Fallout From Arizona Anti-immigration Law Continues

Fallout from Arizona anti-immigration law continues While praised by many immigration reform proponents, the law passed in Arizona that seeks to limit illegal immigration by making it a crime to be in the state without documentation has stirred controversy among many ethnic organizations.

Last week, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce criticized the law, saying it will result in the racial profiling of Latinos. It has now been joined by The Hispanic National Bar Association, whose representatives claim that the legislation raises "grave constitutional issues."

In addition to racial profiling, the alleged constitutional violations include freedom from unreasonable seizures and lack of due process guarantees, according to the association.

HNBA National President Roman D. Hernandez said that "if enacted, this law will create an impediment to effective police enforcement of major crimes."

He cited local law enforcement officials as saying that "Hispanics in general and undocumented persons in particular will be less willing to cooperate in providing information to police."

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act was passed earlier this month and it makes it a state misdemeanor to fail to comply with Federal law requiring that foreign nationals register and carry their documents with them.

Moreover, it directs police officers to inquire as to immigration status on a "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is undocumented.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19737484-ADNFCR

Extra-virgin Olive Oil Consumption Linked To Decreased Cardiovascular Disease Risk

Extra-virgin olive oil consumption linked to decreased cardiovascular disease riskFor years dieticians and nutritionists around the world have recommended the Mediterranean diet to individuals who are at a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes without having a full understanding of the mechanism responsible for its apparent health benefits.

However, a new study recently published in the journal BMC may have uncovered the genetic basis for the cardiovascular improvements linked to the diet, which includes high intake of vegetables, fish, legumes and monounsaturated fatty acids such as olive oil.

For the study, lead author Francisco Perez-Jimenez and his colleagues from the University of Cordoba, Spain, analyzed the effects that variations of the Mediterranean diet had on different groups of participants.

At the time of follow-up they found that the phenol compounds contained in extra-virgin olive oils had a dynamic effect on the genes of 20 participants suffering from metabolic syndrome, a common condition often associated with an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.

"These findings strengthen the relationship between inflammation, obesity and diet and provide evidence at the most basic level of healthy effects derived from virgin olive oil consumption in humans," said Perez-Jimenez. "It will be interesting to evaluate whether particular phenolic compounds carry these effects."

ACORN CEO Encourages Socialism, Blasts Tea Party Movement

ACORN CEO encourages socialism, blasts Tea Party movementIn a newly released video, Bertha Lewis, chief executive officer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), is reportedly captured praising socialism and degrading the Tea Party movement, comparing the recent conservative initiative to the eras of segregation and McCarthyism.

The two-minute video, which appeared on the Verum Serum blog on Wednesday, focused on Lewis’ speech at the March 25 winter conference of the Young Democratic Socialists, where she encouraged the group of liberals to stand up for their beliefs, while warning them of the possibility of a turbulent future.

"Any group that says, ‘I’m young, I’m Democratic, and I’m a socialist,’ is all right with me," she told the audience. "You know that’s no light thing to do—to actually say, I’m a socialist—because you guys know right now we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era…the internment during World War II…and the era of Jim Crow."

Lewis went on to heavily criticize the Tea Party movement, calling the grassroots campaign a simple exercise of veiled bigotry.

"This is not rhetoric or hyperbole—this is real," Lewis said. "This rise of this Tea Party so-called movement—bowel movement in my estimation—and this blatant uncovering and ripping off the mask of racism."

Poll: Most Americans Are Confused About How Healthcare Reform Will Affect Them

Poll: Most Americans are confused about how healthcare reform will affect themWhile the nation seems to be divided in its support for the recently passed healthcare reform bill, the majority of Americans say they do not understand the specifics of the law and don’t have enough information to recognize how they will personally be affected by the new programs, insurance regulations and tax credits, a new survey has found.

