Saturday, August 15, 2009
And this is Ana's 5-day forecast:
And Bill's 5-day forecast:
Friday, August 14, 2009
here's the link: http://tiny.cc/Lfsqk
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall.[i]
This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk.
In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. "Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention," she said.[ii]
Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii]
“Cure the Disease, Kill the Patient”
Less than 100 children in the U.S. die each year from seasonal flu viruses.[iv] If we use Australia’s math, a very rough estimate would be another 100 children could potentially die of swine flu in the United States in the coming year.
If children are the first target group in the U.S. per Sebelius, that means we’re about to inject around 75 million children with a fast tracked vaccine containing novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene, to prevent perhaps 100 deaths.
I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan.
Why are Vaccinations Dangerous?
The presumed intent of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause illness and disease. However, your body’s immune system is already designed to do this in response to organisms which invade your body naturally.
Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection.
These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body.
Your IgA immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system.
When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination.
Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.
And as if Vaccines Weren’t Dangerous Enough on Their Own …
… imagine them turbocharged.
The main ingredient in a vaccine is either killed viruses or live ones that have been attenuated (weakened and made less harmful).
Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin.
In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene.
The purpose of an immune adjuvant added to a vaccine is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccination. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against.
Adjuvants are supposed to get the job done faster (but certainly not more safely), which reduces the amount of vaccine required per dose, and the number of doses given per individual.
Less vaccine required per person means more individual doses available for mass vaccination campaigns. Coincidentally, this is exactly the goal of government and the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make millions from their vaccines.
Will There Be Immune Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccines?
The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccines.
The adjuvant? Squalene.
According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine,
“A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”[v]
Novartis’s proprietary squalene adjuvant for their H1N1 vaccine is MF59. Glaxo’s is ASO3. MF59 has yet to be approved by the FDA for use in any U.S. vaccine, despite its history of use in other countries.
Per Dr. Nass, there are only three vaccines in existence using an approved squalene adjuvant. None of the three are approved for use in the U.S.
What Squalene Does to Rats
Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time.[vi]
A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis.[vii]
The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.
What Squalene Does to Humans
Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties.
The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.
Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii]
Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x]
The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP).
However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene.
A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:
“ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.
In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi]
According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:
“… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome," documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.
The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”[xii]
Post Vaccination Follow-Up Might as Well Be Non-Existent
There is virtually no science to support the safety of vaccine injections on your long-term health or the health of your children. Follow-up studies last on average about two weeks, and look only for glaring injuries and illnesses.
Autoimmune disorders like those seen in Gulf War Syndrome frequently take years to diagnose due to the vagueness of early symptoms. Complaints like headaches, fatigue and chronic aches and pains are symptoms of many different illnesses and diseases.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for vaccine purveyors and proponents to look seriously at the long-term health consequences of their vaccination campaigns.
Click on the link in the title for links and cites within the article.
Call yr state reps and urge them to press for a FairTax on a state level. This application will prove it's success!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America's true living legends - an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'Blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg, which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
TRUE - CHECK: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp
This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now
I personally have no idea who Lou Pritchett is, (sorry, Mr. Pritchett), but he addresses issues that I've had ever since Mr. Obama came on the scene. I'm used to knowing pretty much every detail of the life of the candidate almost as soon as they hit the campaign trail, and there seem to be holes in Mr. Obama's story.
We know a lot about Mr. Obama, but there are still questions about his past, his past affliations, and yes, about his ability to run a country.
Now I know that most leaders have people under them who actually run the day-to-day activities and events of a company, a campaign, or even the Presidency. I know that no one person can possibly know everything there is to know about everything the President has to make decisions about; they usually rely on information and opinions given by those who do know about these things. I really have no problem with that.
It's all the little things. Just where did Mr. Obama get the money for that Ivy League education? His beginnings were fairly humble, as I understand. He certainly didn't have the money of a Bush, a Kennedy, or a Roosevelt. Others have come from humble beginnings to become President (Carter and Clinton both come to mind).
I would like to think there's a reasonable reason for not supplying your birth certificate, if only to shut up the "birthers". My own home state of Pennsylvania does not offer a "birth certificate" but a "registration of birth". I think there's little difference because both offer the same information, and it could be the same in Hawaii. I don't know, I haven't bothered to look at the document that has been offered because so many others have. I decided to concentrate on other matters and leave this issue to others.
Perception is everything. We make judgements on what we see and hear. It's the only way to make decisions. Thinking people question what they see and hear when they think there is a reason to question it. You and I might not agree that there is any reason for doubt. Had our ancestors never questioned what they "knew" we might still be living in caves and hunting for food.
