Tag Archives: ron paul 2012

The Bug-A-Salt Shotgun


The Bug-A-Salt Shotgun (VIDEO)

Story by: Max Slowik

The Bug-A-Salt, “The original salt gun,” is not an ordinary means to deal with pest insects and other irritating invertebrates. It combines the comfort of a bug-free environment with the satisfaction of shooting. Loaded with table salt, the Bug-A-Salt is an easy and safe way to off bugs.

It’s a simple spring-loaded salt shooter with an effective range of 3-5 feet. This kills or at least stuns pests without splatter for easy cleaning. The internal salt reservoir holds enough for about 50 shots.

Being a ranged bug killer, the Bug-A-Salt makes taking care of pests that would normally be out of reach much easier. And the fact that it uses salt as a projectile make it much safer and cleaner than insecticides and other bug-control measures.

The Bug-A-Salt’s current list price is $30, and you can pre-order one on Indiegogo, a capital-building project-launching website similar to Kickstarter, of the Andromeda Tactical Lamp fame. Invented by Santa Monica artist Lorenzo Maggiore, the Indiegogo project has already met it’s minimum goal of $15,000 and exceeded it greatly, having raised well over $70,000 for these salt-spraying machines.

Bug-A-Salt

There are still many days left for you to pre-order a Bug-A-Salt if you want one. It’s non-toxic, uses no batteries, is safe around kids and pets (although not on kids and pets) and cheap to operate.

Plus, it has a nostalgia about it that we can’t quite put our finger on. We half expect to see ads for this on extremely late-night television, before they shut off the transmitters, back when transmitters got shut off at night. At least the color scheme is right, focusing on the orangest of oranges, the yellowest of yellows, and the most tactical of greys to fit in with many decades of strange plastic toys.

Of course, this is not a toy. Don’t shoot it at people, and certainly don’t load it with pepper and shoot your siblings in the face with it. Not even if you have to take time off work and fly out to Springfield just for the chance to do so. Because you’re a responsible adult now, and adults don’t do that sort of thing.

Besides, you can get them their own Bug-A-Salts. In addition to individual salt guns, you can buy them in pairs, half-dozens, dozens and scores, for $55, $165, $285, and $2,500 respectively.

For more video of the Bug-A-Salt in action, check out the website here.

SOURCE

Obama will win a second term and John Kerry will be Secretary of State – Heard it here first 07/17/2012

John Kerry’s secretary of state dry run

The treaty could allow the U.S. to play a greater role in maritime decisions, some say. |
By JESSICA MEYERS |

Sen. John Kerry has the perfect audition piece for the secretary of state job he appears to covet — the long-stalled Law of the Sea treaty.

He’s come armed with a throng of industry backers and pleas from the country’s top officials. But a cadre of conservatives remains determined to sink it.

The international treaty, which governs use of the world’s oceans and affects everyone from shippers to telecom companies, has withered in the Senate for almost two decades. If Kerry fails to slip it through this session, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman doesn’t just miss out on the lead role. He loses treaty supporter and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), along with other willing moderates.

So he’s positioning the vote for the lame-duck session, when it stands the best chance. And with Congress at an impasse, nothing will look better than a Senate treaty that doesn’t need House support.

“I refuse to politicize this,” Kerry told POLITICO, “so we’re not going to do anything until after the elections.”

The debate comes down to sovereignty and money. Advocates argue the treaty would allow the United States to play a greater role in maritime decisions and enhance both business opportunities and navigational rights. Opponents say it robs America of its authority and redistributes revenue to developing countries.

Kerry said lawmakers need to revisit the treaty because the United States abides by its rules but can’t benefit from them. This matters even more as countries lay claim to the melting Arctic’s routes and resources. The Massachusetts Democrat points to “significant backing” from oil and gas companies, the Navy and the maritime industry.

Kerry’s critics consider the recent push as much about politics as principle. His desire for the Cabinet position is one of Washington’s badly kept secrets.

“He’s very well versed in the issue, and he’s decided that it’s doable, and if he gets it across the finish line, maybe he will get secretary of state,” a senior GOP aide said.

A letter signed so far by 28 senators, including five Foreign Relations Committee members and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) promises to oppose ratification.

The treaty “reflects political, economic and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values,” the senators wrote.

The European Union and 161 countries have signed the treaty, known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States remains the primary industrialized nation not to have done so.

The Foreign Relations Committee will hold its fourth hearing Thursday, this time focusing on the treaty’s effect on business interests.

Industry may end up creating some of the most powerful waves. Lockheed Martin, Verizon, the Chamber of Commerce and a host of commercial heavy hitters are lobbying for passage. The American Petroleum Institute joined a list of supporters last week, and both the National Association of Manufacturers and the Association for Rare Earth added their names Monday. Groups united earlier this year to create the American Sovereignty Campaign, which focuses solely on promoting the treaty.

“Before it was all government-to-government stuff, but industry is actually suffering and speaking up for the first time,” said Jonathan Waldron, a maritime lawyer. “This is probably the first time ever that industry has gotten involved.”

Companies now have the capability to mine minerals and lay underwater cables deep in the world’s oceans, he said, affecting everything from cellphones to gas prices. Waldron said the treaty would enhance these opportunities by solidifying the country’s rights further from shore.

Chamber of Shipping of America President Joseph Cox, who testified in favor of the treaty twice in the past two decades, said the new interest could shift the dynamic.

“I’ve been at the table, the Navy has been at the table and everyone has patted our head and told us to go home,” he said. “But now we have the money guys involved.”

A high-profile cast including six four-star generals and admirals, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Martin Dempsey and John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, have testified in agreement.

“We have undermined our moral authority by not having a seat at the table for nations who make arguments,” Panetta said at a recent hearing, citing concerns with China’s claims in the South China Sea.

Detractors say the current law works just fine.

“It would literally be crazy for us to turn over our sovereign rights of our continental shelf to an international body and expect that everyone else is going to play by the rules,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told POLITICO.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified against the treaty on similar grounds. “I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes it a legal obligation for productive countries to pay royalties to less productive countries,” he said at a recent hearing.

The financing refers to payments of up to 7 percent that the United States would need to make. Clinton has said there would be a say in how that money gets distributed.

So what’s new in a fight that started after the Convention formed in 1982?

“Nothing,” said Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation, who has testified against the treaty and doesn’t find the industry backing all that revelatory.

Except, he said, Kerry “may see that it’s becoming more and more difficult to get the votes he needs.”

Read more: SOURCE

Election Predictions and All That Rot

Why 2012 election predictions are rubbish: Fear the Black Swan!

Custom Search

You want to know who’s going to be the next president of the United States? Happy to oblige.

Just tell me who’s going to win Ohio. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. And only one Democrat has done it—JFK by a whisker—in the past 50 years.

Or tell me what will happen to real personal income growth in the third quarter of 2012.

Or tell me what the jobless rate will be in the fall, since (all together now), no incumbent since FDR has been re-elected when the unemployment rate has been higher than 7.2 percent.

What’s that? You can’t do that because it’s only April?

That doesn’t stop an army of soothsayers — including ones at Yahoo! — from offering up formulas to calculate, with scientific precision, the shape of the November vote. As common-sense guides, they make sense: incumbents and incumbent parties suffer when the economy is bad; a deeply divided party has a hard time winning a general election. As “laws” with the predictive capacity of knowing when ice melts … not so much. (Back in 2000, the most trusted academic models of the election forecast a comfortable-to-overwhelming Democratic popular vote victory based on the glowing economy; what we got was an effective tie).

I received an early lesson in caution after boldly predicting that John Lindsay would win the White House in 1972. Even stronger lessons were provided over the years by the appearance of a hugely influential factor in Presidential elections: the Black Swan.