According to the recently released Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, a total of 31 percent of Americans expect the bill to improve their current situation, while 33 percent believe they will be worse off under the new law. Meanwhile, nearly 56 percent of those surveyed said they are confused about its specifics, including a high percentage of those who support it.

"People are struggling to understand how the law will affect them and their families and to separate fact from political spin," said Kaiser president and CEO Drew Altman.

While most registered Republicans and Democrats who were surveyed favored their party’s view of the legislation, the majority of independents disapproved of the law. Overall, the most stringently opposed aspect of the bill is the federal mandate that Americans are required to purchase health insurance.

Yellow Dogs And Democrat Handouts

(Part two of a two-part series. The first part was Democrats And The Politics Of Envy.)

Ask a yellow dog Democrat why he’s a Democrat and he’ll usually say it’s because the Democrat Party is the party of the working man. He believes it so strongly that he’d vote for the Democrat over anyone else, even if the Democrat on the ticket was an old yellow dog.

It doesn’t matter that Democrat policies have been devastating to the poor and middle class workers in this country for almost 100 years. The poor and middle class still turn out in droves to vote for them. Democrat politicians have successfully positioned themselves as the party of the poor, and they’ve created an enmity between the poor and the rich.

Democrats leaders perpetuate this enmity with popular slogans like “living wage,” “fair share,” “working poor,” “greedy rich,” “rich Republicans” and “evil profits.” Their rank and file have bought it hook, line and sinker.

The Great Society
By the late 1950s, ever-resilient America had somewhat recovered from the effects of Woodrow Wilson’s policies—the Federal Reserve, the income tax and World War I—and Franklin Delano Roosevelt policies—the New Deal and World War II—and prosperity was returning.

Then along came Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Great Society and the next great expansion of the nanny state. Previous Democrat administration policies had been devastating to the people they purported to help and, with his Great Society programs, Johnson continued the assault on the poor under the guise of giving them a hand up.

Within three years of assuming the Presidency in 1963, Johnson had requested 200 major pieces of legislation and Congress had approved 181 of them, according to Leslie Carbone in Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform. She writes:

“Roosevelt had peddled the drug of government give-aways primarily in the poor neighborhoods; Johnson set up shop in middle-class cul-de-sacs, and most Americans, willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or unwittingly, are forced to shoot up. Johnson’s sweeping proposals sought to address almost every issue of concern to Americans: civil rights, poverty, education, health, housing, pollution, the arts, cities, occupational safety, consumer protection, and mass transit, to name only the most prominent.”

As she quotes Johnson aide Joseph Califano from the book Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society, “LBJ adopted programs the way a child eats rich chocolate-chip cookies.”

And what have these programs wrought? Mark Owen, adjunct professor of economics at Northwood University, wrote a column for LewRockwell.com on Feb. 7, 2007 entitled The Welfare State: Shredding Society. In it he said:

“Births out of wedlock were consistently at or below 5% between 1940 and 1960. By 1970, the rate had risen to over 10% and has continued to rise to 33% of all births today… Divorce rates increased from 9 to 23 per 1,000 married couples annually from 1960 to 1980, while leveling off at 20 per 1,000 through 1998. How much of this leveling off in divorce rates is the result of relationships in groups with higher divorce tendencies never evolving past cohabitation is difficult to ascertain. Over half of children born today in the US will live in a single parent household, while in some areas the rate is much higher. It is hard to ignore the statistical relationship between crime and family dissolution.

“While crime and family destabilization may be two of the more obvious results of the welfare state, there are many others. The stigma for single mother births has virtually disappeared. Intergenerational dependency on government programs with the related lack of skills for self-sufficiency, much like a farm animal unable to live without the farmer for food and shelter, has created people without hope or ambition.”

The welfare state has created a cycle of dependency that perpetuates itself. Now there are third and fourth generations of single women living off welfare and raising children in single parent homes.

Typically these women live in urban areas and their children are held hostage to failing inner city schools systems. And Democrat policies are to blame for these failing schools.