The perception of the "birth certificate" issue is that there is something wrong since Mr. Obama will not provide an authenticated document. The document provided could be perfectly legitmate. But, since there have been questions raised which haven't been answered clearing the matter, it leaves the impression that there is something to hide. If he's hiding something about his birth, then what else might be lurking in the background?
Right now, the perception is that we have a President who is hiding things in his background. True or not, the perception is there.
The question is, why?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
When I stand up for myself and my beliefs, they call me a Bitch.
When I stand up for those I love, they call me a Bitch.
When I refuse to tolerate injustice and speak against it, I am defined as a Bitch. The same thing happens when I take time for myself instead of being everyone's maid, or when I act a little bit selfish.
It means I have the courage and strength to allow myself to be who I truly am and wont' become anyone else's idea of what they think I "should" be.
So try to stomp on me, just try to douse my inner flame, try to squash every ounce of beauty I hold within me.
B - Babe
I - In
T - Total
C - Control of
H - Herself
how about this...
how about this...
B = Beautiful
I = Intelligent
T = Talented
C = Charming
H = Hell of a Woman
or maybe this...
or maybe this...
B = Beautiful
I = Individual
T = That
C = Can
H = Handle 'anything'
Happy Birthday to…..Me!!!!
Yes, today is my birthday. I won’t tell you my age, because I prefer to be “ageless”. It’s easy enough to figure out, if that’s really important to you (if it is, you really need to get a life!).
I’ll have a nice dinner, some well wishes, a few gifts, and maybe a movie. Whatever I do, it will be because it’s something that I want.
I’ll have a nice dinner, some well wishes, a few gifts, and maybe a movie. Whatever I do, it will be because it’s something that I want.
I am dedicating the next twelve months to me, and becoming the person I want to be.
I am dedicating the next twelve months to me, and becoming the person I want to be.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Posted By Bobby Eberle On August 4, 2009 at 7:24 am
Don't worry, your taxes won't go up. That's what Barack Obama has said over and over again. Wait... actually, he was just saying that about the 95% percent of Americans who are not "at the top." Apparently, he had always planned to extract even more out of the people who purchase the most goods, hire the most people, and already pay the most taxes.
But, what we are now learning is what we all believed was coming. Actually, I can't say "all," because so many people seem to have thought that Obama could cure the country's ills with the wave of a wand or the use of magic money. Well, this is real life... where massive government intervention into the private lives of Americans comes with a price. And it's a price we'll all be paying.
First, a quick look at taxes and who really pays. Late last week, the IRS released a report on the distribution of income taxes. The Heritage Foundation has a great article on it.
In 2007, the top 1 percent of taxpayers "paid over 40 percent of all federal income taxes." In contrast, the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers paid just over 39 percent of income taxes. As noted in the story, "The top 1 percent, those earning over $410,000, consists of 1.4 million taxpayers, while the bottom 95 percent contains 134 million."
Now for a little bit of historical perspective. Liberals love to say that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. They fail to mention that ALL tax rates were cut... with the biggest percentage cuts coming from the lower income brackets. As The Heritage Foundation points out:
In 2000, before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that some claim disproportionately benefited the rich, the top 1 percent paid less than 38 percent of income taxes, while the bottom 95 paid almost 44 percent. Since the tax cuts, the top 1 percent’s share increased over 2 percentage points while the bottom 95 percent’s share decreased 5 percentage points. Those that argue the tax cuts solely benefited the rich are mistaken.
Obama wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 per year. In essence, he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top two income tax brackets. The top rate would go from 35% to over 39%. It should outrage all Americans that there are some who are paying over a third of their income to the government, but that outrage doesn't exist because 1) too many politicians play the class warfare game, and 2) so many people EXPECT something for nothing. They feel it is right for someone else to pay their way.
Then, don't forget the health care plan. If enacted, an additional 6 percent "surtax" would be added, thus making the top rate close to 45%. I don't care how much a person makes, NO ONE should pay that much to the government.
In contrast, the bottom 40% of taxpayers pays no income taxes on average. In fact, they get money from the tax code well above anything they paid in because of refundable credits. And President Obama’s Make Work Pay credit, passed as part of the stimulus, will increase the money redistributed to these non-taxpayers.
The author makes a great point, saying, "It’s a dangerous situation when a majority of voters can get services and benefits from the government for no cost, because there is no incentive for them to limit the growth of government."
However, all of this "growth of government" will eventually hit the wall, and the so-called 95 percent of Americans who are safe will see that they are the next targets. Obama's statement was already false when you consider his programs such as Cap and Trade are essentially a tax on all Americans. Now, his team is being more direct.