The term comes, not from that Natalie Portman ballet movie, but from a best-selling book in 2007 by Nassim Nicholas Taleb that examines our persistent “ability” to ignore the potentially huge effects of unlikely, random events. Given what happened a year later–when we woke up on a mid-September day to find the financial universe on the brink of collapse–the book seemed prescient. In political terms, “Black Swans” have shown up often enough to make even the boldest soothsayer hold his tongue.

Think back to 1960, when Republicans could still compete for the black vote, and when an influential figure like Martin Luther King Sr. endorsed Richard Nixon out of concern about a Catholic in the White House. Then, on October 25, King’s son was arrested on a bogus parole-violation charge and transferred to a rural state prison where, his family feared, his life might be endangered. After John Kennedy called King’s wife, and Robert Kennedy called the governor of Georgia (and after Richard Nixon’s efforts to have the Justice Department intercede were ignored), King was released, and his father announced he was transferring his “suitcase full of votes” to Kennedy. On Election Day, black voters were crucial to Kennedy’s razor-thin margins not just in Illinois (8,000 controversially counted votes), but also in Michigan, New Jersey and Missouri.

Or consider 1968, when Hubert Humphrey had closed the once-cavernous gap between himself and Richard Nixon. With days to go before Election Day, the United States and North Vietnam were very close to an agreement on peace negotiations. Thanks to the intervention by Anna Chennault, an unofficial but well-connected Nixon campaign emissary, the South Vietnamese government balked. Had that deal been concluded by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, there’s good reason to think that Vice President Humphrey would have won the election.

Go back to the last days of the 2000 campaign, and the disclosure of a drunk-driving arrest of a young George W. Bush. Karl Rove maintained that the story cost Bush the popular vote by keeping a few million evangelicals away from the polls. And for Democrats, that butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County will always be a Black Swan of pterodactyl-sized proportions.

Or look again at the financial collapse of mid-September 2008. I’m skeptical of claims that John McCain could have won that contest under any circumstances, given the financial resources of Barack Obama’s campaign and the country’s unhappiness with President Bush. Without question, though, the fear of economic meltdown meant a shift in the tenor of the campaign, one that that redounded in Obama’s favor.

Not every late-breaking event changes the outcome of an election. John Kerry believed that the release of an Osama Bin Laden video just before the 2004 election cost him the White House; I lean more toward a superior get-out-the-vote operation in Ohio by the Bush campaign.

And it’s not that fundamental things don’t apply. If you think in terms of probabilities rather than predictive certainty, the fall economic data is a sound guide for placing bets.

But until someone can take a quick trip into the future and tell me how Ohio’s going to vote, I’ll say no sooth.

SOURCE

Obama Executive ‘Order’: Prelude to Martial Law? US can seize any person, any resource, any time

Obama Executive ‘Order’: US can seize any person, any resource, any time

by Carl Herman

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” – James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.

President Obama signed an Executive Order for “National Defense” yesterday that claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime, for self-declared “national defense.”

The EO claims power to place any American into military or “allocated” labor use (analysis here and here).

“American exceptionalism” is the belief that a 200+ year-old parchment in the National Archives has magical powers to somehow guarantee limited government from 1% tyranny, despite the specific and clear warnings of the US Founders, despite world history of repeated oligarchic/1% tyranny claiming to be for the “good of the people,” and despite US history’s descent into vicious psychopathy (short version here: US war history in 2 minutes) hidden in plain view with paper-thin corporate media propaganda.

I don’t know about you, but both my grandfathers were in the US military during the gruesome WW1. My father, father-in-law, and only uncle were in a brutal WW2. Both wars were functions of colonialism; a 1%’s vicious and rapacious greed.

Now, we’re all looking at WW3 that includes official policy and dark rhetoric for US first-strike use of nuclear weapons on Iran. This, after multiple current lie-started and treaty-violating wars surrounding Iran, increased US military preparations, multiple war-propagandizing US political “leaders,” and recent history of US overthrowing Iran’s democracy and 35 consecutive years of US war on Iran that killed over one million Iranians.

I don’t know about you, but I’m teaching the obvious crimes in war and money, destruction of Constitutional Rights rights (see specific links below), and asking students (of all ages) what they see to do about these clear facts. The first answer people see is to help people get over their “American exceptionalism” to recognize these massive crimes, and demand arrests of the obvious criminal “leadership.”

I don’t know about you, but I refuse to be silent in face of lying and criminal government policies that annually murder millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of the 99%’s dollars.

What will you do?

Here is the US government claiming it can Constitutionally assassinate Americans upon the non-reviewable dictate of the leader, as these criminals take psychopathic steps to murder Americans who expose their crimes.

Here is NDAA 2012 where US government claims it can Constitutionally disappear Americans and then appoint a tribunal with death sentence authority (unless unlimited detention is their choice). Here is the 2006 Military Commissions Act that says the same. This is fascist terrorism to silence Americans from communicating that the 1% are War Criminals to arrest NOW.

Here is US government claiming it can Constitutionally control-drown (waterboard) anyone they declare a “terrorist” as a 1% terror-tactic to silence Americans.

Again, what will you do?

SOURCE

The Federal Reserve’s Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%

The Federal Reserve’s Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.

Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed’s answer:

“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public’s ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.”

In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar’s value is the best the FOMC can do.

Here’s why:

First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.

The results of the past 40 years say the opposite.

The Fed’s finger prints in the form of monetary manipulation are all over the dozen financial crises and spikes in unemployment we have experienced since abandoning the gold standard in 1971. The financial crisis of 2008, caused in no small part by the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates too low for, as it turned out, way too long is but the latest example of the Fed failing to fulfill its mandate to achieve either price stability or full employment.

The Fed’s most recent experience with Quantitative Easing also belies the entire notion that monetary manipulation can spur the economy. Between November 2010 and June 2011, the Fed tried to spur economic growth by purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities, flooding the banking system with reserves and keeping interest rates low. In response the economy, which had been growing at a 3.4% annual rate, slowed to a 1% annual rate in the first half of 2011. Once, the Fed stopped supplying all of that liquidity, economic growth in the second half of the year accelerated to a 2.3% annual rate.

Second, the Fed does not use real time indicators of the price level. Instead, it views inflation through the rear view mirror of the trailing increases in the PCE. And, even when it had evidence of rising inflation — as it did in the first quarter of last year — it chose to temporize, betting that the spike in inflation would prove temporary.

This spike in inflation did prove temporary, as Fed Chairman Bernanke predicted at the time, but not for the reasons — a slack economy — that he cited. Instead, the growing debt crisis in Europe led to a massive shift in deposits out of the euro and into the dollar — an event totally out of the Fed’s control. Yet, this increase in the demand for dollars was far more important than any action taken by the Fed because it increased the value of the dollar and produced a slowdown in the inflation rate.

What we are left with is a trial and error monetary system that depends on the best judgment of 19 men and women who meet every six weeks around a big table at the Federal Reserve in Washington. At the end of a day and a half of discussions, 11 of them vote on what to do next. The error the members of the FOMC fear most when they vote is deflation. So, they have built in a 2% margin of error.

Given the crudeness of the tools the FOMC uses to set monetary policy, allowing for such a margin of error is no doubt prudent. For example, when the economy slowed in the first half of last year, inflation picked up, accelerating to a 6.1% annual rate during the second quarter. And, when the economic growth accelerated in the second half, inflation slowed. These results are the precise opposite of what the Fed’s playbook says are supposed to happen.