In 1965 Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It provided for aid to poor children in slums and rural areas, created a five-year program for school libraries to buy textbooks and other instructional materials and provided for educational research, among other things. Essentially, the Federal government took over the education of the children, according to Carbone.

Carbone writes: “Representative Charles Goodell warned that the bill’s ‘clear intent is to radically change our historic structure of education by a dramatic shift of power to the federal level.’”

The National Education Association (NEA) teacher’s union, a supporter of Democrat candidates and causes, opposes any and all efforts to inject competition or reform into the failing schools. Therefore Democrats oppose them as well. Combined with local teacher unions, the NEA also fights efforts to change the tenure system which protects the jobs of bad teachers to the detriment of the children.

LBJ’s War on Poverty programs have been dismal failures. According to Carbone in Slaying Leviathan, $800 million was appropriated for the Economic Opportunity Bill of 1964. That bill created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) and 10 other programs. The next year Congress appropriated $1.5 billion for OEO. Between 1965 and 1972 Congress spent $15 billion on the War on Poverty.

“Launching the War Poverty, Johnson declared, ‘[T]he days of the dole are numbered.’ Within two generations, more than $10 trillion have been spent on this war, more in current dollars than was spent to win World War II,” Carbone writes.

And through all that, Democrats are still looking for ways to spend money to fund programs to fight the War on Poverty.

Obama And Echoes Of FDR
Like Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush was a Republican without a conservative soul. And just like Hoover, his policies to battle the recession were all wrong. First was the stimulus bill of 2008, a $150 billion—1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)—kick in the economy through tax rebate checks that the government hoped would prevent or shorten the recession.

Next came the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free market,” Bush said at the time.

Then Obama went one better than Bush. Just two months after taking office he pushed through Congress a $787 billion American Recover and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So within the space of one year more than $1.5 trillion new dollars had been injected into the economy, further eroding the value of the dollars the poor and middle class hold.

What’s more, as Michael Barone writes for The Washington Examiner, “One-third of the 2009 stimulus money went to state and local governments–an obvious payoff to the public employee unions which gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats and got hundreds of billions of dollars in return, to insulate public employee unions from the effects of the recession which has affected everyone else.”

There’s another provision in the bill that provides a sop to unions. The money for “shovel ready” construction projects must be spent on firms using union labor. This raises the cost of the projects and freezes out many non-union poor or middle class construction workers.

But Obama wasn’t finished. Despite the call from the American people to focus on jobs and the economy, Obama and his Congressional allies were single-mindedly pushing through an unconstitutional healthcare program which will cost $940 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Touted as a bill to help the uninsured, it’s not likely to make things better. For one thing, those 32 million new patients are going to be trying to get appointments with the same number of—or fewer—doctors than we currently have. What’s more, the plan cuts Medicare payments and puts mandates on the states to cover more people under Medicaid—the program that insures the poor. This comes at a time when state budgets are in crisis.

Plus, many doctors already refuse to take Medicare and Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is so low. With fewer doctors for fewer patients, that means rationed care. And the poor and middle class, who are unable to afford to pay out of pocket for a doctor’s care, will be the victims of rationed care.

And then there are the tax increases in the bill. According to Bloomberg.com the bill imposes about $69 billion in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance.

And The Hill newspaper reports that the Joint Committee on Taxation, congress’ official score keeper, says the new law will cost taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes—in 2019 alone—by limiting the medical expense deduction.

On top of this are the taxes on pharmaceutical companies, medical manufacturers and insurance companies which will be passed on to the consumer.

Finally, the healthcare bill will affect smaller rural communities with physician-owned hospitals. According to CNSNews.com, “The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds.”

Physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs, according to Physician Hospitals of America, as quoted by CNSNews.com

The Coming Value-Added Tax
Obama economic advisor and former Federal Reserve Chief Paul Volcker recently suggested that it’s time for America to adopt a value-added tax (VAT). The White House immediately downplayed the idea. Then last week Obama admitted he was on board.

