becoming popular, in congress, we are even denied the knowledge of knowing just who supports tyranny.

All points of legislation should be debated in Congress, by senators and representatives, not given “talking points” by unseen agents of the International Monetary/Banking Cartel, to memorize and parrot to the corporate media.

In response, I asked the gentleman, above, who seemed to think a briefing was adequate, to consider what a colossal briefing Mr. Obama would have to have had to cover all 2,700 pages of just that one bill – the mislabeled Healthcare “Reform” Act.

If Mr. Obama was briefed in detail on the steady stream of hundreds of thousands of legislation pages proposed in congress, he’d be spending every waking moment being briefed, without doing any of it real justice.

Divinity students spend years in college studying the detailed summaries that highlight the major points in the 1,300 page Bible, and still not cover it all. Does the gentleman really think Obama can be briefed on something the size of ten novels, or two Bibles, in a month or so, especially considering all the other thousands of pages of Executive Orders (written for him) that he signs, or the thousands of pages of regulations that are annually issued by Executive Branch agencies?

Sadly, Mr. Obama – and our lawmakers – do no more than read (from teleprompters) or repeat “talking points” given to them by shadowy sources -the minions of the Shadow Government, that are beholden to the International Monetary/Banking Cartel.

Mr. Obama, and most all other politicians, avoid the subjects of who reads or writes the thousands of pages of legislation, regulations, directives, and executives orders that pour out of Washington annually, as they do not know who writes it all, and do not want to have to admit they don’t read much of any of it in any case. With one exception.

That exception, that was probably read by Obama, et al, was written into the Healthcare Reform Act as a loophole for the privileged: The president, his staff and family, Joe Biden’s staff and family, Nancy Pelosi’s staff, Harry Reid’s staff, and many other insiders are all exempted from the mandates of Obamacare. How nice, they’ve given it all to us taxpaying Americans to have, to hold, and to pay for.

It would seem to me that if most of the tenets of the world-wide Christian religion are contained within 1,300 pages of the Holy Bible, America does not need 900,000 to millions of pages of legislation, orders, directives, and regulations to be governed. How can we obey those laws if we don’t even know what they are?

But, the critical questions all thinking Americans will ask themselves run along the lines of who wrote the hundreds of thousands of pages of US legislation, orders, directives, and regulations that so severely affect our lives. That Madame and Sir was the point of my satirical piece, and is the important point of this article.


Source

Thanks, but No Thanks, Mr. Obama

I am an un-insured American. I guess I am supposed to be dancing in the streets today, what with this legislation about to be signed into law supposedly being on behalf of persons like myself. My near-sightedness, my sleep issues, my dental concerns—heck, even my bowel movements—have just been elevated to a subject worthy of federal legislation. And yet, somehow, I am decidedly not in a celebratory mood. Indeed, my feelings on the matter fall somewhere between “pissed off” and “re-secede from the Union.”

I know, I know, that’s extreme. But it’s an extreme action the President and the majority in Congress has taken. We’ll come back to that momentarily. But for now, I’ll establish why I am not feeling euphoric. Despite the fact that I am completely broke, and despite the fact that when I do get sick (which I recently was), it ends up involving debt and aggravation, I simply don’t want anything from government—federal, state, and local—other than for them to leave me the hell alone.

Most of the modern activities of government I have no desire whatsoever to participate in, much less to pay for, and, frankly, I resent the pretence that they are all carried out on my behalf. Bailing out the banks two years ago surely wasn’t for my benefit or yours; neither was that little scheme concerning weapons of mass destruction in Mesopotamia seven trips around sun ago. Why should government run healthcare be any different? Not to mention the blatantly obvious, but the bill just passed includes compulsory provisions that will fine the uninsured (like myself) if we don’t get coverage by such-and-such a date.

Dearly beloved, I am officially calling caca-del-torro on that provision. The company I work for offers decent plans, as I understand it, even for part-timers; but I let open-enrollment pass by without jumping on the bandwagon because I did not want additional money (such that it is, but that’s a separate subject) taken out of my check. Even for a good plan, it struck me as unaffordable with everything else that I am supposed to take care of (but sometimes can’t). Opting out was my choice. I made the intentional decision to bring home more money in lieu of insurance coverage. That is a textbook example of something economists call “cost-benefit analysis.”

At this stage my life, the cash is more immediately useful to me. Again, for emphasis, it was my choice. So this bill—this supposedly glorious, cure-all bill—would preemptively deny me the choice to sit it out and bring home the cash. The options available to me would be get coverage, or pay the stinking federal government a big fat fine—both of which, I suppose, I would have to pay for with funds magically created from sunshine and farts since my whole reason for not being covered is the fact that I can’t spare the extra money to begin with.