The best the Fed can do — an average debauch in the dollar’s value of 2% a year while producing recurring financial crises and a more cyclical economy — is demonstrably inferior to the results produced by the classical gold standard. Here’s just one example. The largest gold discovery of modern times set off the 1849 California gold rush and increased the supply of gold in the world faster than the increase in the output of goods and services. The price level in the U.S. did increase by12.4 percent over the next 8 years. That translates into an average of just 1.5% a year. The gold standard at its worst was better than the best the Fed now promises to do with the paper dollar.

The Fed’s best is hardly good enough. The time has arrived for the American people to demand something far better — a dollar as good as gold.
SOURCE

WARNING! Russia Prepares For War as Obama Issues Ron Paul “Kill Order”!

Russia Prepares For War as Obama Issues Ron Paul “Kill Order

Global Research
The European Union Times –

The Federal Security Service (FSB) is reporting today that the “secret letter” sent to Prime Minister Putin by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda contains a warning that United States President Barack Obama has issued an executive-level “kill order” against US Congressman Ron Paul over fears this charismatic politician, who many believe could capture the Republican Presidential 2012 nomination, is about to expose to all Americans what can only be described as the largest mass theft in human history. The “kill order” is a metaphor for silencing down congressman Ron Paul in the mass media as if he doesn’t exist.

According to this report, Prime Minister Noda first became aware of this “kill order” after a private meeting with Obama at last weeks ASEAN Summit meeting in Indonesia when the American President expressed his “unconstrained joy” over the toppling of the Greek and Italian governments in bloodless coups by EU banksters who installed to run these countries unelected former Goldman Sachs executives.

Not known to many Americans is that the giant global investment firm Goldman Sachs put Obama into office by being its top donor and after winning the Presidency put so many of its former executives into the US government it is known as the “Wall Street Cabinet.”

The reason for Goldman Sachs, and other top American and European banksters, putting Obama into office, this report continues, was to loot the Americans taxpayers of an estimated $100 Trillion…nearly $30 Trillion of which went directly into the pockets of international banksters around the world and another $70 Trillion in lost home values, stock portfolios and pensions funds.

The main conduit of this massive theft was the US Federal Reserve System which during the 2008 Financial Crisis secretly doled out, without the American peoples knowledge, over $16 Trillion to European banks and companies and another nearly $8 Trillion in “secret loans” to the largest banks in the United States.

Causing Obama and his bankster allies to fear Ron Paul, this report continues, is the Congressman’s ability to hold US Congressional hearings on the $8 Trillion in secret loans to the largest banks in American without the pub

Ron Paul: I want to repeal Roe v. Wade

Ron Paul: I want to repeal Roe v. Wade

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas told CBN’s David Brody that he wants to repeal the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which upheld a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb.

Paul, a presidential candidate and libertarian, has gained an enthusiastic following for his strong views on limited government, free market economics and non-interventionist foreign policy. Recently, he has become more vocal about socially conservative issues like abortion.

He said he disliked the idea of a pro-life constitutional amendment because he does not “like to see big government.”

“I see the attack on the unborn as an act of violence and it should be dealt with at the local level,” Paul said.

“What I want to do is repeal Roe v. Wade. And the best way to do that is to eliminate the federal jurisdiction. So, we could have done that 10 or 15 years ago. We should have done it when the right to life majority was in office.”

Paul said it wouldn’t have been a perfect solution, but it could have stopped abortions in many states.

Think of how many lives could have been saved that way.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube, below:

SOURCE

Perry Proposes 20 Percent Flat Tax

Perry Proposes 20 Percent Flat Tax

Perry would keep popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable gifts.

By Alex Roarty and Rebecca Kaplan

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry unveiled a sweeping economic agenda Monday, highlighted by a plan to level a voluntary 20 percent “flat tax” on all taxpayers who will accept it in place of what they’re paying now.

The plan, outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column a day before the Texas governor was set to announce it in South Carolina, also calls for capping federal spending at 18 percent of the country’s GDP while allowing younger earners to privatize their Social Security accounts — a controversial proposal that echoes President George W. Bush’s failed 2005 attempt to overhaul the retirement program.

But the most significant feature of Perry’s plan is his call for a flat tax rate of 20 percent. Taxpayers who don’t want to pay a 20 percent flat income tax, he said, can keep their current rate.Current marginal income tax rates range from 10 percent to 35 percent, depending on taxpayers’ income.

Perry offers several proposals that appear designed to sweeten the offer — and to counter criticism that the flat tax is regressive, taking a proportionally bigger bite from smaller incomes. His plan would preserve popular deductions for mortgage interest and donations to charity for households earning less than $500,000 a year. It would increase the standard deduction to $12,500.

But Perry would eliminate other tax breaks. He argues that a streamed-down tax code (so simple, he says taxpayers can file on a postcard), along with spending cuts and entitlement changes, will stimulate the economy.

“By eliminating the dozens of carveouts that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy,” Perry writes.

Although critics deride it as unfair to lower-income Americans, the “flat tax” has long been a favorite of many fiscal conservatives. Businessman Steve Forbes, who endorsed the governor Monday, made it the hallmark of his presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000, and it’s a favorite idea of many congressional Republicans.

For Perry, the tax overhaul represents an effort to return into the good graces of many conservatives disappointed with a series of stumbling debate performances and apostasies on immigration policy. On Monday, just 10 weeks before the Iowa caucuses, his campaign announced the hire of six new staffers and the start of an ad campaign in the Hawkeye State.

His economic agenda does appear to go farther than some of his rivals. Neither Romney nor former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman have called for a flat tax (Romney’s history with the flat tax is complicated), and Perry’s call for a 20 percent corporate tax rate is higher than Atlanta businessman Herman Cain’s proposed call for a nine percent rate (although Cain also calls for a nine percent national sales tax.)

Perry’s proposed cap on federal spending, 18 percent of GDP, is two points lower than Romney asked for in his own economic plan.

Calling his agenda “Cut, Balance and Grow” — a clear nod to congressional Republicans, who have proposed a “Cut, Cap and Balance” budget bill — Perry says his proposal is the best way to cure the nation’s ailing economy.

“Cut, Balance and Grow” strikes a major blow against the “Washington-knows-best mindset,” Perry said. “It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.”

Perry will formally announce his plan Tuesday at a high-tech plastics firm in Gray Court, S.C., outside of Greenville. Later in the day, he will travel to the statehouse in Columbia to announce endorsements from some state legislators.

SOURCE

2012 U.S. ELECTIONS CANCELED

ELECTIONS CANCELED FOR 2012 IN THE US

Communist Party USA Endorses Barack Obama and Democrats For 2012 Election

Henry D’Andrea

Obama received a critical endorsement, The Communist Party USA. The Communist Party USA leader, Sam Webb, explains why he will continue to support Obama and Democrats in 2012. The Communist Party USA has consistently supported and infiltrated the Democratic Party.

Also note, Sam Webb, the leader of the party, called Obama a friend back in 2008.

Sam Webb Via People’s World:

It is obvious that there is a growing feeling of frustration and even anger among supporters of the Democratic Party with its performance over the past two years.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaking for the labor movement, strongly expressed this unhappiness in some recent speeches.

I am disappointed too with some aspects of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy.

But I don’t forget that this administration governs in a very hostile political environment in which the right is laboring overtime to wreck its initiatives at every step of the way.

In addition, there are the structural pressures of governing in a capitalist economy and state.

Then there are conservative pressures coming from some congressional Democrats and members of the administration.

Everything can’t be explained away by the objective context, however. The president and his administration can be faulted for a number of policy decisions.

But the main question from a strategic point of view is this: Does it make any difference, from the standpoint of the class and democratic struggles, which party gains political ascendency?

Some – though not the labor movement nor other mass organizations of the American people – say no, it doesn’t.