“I know that there’s been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It’s something that would be novel for the United States,” Obama told CNBC.

After Volcker’s remarks the Senate passed a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that calls such a tax “a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America’s economic recovery.”

With the Tea Partiers already incensed over the administration’s policies and Congress’ actions, a VAT is not on the table before the November elections. But it’s coming. You can count on it. After all, it’s European, and Obama is hell-bent on turning American into a European socialist country.

The VAT is a sales tax that is added onto every product at each stage of production. It is a regressive tax that inordinately affects the poor and middle class.

In Slaying Leviathan, Carbone writes: “…the VAT has been disastrous in Europe. As a hidden tax, it is easy to raise and has continually increased. Its complicated nature expands government and makes it expensive to administer. A VAT forces businesses to bear heavy compliance costs in order to serve as tax collectors for the government.”

Food and some necessities are often exempted from the VAT, which helps the consumer but not the business which has to administer it. Combine that with the fact that sometimes many different rates are applied, and the cost of compliance inordinately affects small businesses on which many families depend and which employ the most people, according to Carbone.

In the end, all the VAT will do is grow government and give it more money to spend to further encroach on the lives of Americans while crushing the economy.

Of course, growing government and creating a cycle of dependency is the goal of the Democrats. Party of the working man (or woman)? Not hardly. Not even old yellow dogs lying under the porch waiting for handouts thrive under Democrat policies.

Should I go into debt to buy a house at this time in our economy?

Dear Bob,

I have a question. Would you go into debt to buy a house at this time in our economy? I’m in a tough spot. We took my father out of a nursing home last October due to neglect. Ever since, we have been traveling between two houses to take care of him, but it is getting to be a real strain on our family members who care for him day in and day out. My husband and I are debt-free, renting a house, and my father is renting the house we grew up in as kids (my brother owns it. It is not paid off).  

If we move to a bigger house with my father, we would be relying on his fixed income (pension and social security) to make the payments plus my husband’s modest salary. Neither house we are in at the time is big enough for all of us.

If the county goes into hyperinflation, I don’t think we would be a able to get to my dad’s, who is 12 minutes (4 miles) from our house. I feel the need to get us under one roof for the rough times that are surely ahead. My dad is 89 with Parkinson’s and I am scared I won’t be able to get diapers and medicine and take care of him if there is a crash. He feels very secure when I am with him.

Will people who just have assumed a mortgage have their house repossessed during a crisis or will too many people be in the same boat? I’ve tried to look this question up online and they basically say to rent right now. Maybe we should just get in a bigger rental verses buying?

We rent on a farm in Illinois and have chicken’s, goats, eggs, and big garden. My dad’s home is in a subdivision. If we move, we would buy a small farm, probably in Kentucky. 

Jill Novak

Dear Jill,

You are in a tough spot, and I feel for you and your predicament. My first suggestion would be that you explore the possibility of adding on to the house you currently live in so that you can make a room for your father. In addition to giving you more room, if it’s done correctly it will increase the value of the house. If that is not possible, then next I would suggest you seek another house to rent. Since you live on a farm with some livestock and a garden you are in good position should the currency collapse that we are expecting occur. I would hate to see you give that up.

I would also hate to see you take on debt if you can avoid it in any way. Please explore all options before making that decision. Purchasing a home and taking on debt will limit the amount of funds you have at your disposal to prepare for the coming collapse buy buying storage food and gold and silver.

Best wishes,

Former Governor Pataki Launches Anti-healthcare Reform Drive In Boston

Former Governor Pataki launches anti-healthcare reform drive in Boston Former New York Governor George Pataki was in Boston on April 18 to launch a petition that proposes to repeal the Obama administration’s healthcare overhaul.