That being said, I’m just going to go ahead and say that I have no intention of getting any coverage whatsoever until I can actually afford it; and, I’ll go ahead and add this, since I’m broke as hell anyway, and I have no intention or ability to pay some jackass fine, I’m not going to pay it. It strikes me every bit as onerous and ridiculous as the old debtors prison system; I’m sure if I got locked up in Georgia, General Oglethorpe would be spinning in his grave across the pond.

There are provisions in that steaming-turd of a bill to allow the IRS to garnish wages to pay for coverage—and I suppose if I want to keep working, I can’t keep my company from hitting my paycheck. But you know, if you think it through, forcing any private individual or firm to collect taxes on behalf of government is tantamount to involuntary servitude. So much for the Thirteenth Amendment; but with the way sales and payroll taxes are collected, and with the draft last century, we’ve been ignoring the constitutional safeguards against having the will of others imposed upon our persons anyway.

Now, I could make a pretty strong constitutional case against this bill. It is federal usurpation on the grandest scale, a clear assumption of powers not delegated by the States or the people thereof to the central government, making it a swipe at the reserved powers of the States and the people. I could make that case, and I could easily go onward for many, many pages. But I won’t. Damn near every action of the federal government in the present day is some sort of blatant violation of the Ninth and Tenth amendments, so belaboring the point won’t serve much of a purpose. That and I think the moral argument in this case is stronger than the constitutional argument.

Your health is something that is fundamentally and basically yours. Your well-being belongs to you, and no one else, and if you are physically and mentally able and are no longer child, preserving it is your responsibility and no one else’s. That has everything to do with I quit smoking and drinking, and why I am trying to get the weight off—my own body is mine to take care of. Now, if some other entity, be it a company or a government, or even a spouse, takes control over how I take care of it (or don’t) I am no longer free regarding my own body. Now, to a wife, sure, I’d be willing to cede some of my autonomy. But see, that’s a voluntary partnership that is worlds apart from some bureaucrat telling me what treatments I can and can’t get at my age, or what doctors I can visit, etc. What I am stabbing at here is simple really: your health, being so basic to your existence in this life, is such that whoever controls your ability to maintain it effectively owns you.

I don’t know why that is so difficult to understand. I guess if you are comfortable with the idea of being owned, well, more power to you. I wish we could depart in peace. But that’s just it. No one can be allowed to opt out of participating and paying, because if that were a path open to any of us, who would remain in and pick up the tab?

Which comes to crux of the matter: Taxation comes with the implied threat of force. You are compelled to pay, and if you were to resist with a sufficient amount of, shall we say, chutzpah, the government, in claiming a monopoly on the use of force posits a right to kill you. So, therefore, we are seeing erected a healthcare system based not on the doctor patient relationship as in the days of old, or upon the damnable corporatist model presently existing, but upon the implied threat of force. The federal government will engage in banditry supposedly on behalf of the uninsured, and will serve as an engine of redistribution, and if you say “hell no” and fight back, they claim the right to pull the trigger in your direction.

Fine; perhaps such is unstoppable. That American healthcare would come to be based upon the implied threat of force should surprise no one, given that since at least the end of the War Between the States, the organizational principle of the federal government is the implied threat of force. But really, Mr. President, can you and your party spare us the pious rhetoric that pretends this is for the poor? We’re not as stupid as you and your predecessor in office think we are. We can look at this and ask the question “qui bono?” (who benefits?), and, as plain as the nose on my face, it can be shown, unequivocally, that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries supposedly to be punished by the measure are, in fact, poised to be its primary beneficiaries. If the government means to force everyone to get a coverage plan, and those plans are to be offered by these companies, then who the hell else could possibly stand to reap the windfall?

Additionally, in a sense, it’s to be a type of jobs bill as well, in all the new agents that will have to be hired for various agencies (including the pernicious IRS) to be employed in an enforcement capacity.

Now, examine if you will who owns the largest insurance companies, and who holds significant stakes in the pharmaceutical industry. GASP! Some of the same damn banks which were bailed out two years ago. Surprise! Could it be? Could it really be that some politicians would or could cynically use the issue of our health as a means to foist a system that would loop through the back door a continuing revenue stream to these same criminals?

Say it ain’t so!

While I agree with the sentiment, lawsuits in the federal courts aren’t going to do a bit of good, a fact arising from the sheer stupidity committed by an earlier generation of Americans who came to think it would be just a peachy idea for one branch of the federal government to be trusted with exclusively deciding the extent of the powers of said government.