Some even go a step further and say a Democratic victory creates popular illusions, which in turn weaken the people’s struggles. And the only way out of this vise is to form a third party now.

Communists don’t agree with either one of these views. In our view, the differences between the two parties of capitalism are of consequence to class and democratic struggles.

Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren’t identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008 the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people’s movement – labor in the first place.

As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people’s party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.

Moreover, to separate ourselves at this moment from these forces would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year’s elections.

Now that doesn’t mean that we give up our advocacy of an independent people’s party, but we also understand that its formation is dictated by concrete political realities and strategic necessities. Nor does it mean that we hit the mute button when the Obama administration takes positions that we don’t agree with. Just as we show no hesitation in supporting, and fighting for, the administration’s progressive initiatives, we should have no compunction about taking issue with the administration when it takes positions that we don’t agree on.

Which is what we have done.

When someone says we are not critical of the administration what they usually mean is that our criticism isn’t as sweeping and categorical as they would like.

We make criticisms, but we do it in a certain context and with a certain strategic objective in mind. We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism, lies and economic sabotage, setting the stage for a full blown return to power of the most reactionary, racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist grouping in U.S. politics.

We want no part of that. We don’t have any illusions about the Democratic Party, but we don’t have any illusions about the Republican Party either.

Furthermore, we are also aware of the undeniable fact that no other party besides the Democratic Party stands a chance of beating the GOP next year.

I’m sure Obama will win in 2012 now.. yeah right.

SOURCE

Electric Car for the 1%.

Fisker Karma Electric Car Gets Worse Mileage Than an SUV

Warren Meyer’s

Electric Car for the 1%.

The Fisker Karma electric car, developed mainly with your tax money so that a bunch of rich VC’s wouldn’t have to risk any real money, has rolled out with an nominal EPA MPGe of 52.

Not bad? Unfortunately, it’s a sham. This figure is calculated using the grossly flawed EPA process that substantially underestimates the amount of fossil fuels required to power the electric car, as I showed in great depth in an earlier Forbes.com article. In short, the EPA methodology leaves out, among other things, the conversion efficiency in generating the electricity from fossil fuels in the first place.

In the Clinton administration, the Department of Energy (DOE) created a far superior well to wheels MPGe metric the honestly compares the typical fossil fuel use of an electric vs. gasoline car.

As I calculated in my earlier Forbes article, one needs to multiply the EPA MPGe by .365 to get a number that truly compares fossil fuel use of an electric car with a traditional gasoline engine car on an apples to apples basis. In the case of the Fisker Karma, we get a true MPGe of 19. This makes it worse than even the city rating of a Ford Explorer SUV.

Congrats to the Fisker Karma, which now joins corn ethanol in the ranks of heavily subsidized supposedly green technologies that are actually worse for the environment than current solutions.

Postscript: I will say, though, that the Fisker Karma does serve a social purpose — Hollywood celebrities and the ultra rich, who want to display their green credentials, no longer have to be stuck with a little econobox. They can now enjoy a little leg room and luxury.

SOURCE

Wall Street Insider: Obama 2012 Re-Election “Not An Option”

Wall Street Insider: Obama 2012 Re-Election “Not An Option”

by Ulsterman

Author’s Note: This is our second interview with a longtime Wall Street Insider – an individual who, under agreed-to anonymity in order to protect their own and their client’s interests, wishes to share their views on the presidency of Barack Obama, and the past, present, and future of the American socio-economic system.

Ulsterman: First, I have to thank you once again for agreeing to the initial interview. I understand you were very hesitant, but in the end I think it went very well.

WS Insider: Agreed. I found the result to be acceptable. If I had not, there certainly would not have been this second interview.

Ulsterman: Given what is happening just down the road from this office, I have to ask you about the Occupy Wall Street events. You have to have pretty strong feelings about all of this?

WS Insider: Not really. Very little of it is real. It’s…politics. It’s stupid kids being played by powers they don’t have the capacity to understand. That’s not to say it isn’t potentially dangerous, or that the president has acted terribly irresponsibly in his clear support for the protests. But for now, I view it all as a silly sideshow. A distraction really. Or an attempted one.

Ulsterman: How so?

WS Insider: What?

Ulsterman: A distraction. How are the protests a distraction?

WS Insider: How isn’t it all a distraction? Look how some in the media are attempting to elevate the protests as something noble – something…”American”. There is nothing American about what those kids are doing down there. It’s silly. It’s boorish behavior from a wound-up mob of perpetual discontents. It’s manipulation actually. Basic manipulation.

Ulsterman:
Who is manipulating this? Who is behind it? Obama? President Obama?

WS Insider: Not the president directly, no. He’s simply a benefactor of this – at least he hopes to be. He’s not capable of this. President Obama, but for a handful of years and millions of dollars, is just as ignorant and foolish as those kids playing those damn drums in the street. The fact such a person was made President of the United States is more than a bit…troubling.

Ulsterman: So who is manipulating the protests? You seem to indicate you know.

WS Insider:
Oh, I believe most people really know. There are media who certainly know. Some of it has already been reported. Labor unions. I would place the labor unions as first in line in helping set all of this up. This anti-Wall Street rubbish. As I told you previously, labor unions are destroying this country. Have been for some time. Not the rank and file mind you – but the leadership. They have been infected. The leadership within those unions have been overtaken by the most vile leftist, anti-free market figures in the history of this nation. I truly believe that. And as their numbers have declined in private industry, these unions have turned their attentions to federal, state, and local jurisdictions – vastly increased their membership numbers in those institutions. And they are twisting the arm of this president – hard.

Ulsterman: How so?

WS Insider: What did you see in the streets down there? Beyond the stupidity of those kids. Those ridiculous people. What did you see?

Ulsterman:
A mess. A loud mess.

WS Insider: That mess as you call it…that mess is power. A display of power. These unions are showing the president who holds the real power over these people. They can work for this president, or they can work against him – and it will be the unions who ultimately will make that decision. That is a significant message being played out down there. President Obama has little to do with controlling such a mob. He is simply a by-product of it. His jobs bill? (Shakes head) That move is nothing more than a feeble promise by the president that more money is on its way. To those unions. The first stimulus bill…what was that but a massive payback to his labor union masters? Keep those government checks coming. Those millions of government employees – the country has reached the tipping point there. To have a government so big, so vast, so powerful, so controlled now by organized labor. Labor whose leadership openly embraces socialism, Marxism, and any number of other –isms that all add up to anti-freedom. Anti-business. Anti-America. That is what is unfolding just down the street from us. The people engaged in it are silly and stupid. Ignorant and incapable. But the motives of the organizer behind these protests are very-very dangerous to the country. To each and every one of us. We are all in terrible danger here.

Ulsterman: That’s rather bleak.

WS Insider: The truth often is. My words don’t do justice to just how dire the situation has become.

Ulsterman: What’s the remedy? How does the country go about…dealing with this threat?

WS Insider: Vote. Educate ourselves – and vote. It is the genius of our system – the simplest of remedies, and yet…we squander the opportunity in this country time and time again in favor of continued protection of self-interest, or giving in to more and more distraction. If your house is on fire, do you continue watching Dancing with the Stars, or do you take action to put out the flames? America is on fire this very moment. Freedom is being attacked at every level – everywhere. President Obama is simply adding fuel to this fire. He appears to have no interest in putting out those flames. Far from it. And why would he? His entire life is a product of years of anti-Americanism is it not? From his upbringing as a child, to his time as a radicalized college student and later community organizer…to his ascent to the Presidency of theUnited States. He is what he is, and this country so foolishly and irresponsibly ignored all the realities that are Barack Obama, and gifted him the powers of president. We are all to blame for this. All of us.