He was leading a rally staged by Revere America, an organization working to advance public policies rooted in freedom and free markets. The petition-signing event kicked off its national campaign to gather the signatures of one million Americans who want to repeal and replace "ObamaCare."

The event coincided with the 235th anniversary of Paul Revere’s famous ride for freedom.

"Just as 235 years ago our freedoms were in danger, they are now as well," the former governor said at the rally, quoted by NECN.com, a news website.

"We can’t wait until 2012 to take back this country. We have to do it in 2010, and every single day this year counts," he added.

The next day, Pataki was continuing his campaign for signatures in Iowa, where he explained why he decided to return to the national stage.

"I was happy as a private citizen," he said, quoted by Radio Iowa, "but when I see what is happening in Washington over the course of the last year and a half, like most Americans I believe we are seeing a government that is dramatically headed in the wrong direction."

Pataki is chairman of Revere America and served as the 53rd Governor of New York from 1995 to 2006. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19735026-ADNFCR

Vitamin K Intake Linked To Decreased Risk Of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Vitamin K intake linked to decreased risk of Non-Hodgkin lymphomaAccording to a new study recently presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, people who consume a diet rich in vitamin K may have a considerably decreased risk of developing Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

For the study, a research team from the Mayo Clinic recruited 603 newly diagnosed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients as well as 1,007 control participants and had them answer food questionnaires regarding their dietary intake two years prior to enrollment in the trial.

Lead investigator James Cerhan and his colleagues found that respondents who had a vitamin K intake in the top quartile of the study had a 45 percent lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease compared to those in the bottom 25 percent. They also discovered that the link remained after accounting for a variety of risk factors, including age, sex, obesity and smoking.

"Whether the protective effect we observed is due to vitamin K intake, or some other dietary or lifestyle exposure, cannot be definitely assessed in this study," said Cerhan. "But these findings add to a lot of other data that support a diet that includes plenty of green leafy vegetables in order to prevent many cancers as well as other diseases."

ACORN Unrelenting In Its Battle For Federal Funding

ACORN unrelenting in its battle for federal funding Just weeks after announcing that it would be closing its doors due to bad press and financial concerns, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) continues to show its resolve.

Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the controversial anti-poverty group, was on hand at an appeals court in New York on Tuesday to continue to fight for the organization’s federal funding, which was stripped by Congress last year in the wake of several voter fraud and tax evasion scandals.

Justice Department attorney Mark Stern argued that Congress had every right to take action against ACORN’s "widespread mismanagement" of resources, and asked the court to temporarily block a judge’s ruling that the funding cut-off was unconstitutional, according to the Associated Press (AP).

Jules Lobel, attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that the group’s $25 million annual budget was needed to help distressed individuals receive government subsidies to stay in their homes. The three-judge panel has yet to rule on the case.

Lewis indicated after the hearing that a positive outcome in the case could lead to a resurgence for the struggling group.

"If we can survive this, inch by inch, little by little, this organization can build itself back up," she told the news source. "We’re going to fight like hell to stay alive."

Republicans Blast Reid For Accepting Goldman Sachs Donations

Republicans blast Reid for accepting Goldman Sachs donations Just a day after criticizing members of the GOP for participating in a closed-door meeting with Wall Street executives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is in hot water following a report on Tuesday which indicated that he attended a fundraiser earlier this year hosted by the president of Goldman Sachs.

When asked to confirm or deny his attendance at the event, Reid evaded the question and instead read a prepared statement regarding his involvement in financial regulatory reform, MSNBC.com reports.

"I’m leading the effort to rein in Wall Street," said Reid. "I’m going to make sure that in this legislation I do everything within my ability to make sure that banks aren’t too big to fail."

However, later that day Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley confirmed that the Nevada senator attended the fundraiser, stating that the $37,000 that was raised was done so in accordance with campaign rules.

In response to the news, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh told NBC that "one can only presume that Senator Reid will be returning these donations immediately."

Manley indicated on Wednesday the congressman plans on keeping the donations.