The states and their ability in their organized capacity as bodies political to interpose between the individual citizens and unjust, unwarranted, and unconstitutional actions have been severely crippled. It’s time to resurrect that the old understanding of Sovereignty, that We, the People, are supposed to be ABSOLUTE RULERS of ALL OF OUR GOVERNMENTS, and as far as the federal government is concerned, that We, the People, in our organized capacity as THE STATES, are SOVEREIGN ABOVE IT. It was not meant to own us; we were not meant to serve it. It was designed to be a servant of the people and the States. In essence, I am suggesting, strongly, that it is time to rediscover the authentic and original, pre-Civil War conceptualization of federalism and popular sovereignty, and to invoke as vigorously as possible the principles enunciated in Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798:

“Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that when-so-ever the general government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

Now, the fact that I assert that the time has come for nullification and interposition opens up a whole different can of worms. And I’ll answer that right out of the gate: States Rights arguments have been abused in the past relative to racial issues. I don’t deny that. It is sad and unfortunate, and I regret the fact that earlier generations couldn’t see the error in tangling sound, constitutional principles with unsound, immoral, and unjust assertions about race.

I couldn’t care a damn less about the race of the President. I heard Wanda Sykes the other evening state that the only reason anyone was opposing the plan is that President is black. Bull. Fiscal insanity is fiscal insanity, regardless of the color of the individual proposing it. And to tell the truth, when it was clear Ron Paul mathematically would not be able to take the Republican nomination, based strictly on his then asserted pledge to leave Iraq within a year (a promise already well-broken), I considered voting for the guy now in office (I didn’t vote for him, but I considered it). And, taking into account that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are equally as responsible for spearheading this bill through, and that they are whiter than I am, attempting to make a race issue out of this would be profoundly ignorant and remarkably silly.

I will go ahead and tie this shut by saying all I want to do is to live my life as peaceably as possible. I’d like to live it out as I see fit, earn enough to take care of myself, and, if I can ever find a woman who’ll put up with me, a wife a few kids. And I’d like to be able to do that without having to concern myself with whether or not some damn lying politician is going to hatch a big idea he or she wants me to help pay for, or which will leave my hypothetical children less free than they otherwise would have been. All the flag-waving, chest thumping, swaggering, and jawing about how we’re the greatest and freest country ever doesn’t and won’t change the fact that we’re not as free as we used to be or could be.

And we won’t be, so long as others presume to plan our lives one way or another for us.


Source

The States, and 10th Amendment, will Thwart Obamacare

As I pointed out in an article here a few months ago, there is a specific “lawful” procedure, a specific set of steps that must be followed in order to satisfy lawful service, and peacefully stop unlawful federal mandates including this Obama-care travesty. I describe this procedure much like the final moves in a chess game. The states must pass the 10th Amendment Resolution first, which demands that the federal agency show chapter and verse, to the satisfaction of the state, as to the constitutionality of any federal mandate. This resolution puts the federal government on notice that the states are perfectly capable of understanding the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and know exactly what they mean. This informs the federal government that it’s King in check. Once 38 of the 50 states have independently informed the federal government of this condition, the feds can continue their little game… or they can resign it.

If the FEDS choose to continue, then the states independently put forth the Constitutional State Sovereignty Act which spells out the specific mandate or mandates that they wish to address, or can retroactively review all federal mandates at will. This bill when enacted into law within the state, emphasizes with real law that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power. This power was reserved by the states in the 10th Amendment and gains its power by the rights reserved to the People in the 9th Amendment. Thus, without state review affirming a federal mandate, it cannot become law within the state.

In effect this shuts down federal power within the state over and above that which is spelled out in the Organic Constitution, or that the state determines by law, to be within the bounds of the Constitution. This opens to state scrutiny, all federally enacted “law,” including all constitutional amendments and subsequent statutory interpretation that has been enacted since the ratification of the organic Constitution on December 15, 1791. In effect… “Checkmate!” The FED’s game for total control is lost. All it takes is 38 states working Independently in communication with other states to effectively shut down the foreign usurpers, “LAWFULLY.”

Each of these state resolutions, and each of the sovereignty acts, must be done within the state alone with some communication between states of course, but not by some kind of convention. I’m sure you all understand why. The flurry of constitutional amendments that exploded in the confusion after the civil war and the Lincoln assassination, from 1865 until the present day, are precisely the method that has been used by the rogue federal government to exploit the states and the people to seat itself in primacy in 1871. As a result over time their plan has rendered us debtors and paupers in the richest land on planet Earth.

The Bill of Rights begins at the 1st Amendment with the words, “Congress shall make no law…” By the time of the nefarious and usurping 16th amendment… amendments begin with the words, “Congress shall have power…”

Think about it…

As has been correctly pointed out, there is latent secession-ism, in some of these resolutions. The secessionists as I have stated before, are a provocateur group. They have their roots clear back to before the Civil War. The object of their provocateuring is to stop any possible lawful 10th amendment movement within the states aimed at reigning in Federal power. Their goal is twist it into an unlawful secessionist movement. If someone says they are for secession, then what they are really saying is they are for Vassal State Globalism, pure and simple, whether they know it or not.