Ulsterman:
I didn’t vote for the man.

WS Insider: Your attempt to disqualify blame is not that simple.

Ulsterman: You just said voting was the simplest of remedies. Your words.

WS Insider: (Pause) Yes…

Ulsterman: I didn’t vote for the man. Did you?

WS Insider: No.

Ulsterman: No? You voted for McCain?

WS Insider: No – I didn’t vote. I haven’t voted for…for a very long time.

Ulsterman: Really? Why not? How can you sit here and say how genius our system of free elections are and then admit to not even participating?

WS Insider: I won’t offer up any excuse. No reasonable one exists. As I said, we are all guilty – we are all to blame for how the country has devolved into its current condition. Myself included.

Ulsterman: So do you intend to vote now? 2012? You intend to vote?

WS Insider: Yes – and more.

Ulsterman: More what?

WS Insider: Just as our friend is working to defeat the president’s re-election hopes from within the Democratic Party, I am doing what I can in my world. And I’m not alone in doing so.

Ulsterman: Wall Street – the donors, the bundlers, they won’t support Obama, right? I’ve heard that already.

WS Insider: That’s accurate to some degree – when you say “Wall Street” it’s not a single-entry clubhouse. Far more vast than that. And the difference of opinions even more so. But there is a considerable…refusal if you will, to accommodate this president’s desire to be re-elected among a growing number who are directly or indirectly involved with Wall Street and the business community at large. This president has attempted to use us as his excuse for what ails the country too often. It comes much too easily to him.

Ulsterman: You seem confident.

WS Insider: Good – that’s my intent.

Ulsterman: Is it reasonable? Your confidence?

WS Insider: Yes.

Ulsterman: How so? Why?

WS Insider: That…I cannot say. Not yet.

Ulsterman: The last time we spoke…you were pretty adamant about maintaining respect for the president – President Obama. You made a point of correcting me when I addressed him. Do you still feel the need to remain so respectful of somebody you also seem to think was a terrible mistake for the country? And if so, why?

WS Insider: It’s how I view the office of president. Its tradition. It’s…legacy. This is the greatest country in the history of humankind. In the last century we saved the world not once – but twice. Toward the end of that century we freed hundreds of millions from the tyranny of communism…off the subject just a bit…but I have been told you have a great deal of admiration for President Reagan. Is that so?

Ulsterman:
Yes…and I was told you met him. Personally.

WS Insider: I did. Through a connection to one of his California people. They were the foundation of his candidacy. The seed money if you will. I was loosely affiliated with helping to organize some of that here inNew York. A remarkable collection of talent surrounded that man – President Reagan. And he gave every indication of knowing that – and acknowledged it often. Much to his credit.

Ulsterman: And you met him…when he was president?

WS Insider: I did. It remains one of the greatest moments of my life to have shaken his hand. A great human being and yet he was so humble. The right man at a time when the country needed that very thing. There is so much in common to that time and this time. What the country is facing. It’s eerie the similarities.

Ulsterman: Did you vote for Reagan?

WS Insider: President Reagan. You mean to say President Reagan.

Ulsterman: Yes – did you vote for President Reagan?

WS Insider:
It is with more than a bit of regret I tell you I did not.

Ulsterman: Shame on you.

WS Insider:
Yes. I have had few regrets in this life. That is one of them.

Ulsterman: You do intend to vote in 2012 though, right?

WS Insider: Yes – that’s what I said…and much more than that. Much more.

Ulsterman: Can you be more specific?

WS Insider: How about we start with those fools in the streets? Time to sweep the streets clean of that charade.

Ulsterman: How do you plan on doing that?

WS Insider: By picking up a broom.

Ulsterman: You won’t say?

WS Insider: No.

Ulsterman: What then?

WS Insider:
More former donors will back off from the president. There will be a significant shift away from the White House in donations. Significant. K-Street…much of it, is running from this administration. And for good reason of course. Then the ad firms will push against the networks a bit – to facilitate somewhat more balanced coverage of the election than what befell us in 2008. That was a travesty.

Ulsterman: Ad firms?

WS Insider: Yes. Networks require revenue from these firms…hundreds of millions…billions, in revenue each year. It is what sustains them. That revenue will not be a given this time around. Things must change. That change will not benefit President Obama. The unions will attempt to counterbalance that. Let them try – we will outspend them this time around. We now have the means to more easily do so. They put up half a billion for President Obama the last time. Fine. We will put up a billion against him – or more if need be, in 2012. These unions wish to promote an anti-capitalism agenda and wrap it around the current resident of the White House? Fine – we will be promoting and protecting the free market as much as has ever been done in my professional lifetime – and that goes back more than a few years. This face didn’t come to me by taking the easy way. I earned every crack and crevice.

Ulsterman: What if Obama – President Obama…what if he wins re-election?

WS Insider: As our mutual acquaintance has already told you, that is simply not an option. I want to make something clear here – perhaps I haven’t done so enough. I have the utmost respect for the position of president. I have come to hold little respect for the individual who currently holds that position. I am absolutely convinced of his inability to comprehend even a fraction of what is happening around him. He is not so much stupid…I don’t wish to say that – but he is clearly very-very ignorant. There appear to be those around him who like it that way. Sadly, in order to get to them, we must first inflict a certain degree of damage onto the office of president.

Ulsterman: What do you mean by damage?

WS Insider: Our friend has indicated to you their belief that the Fast and Furious scandal is the most serious challenge facing the administration. That it could lead to the downfall of Attorney General Holder and then leave the president himself vulnerable to things that took place back inChicago. Is my understanding of that correct?

Ulsterman:
Yes – that sums it up…pretty good.

WS Insider: I don’t agree with that though. Fast and Furious is a serious offense to be sure. What has been revealed – to this point only partially, by the Solyndra scandal, is far more serious, not only to this administration but to the entire Democratic Party. Many of them have their hands in the corruption that was the Obama Stimulus Bill of 2009. Solyndra is but one small example of how that money was spent. The dealings that took place under the false guise of saving the economy.

Ulsterman: Are you…are you implying –name withheld- is not being honest in their views regarding Fast and Furious vs. Solyndra?

WS Insider:
I don’t wish to say they lack honesty. I would simply caution you to keep your options open when determining which is the more valuable tool to be used against the Obama administration. Perhaps both can play equal parts. It is my personal understanding – and this is the talk of others in positions of some influence, that Solyndra – what Solyndra could ultimately reveal, could prove far more damaging to the entire political system…and certainly to the Democratic Party. –Name withheld- has spent their adult life protecting that party, promoting that party, and they have made a fine living for themselves doing so. That kind of loyalty, while admirable, can prove somewhat debilitating when it comes to the kind of… absolution necessary to right these kinds of wrongs. I will say this – I cannot recall when so many who are so powerful have been so afraid as there are at this time. –Name withheld- still believes the Democratic Party can be saved. I don’t agree. Their attempt to salvage what is left of the party may lead them to promote one Obama scandal over another one at the expense of the greater truth. I would simply ask that you maintain equal vigilance. Can you do so?

Ulsterman:
I thought I had.

WS Insider: Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Ulsterman:
So you are gonna push the Solyndra scandal against the president?

WS Insider: Me? No. Others more capable of such things are already doing that. I am simply pointing out I believe it to ultimately be of more consequence than Fast and Furious. Or at the very least – equally important.

Ulsterman:
I have no problem with that – whatever it takes to bring down Obama.

WS Insider: President Obama.

Ulsterman: Right…President Obama.

WS Insider: You dislike calling him that, don’t you?

Ulsterman: He’s not my president. I won’t give him that respect.

WS Insider:
Respect is to be earned. I would agree he has not done much in that regard.