FRC Presents List Of 20 ‘Target Congressional Races’ In November

FRC presents list of 20 'target congressional races' in November Just days after Tea Party leaders announced their "targets" ahead of the midterm elections, a socially conservative organization has followed suit, singling out members of Congress who supported the healthcare overhaul to be voted out of office.

Family Research Council (FRC) Action PAC announced plans to raise and spend $500,000 to target the districts of 20 Democratic incumbents who voted for President Obama’s healthcare bill. The organization’s representatives allege that these lawmakers, despite their professed pro-life orientation, supported a bill that allows federal money to fund abortion services.

"As pro-life and pro-family voters, we must work together to change the Congress, state governments and ultimately the White House in 2012," said Connie Mackey, president of FRC Action PAC.

She added that her organization has spent time researching the most vulnerable races and "will have pro-life, pro-family candidates [ready] to fill the void."

Among those singled out for defeat in November, FRC Action PAC listed Representative Paul Kanjorski from the 11th district in Pennsylvania, Tom Perriello (Va., 5th) and Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz., 1st).

Barack Obama’s Dishonest Census Form

The White House couldn’t wait to trumpet the news: When President Barack Obama completed his official form for this year’s census he declared that he was… are you ready for this?… black.

For the next 24 hours, the announcement led the news in the national media. It was the top story on CNN.com, the network news shows, cable television and just about everywhere else I looked. For nearly a week, you couldn’t escape it: “The President of the United States says that he is black!”

Give me a break, please. Obama has been trumpeting his blackness for decades. Appearing on Late Show with David Letterman back in 2009, Obama brought the house down when he said, “First of all, I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.” Harty-har-har. When the laughter died down, Letterman played the perfect stooge by asking, “How long have you been a black man?”

Lost in all the chortling are two very important points. First of all, Obama isn’t really black; he is a person of mixed race. In the olden days, he would have been called a mulatto.

Second, the president had every opportunity to recognize this on the census form. It is no longer necessary to select between black and white (or Asian or American Indian, for that matter). If it is more accurate to say so, you can check two or three or even four boxes.

To the best of my knowledge, Tiger Woods has not disclosed what he said on his census form. But in the past he has identified himself as a “Cablinasian”—that is, a combination of Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian. It’s not only a more honest declaration than our president made; it also suggests that Tiger doesn’t take the matter of race as seriously as Obama does.

Then again, it’s his talent at golf, not his color that has made Tiger Woods one of the wealthiest and most famous athletes in history. While Obama obviously believes that it is his blackness that enabled him to become our president—not to mention a multimillionaire—thanks to the sales of his best-selling book, Dreams of My Father, which chronicled his search for his black identity.

His fixation with his black identity also helps explain why he and his wife Michelle could be members of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church for so many years, without uttering a word of protest over his preacher’s overt racism. Obama remained a member in good standing of the church (which described itself as “an instrument of Black self-determination”) until it began to cost him votes.

But what about Obama’s white heritage? In declaring on the census form that he was black, the president in effect disowned his own mother; not to mention her parents—his maternal grandparents—who raised him for most of his childhood. All three were unquestionably white. The only black in the family was the father who abandoned him in childhood. I can appreciate how traumatic that abandonment must have been. But does that justify ignoring the white half of your heritage? Doesn’t that strike you as a tiny bit ungrateful?

By the way, there’s an interesting footnote here. While the changes to the census form were being debated 10 years ago, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other civil-rights groups fiercely opposed allowing people to select multiple races to designate their heritage. At the time, they were concerned that too many “blacks” would check other boxes as well, with the result that “black” numbers would drop dramatically—thus reducing how much aid and other federal favoritism would continue to be bestowed on them.

It turns out that there was no basis for this concern: To the relief of everyone campaigning for more government benefits, any person who identified himself or herself as even partially black is included in the “black” total.