As noted in a story by the Associated Press, "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere."
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
This is absolutely ridiculous! They want to raise taxes on everybody because they spent so much money trying to get America out of a recession, when, during the last recession, cutting taxes did the trick just fine. So, not only is the American public being strapped with a monumental amount of debt for future generations to repay, we will all be doing it with higher taxes.
The American people are seeing the effects of Obama's "hope and change" agenda. He is transforming America into a country many of us don't even recognize. Perhaps if Obama's plans start hitting EVERYONE in the pocketbook, they will start to pay attention. Until then, many will simply sit back and let the "other guy" pay.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Shared via AddThis
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 29, 2009 at 7:32 am
Throughout this debate, the voices of seniors have been strangely and disturbingly silent. Do they not know the details of ObamaCare? Are they so enamored with this "nice, young man" that they don't even look at what the plan has to offer? ObamaCare has a strong message for seniors, and it is one they shouldn't ignore: If you are old in America, then don't get sick... you're not worth the cost.
In a recent update by The Heritage Foundation, seniors can read for themselves some of the results of ObamaCare on their daily lives.
First, seniors would face an increasing risk of losing their doctor. With cuts to Medicare reimbursements, more and more physicians are no longer taking Medicare patients. ObamaCare makes it worse: "Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients."
Obama's plan also places a disincentive on people to become physicians as his "public" option "could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion, while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion."
Then there is the worry that seniors will lose their coverage. As noted in The Heritage Foundation's report, "22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coordinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely."
And, of course, there is the issue that Obama and the liberal Democrats want seniors and all Americans to ignore: the rationing of health care. Under Obama's plan, there will be a new government bureaucracy known as a "federal health board." The purpose of this board is to determine whether various procedures and tests are deemed necessary in the eyes of the federal government. That notion is truly scary.
Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: "The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated." Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government-rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed. Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick.
As noted in a story by the Associated Press, a group of senators is actually working to squeeze more money out of Medicare. "Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative."
As noted in a new Rasmussen Reports poll, only 23% of Americans believe that health care costs will go down under ObamaCare.
Most Americans are happy with their coverage. Most have coverage. Yet in order to cover the ten percent or so of Americans who don't have it and are having trouble getting it, he wants to impose a new government plan on the other 90% of the country. This is just crazy. ObamaCare is bad news for seniors and bad news for the entire population.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Washington, Aug 7 -
U.S. Representative John Boozman (R-AR) today issued the following statement regarding White House Internet Monitoring efforts:
“The Obama Administration has requested that e-mails and internet materials produced by private citizens that are critical of the President's policies be reported to an e-mail address at the White House.
The White House website states: "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it email@example.com."
American citizens should be free to criticize the policies of the President or any other elected official, including me, without fearing that the criticism will be policed and monitored by the government.
The First Amendment specifically protects speech, and our Constitutional rights must be protected when we use the internet.
I call on President Obama to disable this e-mail address and I ask that he stop soliciting this kind of surveillance on private citizens.”
With all the comments lately referring to Nazis, I have remind you about a well known practice in Nazi Germany. Most Germans were cautious enough to be careful about what they said outside their homes, but spoke more freely in the company of their own families. Children were encouraged to turn their own parents into the government if they criticized Hitler, other government officials, or the government itself. At the very least, it was to identify dissenters.
I have to point out one of my favorite observations: Perception is everything. Let me explain what I mean. I am not privy to what goes on in the White House, so I don't know the reasons why they may do as they do. I can only go on what I do know: that Rep. Boozman is asking the White House to take down a website that asks people to report when they see anyone critizing the healthcare plan. My first thought is that the White House is trying to limit my First Amendment right to Free Speech.
The White House may have very honorable reasons for asking Interneters to tell them who has a criticism of the healthcare plan. Perhaps the White House wants to have answers for the problems presented by those against the plan. But, and this is a big but, the perception is that they want Interneters to snitch on each other.
Much has been said about the White House "hate list". If wanting to live in a country where I can state my opposition to a government plan means I am against the government, then go ahead a put me on the list. I don't hate the Obama administration, nor do I want it to fail, but I will trust in the judgment of the American people when they go to the polls in 2010 and again in 2012.
I am an American, and as such, I am protected by the American Constitution, until it is replaced by something else. When that day happens, America will no longer be the greatest country in the world. It will be just a shabby, tattered, sad, caricature of it's former self. We'd no longer be the country where the streets are paved with gold, where everyone can live and speak freely. We'd be no better than a third rate nation run by petty dictators and bureaucrats. I know there are those who think we're there now, but as of today, they have the right to speak those words out loud to anyone who cares to listen. In what third rate country does that happen today?