Ulsterman: So look for the Wall Street protests to be…”swept up”. Look for donors to continue to pull away from the president. Look for…look for…

WS Insider: The ad firms. The ad firms to place pressure upon the networks to provide more favorable coverage.

Ulsterman:
What else? Am I missing something?

WS Insider: Solyndra. And more like it. Much more.

Ulsterman: Thank you again for this opportunity.

WS Insider: Before you go, do you mind if I ask you something?

Ulsterman: Feel free.

WS Insider:
Who do you plan on voting for in 2012?

Ulsterman: Anyone but Barack Obama.

WS Insider: It’s that simple for you?

Ulsterman: Yes – yes it is.

WS Insider:
You have no preference yet? From among the GOP candidates?

Ulsterman: Preferences…sure. I don’t have an individual choice yet. Why do you ask?

WS Insider: I find your…how simple you seem to make it. Rather…refreshing.

Ulsterman: The right things are often the most simple. At least in my experience.

WS Insider: I am not sure if I should call that naïve or something else.

Ulsterman: Call it whatever you like – at the end of the day I could give a sh-t.

WS Insider: (Chuckles) I hope we get to do this again soon. I’m beginning to genuinely enjoy our little talks. You’re every bit as interesting as I was told you were.

Ulsterman: Thank you. I feel the same.

__________________

Related Link:

http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/wall-street-insider-the-complete-interview/

Ron Paul Right For America

By DAN HIRSCHHORN |

Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he’ll get specific: the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.

There will even be a symbolic readjustment of the president’s own salary to put it in line with the average American salary.

During an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s debate, Paul will say that his plan for $1 trillion in cuts will create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.

“Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget,” says an executive summary of the plan, which POLITICO obtained, along with detailed spending and taxation levels, ahead of its release. “This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.”

Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.

And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”

The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.

And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”

Read more: SOURCE

70% of all doctors and nurses do not get the annual flu vaccine.

Seasonal Flu Vaccines, Are They Safe or Necessary?

Mary Tocco (c)copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved

__________________________

Independent Vaccine Researcher www.childhoodshots.com

____________________________________

Influenza or the flu is a respiratory infection caused by a virus that can be contagious. Symptoms include chills, fever, nausea, runny nose, sore throat, head and body aches, fatigue and loss of appetite. Symptoms can last from 12 hours to two to three days. It is only dangerous for people who are immune compromised which is often the elderly. When people die from the flu it is usually because of other illnesses or complications. Many people in the holistic community believe that the flu “symptoms” are a sign of internal toxification and a body that is out of balance.

Every year, thousands of people show symptoms of the flu. It seems to run in a cycle starting in the fall and continuing thru ought the winter until spring. There are many different strains of flu virus and therefore, as people travel the globe we are always getting exposed to new viruses. Children will usually complain of body aches and stop eating like they normally do. They will often run a fever of 102 degrees and sleep often through the day. The fever will spike during the night and ease up during the day.

There have been studies showing that there is a correlation between lack of sunshine, Vitamin D3 deficiency and the incidence of flu. Many people prepare themselves as they go into the winter months by taking vitamin and mineral supplements, herbs and by getting plenty of rest and eating a good healthy diet rich in vegetables.

There is no treatment once you have the flu other than keeping hydrated, bed rest and perhaps pain medication for the aches and pains. There are many herbs that may help you as well as essential oils and detoxing baths. The fever is part of the immune system process to “burn” any bacteria and viruses that cannot live in high temperatures.

Influenza Vaccines

The seasonal flu vaccine used to be recommended for the elderly. In 2003 the American Academyof Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control began to recommend it for children under the age of five as well. It is now recommended every year for every man, woman and child from the age of two throughout the rest of life as the result of the exaggerated H1N1 Flu pandemic of 2009. That pandemic was predicted to kill millions of people and ended up being a very mild flu season for most countries. This is a political vaccine with no scientific basis that will make millions for the flu manufactures and cause health problems for thousands. How does a person sift through the conflicting information provided? As a 30+ year independent vaccine researcher, I hope these facts will help you decide if you or your children will receive the seasonal flu vaccine.

Dangerous Effects

The first H1N1 flu vaccine of 2009 has proven to cause many unwanted side effects. Between the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) inWashington and other reliable sources, the side effects are causing problems one might see in a horror film. Not only was the vaccine rushed to the market, it was based on flawed reports from the Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization.

It is common knowledge that flu vaccines have always had the potential to cause serious side effects. Each year pharmaceutical companies release new flu shots that are virtually untested. They combine various flu virus strains based on an educated guess and then recommend the shot to everyone, including children and pregnant mothers. According to the CDC Vital Statistics Report 1999 – 2003, influenza death for children under the age of 5 skyrocketed as the government began to implement the flu vaccine for the children. From 1999 to early 2002, death rates were declining from 25 down to 10 per year, then in the latter half of 2002 the CDC mandated the flu vaccine for children, and the death rate climbed from 25 deaths per year in 1999 to over 90 in 2003! Death is a pretty bad vaccine side affect!

1999 — – 29 deaths

2000 — – 19 deaths

2001 — – 13 deaths

2002 — – 12 deaths

2003 — – 90 deaths (Year of mass vaccinations of children under age 5 years)

2004 — Unreported

2005 —- Unreported

2006 — – 78 deaths

2007 — – 88 deaths

2008 — 116 deaths (40.9% vaccinated at age 6 months to 23 months)

Pregnancy and Miscarriages

What other side effects did we see with the H1N1 flu shot in 2009-2010? According to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), there were 178 miscarriages after mothers received the H1N1 flu vaccine and 70 other documented from reliable sources. Considering that only 10% of all adverse events get reported, we know that the true numbers were much worse. According to testimony before the CDC advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV), Thursday, October 28, 2010 presented by Dr. Renee Tocco, on behalf of the National Coalition of Organized Women, (NCOW) the number of miscarriages were as high as 3,587 nationwide. Miscarriages, a pretty bad vaccine side effect!

A Swine Flu Vaccine Result-Damaged Babies

Dr. Renee went on to testify that the H1N1 flu pandemic was based on false information from the Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization. They claimed the pandemic in April 2009 was based on 56 maternal deaths saying it was a “Never before seen virus”. (This virus was in three flu vaccines given to thousands of people from 2006 forward: FluMist, Focetria (swine flu) and Fluvarin all contain the H1N1 virus.) They also stated the following: “In spite of the 178 VAERS fetal-death-associated influenza vaccine reports, the FDA has approved seasonal flu vaccines for the 2010 – 2011 flu season that, in addition to another “A” strain and a “B” strain of influenza, contain the “same” level of the “same” 2009-A-H1N1 viruses that were present in the 2009 – 2010 pandemic “swine flu” vaccines and has again approved several Thimerosal-preserved flu-shot formulations that may be given to pregnant women without a prominent “Warning: Contains Mercury” caution on the vial.” It is very clear that the Center for Disease Control is not about protecting people but focused on pushing unsafe vaccines on the unsuspecting public.

In 2010, Dr. Alicia Siston studied the 56 women who died supposedly from the H1N1 flu. Her study was referenced at this hearing, showing that most of these deaths were “Unconfirmed” as being H1N1 related deaths despite the fact that the CDC had tests that could have verified for certain that these were H1N1 related. The CDC used the deaths of these women to push their agenda…flu vaccines for every American, without sufficient reason.