Does anyone besides me detect something incredibly racist in this whole issue? I keep thinking of the plot of “Show Boat,” one of the greatest musicals in the history of U.S. theatre. I’m sure most of you remember the 1951 movie starring Kathryn Grayson and Howard Keel. If you don’t, rent it sometime soon. It is absolutely enchanting.

In case you’ve forgotten, the plot turns on a bitterly racist fact of the times. Pete, the thuggish engineer on board the Cotton Blossom show boat, makes a play for Julie La Verne, the leading lady. Julie’s husband Steve, the leading man, beats him off. Swearing revenge, Pete tells the local sheriff that Julie is a mulatto and that she and Steve are guilty of miscegenation, which was a crime in Natchez, Miss., at the time.

Before the sheriff arrives, Steve takes a knife, cuts Julie’s hand, and swallows some of her blood. He then tells the law and the crew that he, too, is black—because he has “one drop of Negro blood in him.” Witnesses confirm that this is, in fact, true, and the sheriff drops the charges. Of course Steve and Julie have to leave the show and the ship.

In much of America at the time (the story takes place in the 1880s, when the scars of the Civil War still ran deep), one drop of Negro blood was all it took to be considered black.

I would like to believe that we in this country have come much further since then. I’d like to believe that the majestic words spoken by Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention are true, when he proclaimed, “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America.”

I’d like to believe it. But by his racist response to the U.S. Census, Obama has shown he doesn’t. In fact, his actions have delayed the day when they will be true. Shame on him for what he did… for denying his heritage and for helping make old wounds bleed anew.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

Illegal Day Of Prayer, A Costly Taxi Ride And Schwarzenegger Wants Money

*Judge outlaws National Day of Prayer. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Last week, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declared that the National Day of Prayer—something the nation has honored since it was first proclaimed by President Harry Truman back in 1952—is unconstitutional. She was responding to a lawsuit filed by something called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Despite the ruling, the White House says the president still intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer. Maybe we should all pray that judges read the Constitution again (if they ever have).

*No silly walk for this guy. Tens of thousands of people have had their travel plans disrupted thanks to ash clouds from a volcano in Iceland that spread over much of Europe. One of them was my favorite English funnyman, John Cleese, of the “Ministry of Silly Walks” fame. Cleese was stranded in Oslo, Norway, after a TV appearance there. When he couldn’t find any other way to get home he hired a cab to drive him to Brussels, where he caught a train to London. Total cost of the trip: a hefty $5,140.

*“Bring your money, buddy.” I’ve written before about the flight of capital from California. Something like 25 percent of the state’s millionaires have fled to less taxing states. But here’s a twist: A multimillionaire I know is moving to Newport Beach from an eastern city. A few weeks ago he received a personal phone call welcoming him to the state from embattled governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Near the end of the call the governor said, “And please bring your money with you.”

—Chip Wood

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked To Poorer Lung Function In Asthmatic Children

Vitamin D deficiency linked to poorer lung function in asthmatic children The harmful effects of a vitamin D deficiency have been well documented over the past few years. Low blood levels of the nutrient have been linked to an increased risk of developing high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and bone loss.

According to a recently released study, inadequate vitamin D levels are also associated with inferior lung function and increased medication use in asthmatic children.

"Asthmatic children in our study who had low levels of vitamin D were more allergic, had poorer lung function and used more medications," said lead author Daniel Searing.

"Conversely, our findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation may help reverse steroid resistance in asthmatic children and reduce the effective dose of steroids needed for our patients," he added.

For the study, Searing and his colleagues from the National Jewish Health Center analyzed the medical data of 100 pediatric asthma patients, finding that 47 percent of the group were suffering from a vitamin D deficiency. After examining each respondent, the research team found that patients with low nutrient levels had higher allergy markers, decreased lung function and responded positively to more allergens in a skin prick test.