Adhering strictly to the organic Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as ratified in convention on December 15, 1791, ( the only time the Constitution was fully ratified, I might add ), as being the basis of, and for this inquiry via the 10th Amendment, the enacted law needed to accomplish this. This is why it is necessary and essential that the organic 1791 ratified Constitution SHALL BE, and must remain untouched as the supreme Law of the Land, being in itself the organic basis for the 10th Amendment and the Law empowering these Constitutional complaints against the federal government. In so doing, the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement remains lawful and true. Remember, the present federal government is NOT our constitutional government, it is a corporatist foreign power bent upon complete take over. Because of this, any talk of secession, the breaking of the Constitutional Agreement, or the breaking away of any state from the constitutional union, would spell disaster!


Source

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else.

A number of states are already challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and polling data released earlier shows that 49% of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the health care bill.

Rasmussen Reports will track support for the repeal effort on a weekly basis for as long as it remains a significant issue. The next update will be released Monday morning.

Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit. Only 19% disagree and say it will not. Twelve percent (12%) think it will have no impact on the deficit.

Throughout the legislative debate, advocates of the reform expressed frustration about the fact that voters believe it will increase the deficit. Many, including the president, pointed to Congressional Budget Office projections to argue that the plan will actually reduce the deficit. However, voters are skeptical of the official government projection, and 81% believe the actual cost of the program will be higher than projected.

Voters have consistently said that reducing the federal budget deficit is a higher priority than health care reform. They also believe that deficit reduction is the goal Obama is least likely to achieve as president.

Overall, 41% of voters believe the new health care legislation will be good for the country, while 49% believe it will be bad for the country.

While 64% of Mainstream voters think the health care plan will be bad for the country, 90% of the Political Class see its passage as a good thing.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters nationwide say the legislation will have a positive impact on them personally, while 43% expect a negative impact. Twenty-five percent (25%) say the massive overhaul of the health care system will have no impact on them personally.

A total of 24% believe it will be good for the country and good for them personally. Forty percent (40%) believe it will be bad for the country and bad for them personally.

Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the health care bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.

The president has enjoyed a bounce in his Job Approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll following passage of the legislation. However, the bounce has come from increased enthusiasm among Democrats rather than increased support from Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

While some aspects of the new health care law are popular, most voters oppose the measures required to cover the nearly one trillion dollars in additional spending called for over the next decade. Fifty-six percent (56%) oppose the reductions in Medicare spending, a figure that includes 70% of those over 65.


Source

Investigation Chief: Swine Flu Pandemic Was A Hoax

Council of Europe chair says pharmaceutical companies conspired with WHO to make vast profits from fake hysteria

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, outgoing Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg said that his panel’s investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak has found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO to make vast profits while endangering public health.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a 47 nation body encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, began hearings last month to investigate whether the H1N1 swine flu pandemic was falsified or exaggerated in an attempt to profit from vaccine sales.

Wodarg said that governments were “threatened” by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.

Wodarg said he was alarmed when the WHO cited early cases in Mexico as a threat and quickly moved to pandemic status, despite the fact that the cases were relatively mild and the virus was not new.

“This was the mildest flu ever and the people were much more clever than the government so we have to find out what was going on with WHO – why did they do this pandemic alarm,” asked Wodarg, noting that pharmaceutical interests within the World Health Organization were instrumental in creating the panic and reaping the financial dividends.

“We don’t know what really happened, we only know that they changed the definition of a pandemic, which was a very dangerous thing before and now is just a normal flu, and this is why business for pharmaceutical companies was open,” said Wodarg, adding that select pharmaceutical companies were handed a monopoly on creating the vaccine.

“It is their trick that they always try to monopolize this and we pay much more like this,” said Wodarg, noting that if patents were left open, vaccines would be produced much quicker and far cheaper.

Wodarg said there was “no other explanation” for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.

He also explained how health authorities were “already waiting for something to happen” before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.

Wodarg said that the investigation was likely to recommend an end to the undue influence of pharmaceutical companies on public health institutions in Europe.

However, Wodarg pointed out, “There is no law for WHO, there is no one who punishes those people in WHO, we only have national law, so this is very important that we collect the information and on the national level we try to find those people responsible and we try to punish them.”

“Have investigations, have a deep look, we cannot tolerate such a development, we cannot have this next winter again, we don’t want such fake pandemics,” concluded Wodarg.

Wodarg said that vast quantities of unused vaccines were now being dumped on the third world and that other countries were simply trying to push ahead with vaccination programs even though the virus has proven not to be a major threat.

“The Japanese bought vaccines for 110 million people and they cannot return from this vaccine contract so they are in a very big political dilemma now and they already have problems because the Japanese people already know it wouldn’t be necessary to get vaccinated,” Wodarg told The Alex Jones Show.

View source for interview with Wodarg


Source