Influenza Package Inserts

Every vaccine has risks, even the manufactures of vaccines admit that some recipients will die or be injured. Unfortunately, for the injured or the families of the dead, the manufactures are completely protected from all liability. The following is from a vaccine package insert admitting that it can be dangerous for many, that is was untested for safety in pregnancy and no studies were completed showing how it may affect the nursing baby:

Section 8- “This medication should not be used if you have certain medical conditions. Before using this medicine, consult your doctor or pharmacist if you have: history of allergy to egg or egg products, immune deficiency (e.g., agammaglobulinemia, HIV infection, leukemia, lymphoma, other cancers or radiation). Also avoid close contact with people who are immune-compromised (e.g., HIV infection, cancer therapy) for at least 21 days. This medication is not recommended for use during pregnancy. It is also not known whether FLUVIRIN® or FluZone can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. It is not known whether this drug passes into breast milk. Consult your doctor before breast-feeding.”

How is it that airports offer the flu vaccine, local drug stores, grocery store pharmacies and many other places where they do not have your medical records? Are doctors telling pregnant women that their unborn children may be at risk? Are they telling moms that the vaccines they are injecting may also contain (Thimerosal) that can potentially harm the unborn developing brains and be dangerous for them too? What happens if the Thimerosal passes into the breast milk of nursing moms?

Forced Influenza vaccines

According to the book, Make an Informed Vaccine Decision by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, “In the fall of 2005 John Hopkins University initiated a campaign to mandate influenza vaccination for all health care workers. However, despite free and easy access to the vaccine, only 40% voluntarily get one; 30% are afraid of catching the flu from the vaccine itself. A survey reported by the Associated Press found that doctors and nurses are the least likely to be vaccinated. In fact, 70% of all doctors and nurses do not get the annual flu vaccine.”

All major hospitals and other medical facilities are now requiring that all employees subject themselves to flu shots or they will be fired from their jobs! Imagine working as a nurse for 25 years only to be told that you no longer have the right to choose what drug you must take to keep your job. This is a direct violation of personal rights and overrides many state laws that give people the right to choose. It will not stop there…soon it will be the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine because of the pertussis outbreaks across the country. What vaccine will be required next, the cancer or AIDS vaccine? I am encouraging nurses and doctors to unite and fight these unlawful mandates. Perhaps when we have numerous law suits in the courts, hospitals and other medical facilities will stop acting like a medical mafia.

You now must decide who you are going to trust for your information and health care recommendations. I encourage people to thoroughly investigate all medications and vaccines before they agree to inject them. I know it can be very confusing as conflicting information is everywhere. Ultimately, it is your right to choose what your family does.

As a 30-year vaccine investigator, I know the dedication and time involved to make informed vaccine decisions. I personally no longer trust the CDC, the FDA and the current medical establishment that recommend routine vaccines for all people. They have failed to protect our families, and no longer represent the people. The medical industry is fueled by greed and special interest groups, and unfortunately many aspects of our government are highly influenced or perhaps even controlled by pharmaceutical companies.

Flu Mist: The nasal vaccine has never been studied to see if the viruses can penetrate the nasal cavity membrane between the sinus and the brain (barrier). When the CDC was asked if this had been studied by Dr. Mark Geier, their response was “No”.

Common Flu Vaccine Ingredients include:

Egg protein – causes egg allergies.
Formaldehyde – Formalyn (formalin) is a 37 percent solution of gaseous formaldehyde which includes methanol. Known toxin used in embalming.
Polysorbate 80 – shown to cause infertility in mice.
Sodium Chloride and Calcium Chloride.
Monosodium Glutamate (MSG): C5H8NNaO4, a Stabilizer MSG – man-made excito-toxin.
Potassium phosphate – a soluble salt which is used as a fertilizer, a food additive and a fungicide.
Thimerosal a form of mercury still found in some multi-vile vaccines.
Polyoxidonium – Synthetic polymers and nanomaterials display selective phenotypic effects in cells and in the body that affect signal transduction mechanisms involved in inflammation, differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis.
Squalene – An oil based adjuvant that has never been approved in the United States as safe, can cause blindness, autoimmune dysfunction and can inhibit sperm production. More than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers from ten different laboratories throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Australia have been published documenting the development of autoimmune disease in animals subjected to squalene-based adjuvants. Novartis will make a flu vaccine using MF59 consisting of squalene.
Tween 80 – A study (December 2005) discovered that Tween80 can cause anaphylaxis, a sometimes fatal reaction characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure, hives, and breathing difficulties.
Human Diploid Tissue – organ and tissue from aborted baby tissue is now used in manufacturing many vaccines.

Contraindications for administering the various flu vaccines the manufactures package insert are dismissed. The package inserts claim the following:
MedImmune – Fluzone

8. USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

8.1. Pregnancy

Fluzone and Fluzone High-Dose

“Pregnancy Category C: “Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose. It is also not known whether Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”

Fluzone Intradermal

Pregnancy Category B: “A developmental and reproductive toxicity study has been performed in female rabbits at a dose approximately 20 times the human dose (on a mg/kg basis) and has revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility or harm to the fetus due to Fluzone Intradermal. There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, Fluzone Intradermal should be used during pregnancy only if clearly needed. Healthcare providers are encouraged to register women who receive Fluzone Intradermal during pregnancy in Sanofi Pasteur Inc.’s vaccination pregnancy registry by calling 1-800-822-2463.”

8.3. Nursing Mothers

“It is not known whether Fluzone or Fluzone Intradermal is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Fluzone or Fluzone Intradermal is administered to a nursing woman.”

8.4. Pediatric Use

Fluzone

“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone in children below the age of 6 months have not been established. Safety and immunogenicity of Fluzone was evaluated in children 6 months through 8 years of age. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1) and Clinical Studies (14.1).]”

Fluzone High-Dose

“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone High-Dose in persons <65 years of age have not been established.”

Fluzone Intradermal

“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone Intradermal in persons <18 years of age have not been established. In a clinical trial, 97 infants and toddlers 6 months through 35 months of age and 160 children 3 years through 8 years of age were enrolled to receive two injections of Fluzone Intradermal. Infants and children in a control group received two injections of Fluzone. Fluzone Intradermal was associated with increased local reactogenicity relative to Fluzone. The size of the study was not adequate to reliably evaluate serious adverse events or the immune response elicited by Fluzone Intradermal relative to Fluzone.”

8.5. Geriatric Use

Fluzone

“…in two observational studies of Fluzone in 118 adults 19 through 59 year.”

Flu Mist – MedImmune- Here is some points of interest taken from the package insert: 5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness- “FluMist may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.” 8.1 Pregnancy

“Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with FluMist. It is not known whether FluMist can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. FluMist should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed. The effect of the vaccine on embryo-fetal and pre-weaning development was evaluated in a developmental toxicity study using pregnant rats receiving the frozen formulation. Groups of animals were administered the vaccine either once (during the period of organogenesis on gestation day 6) or twice (prior to gestation and during the period of organogenesis on gestation day 6), 250 microliter/rat/occasion (approximately 110-140 human dose equivalents), by intranasal instillation. No adverse effects on pregnancy, parturition, lactation, embryo-fetal or pre-weaning development were observed. There were no vaccine-related fetal malformations or other evidence of teratogenesis noted in this study.”

8.3 Nursing Mothers

“It is not known whether FluMist is excreted in human milk. Therefore, as some viruses are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised if FluMist is administered to nursing mothers.”

8.4 Pediatric Use

“Safety and effectiveness of the vaccine has been demonstrated for children 2 years of age and older with reduction in culture-confirmed influenza rates compared to active control (injectable influenza vaccine made by Sanofi Pasteur Inc.) and placebo [see Clinical Studies (14.1)]. FluMist is not approved for use in children <24 months of age. FluMist use in children <24 months has been associated with increased risk of hospitalization and wheezing in clinical trials [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1) and Adverse Reactions (6.1)].”

Charts used with permission from Raymond Obomsawin, PhD. Researcher and Neil Miller.

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm Package inserts for all flu vaccines

For more information purchase Mary Tocco’s “Are Vaccines Safe?” DVD

Recommended reading available in our store if you want additional information on this and other vaccines:

Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child

Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD MPH with Neil Z. Miller

Vaccination Social Violence and Criminality

Harris Coulter PhD.

The Virus and the Vaccine, The story of a Cancer Causing Monkey Virus

Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher

THE SV-40 VIRUS: HAS TAINTED POLIO VACCINE CAUSED AN INCREASE IN CANCER

United StatesCongress House of Representatives

This information provided as educational material only and not to be construed as medical advice.

It is up to the parent to decide if they want to vaccinate.

SOURCE

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

Republicans Advance Bill Targeting US Funding for UN: ‘What Are We Paying For?’

By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – A U.S. House committee Thursday approved a bill linking U.S. contributions to the United Nations to significant financial and other reforms, one day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned she would recommend that President Obama veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

Deeply divided along party lines, the House Foreign Relations Committee voted 23-15 for the U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act (H.R. 2829), whose most radical provision aims to force the U.N. to change its funding mechanism from the current system of “assessed” contributions to voluntary ones.

Proponents say this would allow the U.S. – and other member states – to fund only those activities and agencies it regards as being efficiently managed, and in the national interest.

In order to compel the U.N. to make the shift, the legislation would withhold 50 percent of the U.S. assessed contributions to the regular budget (which does not include peacekeeping) if the U.N. has not moved at least 80 percent of the budget to voluntary funding within two years.

American taxpayers account for 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular operating budget and 27 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget in “assessed” dues. In addition the U.S. provides billions of dollars in voluntary contributions for various U.N. agencies. In FY 2010 the total U.S. contribution was $7.69 billion.

Conservatives critical of the U.N. have long advocated the U.S. using its leverage, as the biggest funder by far, to push the world body to reform – and to weaken efforts by hostile member-states to use the U.N. to harm American interests.

The bill’s author, committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), told Thursday’s markup hearing that the U.N. budget continues to climb.

“What are we paying for?”
she asked, then cited repressive regimes’ membership on the Human Rights Council, a continuing anti-Israel bias, the elevation of member states like North Korea and Iran to leadership positions in various bodies, and corruption scandals.

“Why do we bear the financial burden for this?” Ros-Lehtinen continued. “Every year, scores of member countries that contribute almost nothing to the U.N. vote together to pass the budget. Then they pass the costs on to big donors like the U.S., which is assessed a whopping 22 percent.


“In contrast, China pays just three percent. We need a game-changer.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Howard Berman, said the “real agenda” behind the bill was to end U.S. participation in the U.N. and to “deal a fatal financial blow to the world body.”

He argued that there was no evidence to support the notion that withholding dues can leverage meaningful change.

“Previous attempts at withholding did not lead to any significant and lasting reforms – they only succeeded in weakening our diplomatic standing and influence, and undermining efforts to promote transparency, fiscal responsibility and good management practices in the U.N. system,”
Berman told the committee.

‘A dangerous retreat’

If the bill does pass in the House – where it has 125 co-sponsors, all Republican – its passage through the Democrat-controlled Senate would be an uphill battle. Even if it did make it through the Senate, its chances of making it into law are slim.

In a letter to Ros-Lehtinen on Wednesday, Clinton expressed strong opposition to the measure, saying if it reached the president, she would recommend a veto.

Citing U.N. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, she argued that international engagement through the U.N. comes at a fraction of the cost of acting alone.

“This bill also represents a dangerous retreat from the longstanding, bipartisan focus of the United States on constructive engagement within the United Nations to galvanize collective action to tackle urgent security problems,
” she wrote.

“If we act to diminish our global stature, the United States would surrender a key platform from which to shape international priorities, such as obtaining tough sanctions on Iran.”

During the hearing, Ros-Lehtinen referred to Clinton’s letter, and in particular the suggestion that the legislation could harm U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because other countries would not share the burden by paying for U.N. missions in those countries.

Does the administration have such little faith in our allies and in our diplomacy – which they pride themselves on – to think that they would not share the burden of fighting Islamist extremists unless the U.N. forced them to?” she asked.

On the eve the markup hearing, the U.N. Foundation released results of a poll in which 64 percent of respondents said they supported the U.S. “paying our dues to the U.N. on time and in full” while 31 percent said they opposed this.

The poll also found 55 percent of respondents were not in favor of legislation that would cut U.S. funding of the U.N., while 39 percent favored it.

The wording of the question on the proposed legislation said that it “cuts fifty percent of the United States’ funding to the United Nations,” “ends United States’ funding to UNICEF and the World Health Organization” and “ends United States’ funding of United Nations’ agencies that respond and take action after a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis.”

The poll wording did not say that 50 percent of U.S. funding would only be cut if the U.N. failed to shift from an assessed to voluntary payment mechanism. Neither did the wording make clear that funding to agencies like UNICEF would only end if those agencies fail to provide the U.S. Comptroller General with a certificate of transparency, or to comply with that certification.

The U.N. Foundation was set up in 1998 with a $1 billion donation to U.N. causes by CNN founder and philanthropist Ted Turner. Its priorities include building public support for the U.N. and advocating U.S. funding for the U.N.

“At a time when the United Nations is more relevant than ever in addressing the world’s greatest peace and security challenges, this survey is evidence that voters believe in the value of the United Nations to American interests,” U.N. Foundation president Timothy Wirth said in a statement on the poll.

SOURCE

The Peace President Goes To War…..Again

Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Central Africa to Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group

WASHINGTON — President Obama is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help local forces battle the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group that the administration says has waged a campaign of murder, rape and kidnapping for more than two decades.

Obama said Friday the troops will act as advisers in efforts to hunt down rebel leader Joseph Kony but will not engage in combat except in self-defense, according to a letter to Congress that was obtained by Fox News.

The White House says the first troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. Ultimately, they will also deploy in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Congo.

A senior administration official downplayed the notion that the armed troops could be drawn into a hostile, combat situation, saying the move was sparked by Congress passing a law year urging the administration to do something to crack down on the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Long considered one of Africa’s most brutal rebel groups, the Lord’s Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago but has been pushing westward.

The administration and human rights groups say its atrocities have left thousands dead and have put as many as 300,000 Africans to flight. They have charged the group with seizing children to bolster its ranks of soldiers and sometimes forcing them to become sex slaves.

Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court under a 2005 warrant for crimes against humanity in his native Uganda.

Obama’s announcement came in low-key fashion — a letter to the leader of the House, Speaker John Boehner, in which he said the deployment “furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”

The deployment drew support from Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who has visited the region.

I have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by the LRA, and this will help end Kony’s heinous acts that have created a human rights crisis in Africa,” he said in a statement. “I have been fervently involved in trying to prevent further abductions and murders of Ugandan children, and today’s action offers hope that the end of the LRA is in sight.”

But Obama’s letter stressed the limited nature of the deployment.

“Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,”
it said. “Although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will … not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.”

The troops deployed to central Africa will be mostly U.S. special operations forces. It’s likely many of these forces will be Army Green Berets, one military official told Fox News, but it’s unlikely that will be announced publicly.

Since 2008, the U.S. has provided $33 million to regional forces battling LRA, according to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon said the special operation forces are performing one of their core missions.

“Our intention is to provide the right balance of strategic and tactical experience to supplement host nation military efforts,”
the Pentagon said. “Ultimately, Africans are responsible for African security, but we remain committed to our partners to enable their efforts to provide for their own security.”

Fox News’ Ed Henry, Justin Fishel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: SOURCE