McCain, Kyl Issue Proposal To Curb Illegal Immigration In Arizona

McCain, Kyl issue proposal to curb illegal immigration in Arizona Following the successful passage of a new state law designed to protect Arizona residents from a recent wave of illegal immigration, the states two Republican Senators John McCain and John Kyl sent a proposal to Washington April 19 calling for 3,000 more National Guard troops to be deployed along the Mexican border.

The 10-point plan also asks the federal government to increase aerial surveillance, construct new fences along the border and hire 3,000 more Customs and Border Protection agents for Arizona, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

Furthermore, Kyl and McCain proposed the expansion of the Operation Streamline program, which forces illegal immigrants who committed low-level crimes to spend time in prison rather than simply being deported. The senators noted that the program has significantly reduced illegal border crossings in the areas in which it is enforced.

"The communities in Arizona that suffer the negative impacts from illegal border crossings and the lawlessness along the southern border deserve the full support of the federal government," McCain said.

He added that of the 600,000 people who were recently detained while trying to illegally cross into Arizona, a total of 17 percent had previous United States criminal records, the Agence France Presse reports.

The 1½ Cent Healthcare For Recessionary Times

Now that the healthcare reform bill has been signed into law, and Americans are justifiably worried that health insurance premiums will increase, there is a 1½ cent answer to rising premiums.

We’ve all been told that the new healthcare reform law was supposed to lower insurance premiums by 14 percent to 20 percent—thereby making health insurance more affordable for everyone. But if you check the fine print reduced insurance premiums apply only to those who decide they want to keep the low-value, “skimpier” kinds of policies.

The general consensus is that the new law virtually guarantees that health insurance premiums will rise even more—instead of becoming more affordable. The Congressional Budget Office itself stated that insurance premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent.
Based on the forecasts of other analysts, premiums will rise even higher—to the tune of 30 percent to 45 percent. Imagine what YOU would be paying if your insurance premiums increased by that much.
Americans are sharply divided on the new healthcare law, but one thing is for certain: Many provisions in the healthcare law carry with them serious consequences. And we won’t know their full effect until the provisions start in the year 2014.

For instance, the law cuts Medicare by $500 billion, and 10 million seniors who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) will be stripped of their coverage… or will have their Medicare benefits reduced.

But that may not matter much because the Obama administration itself has forecast that Medicare—the trust fund that pays hospital bills for elderly Americans—is expected to run out of money in 2017. Many believe that Medicare is already broke now—and that unbeknownst to the American public, the government has begun using the general Federal tax funds to pay for senior citizens’ Medicare benefits.

What’s even more alarming is that according to many sources, the Social Security trust fund, which has been forecasted to completely run out of money in 2037, is already running a deficit. And there’s no telling how long the government will be able to continue providing Social Security benefits and services.

One glaring aspect that’s missing in the new healthcare law is that nothing has been done to fix the double-digit upward spiral in healthcare costs… and that in itself is a recipe for disaster.

What would we do if there comes a time when we can no longer rely on Medicare and Social Security? And what if you’re a senior citizen who’s already SICK … and you have no income to pay for healthcare? What would happen if doctors and hospitals turned you away at the door because they have no assurance they’ll get paid for services that they’ll provide you?

It’s a terrifying thought… but one that every American over the age of 40 must consider and find a solution for.

In the coming years, average citizens can never be sure that their future healthcare needs will be met. Neither will they have any control as to whether or not they will receive healthcare benefits from the government… or how much insurance they will have to pay.

The only thing they can exercise control over is their health.

This begs the question: What good is health insurance anyway—even if you could afford the premiums? Having adequate health insurance (or being covered by public healthcare) only means that the cost of your medical care will be covered in the event that you get sick. Wouldn’t it be infinitely better if you didn’t get sick at all?

There is a simple therapy used by 15,000 European health practitioners to heal millions of patients of virtually all diseases. This therapy has been used successfully for more than 170 years, and could be the best way to ensure your good health, especially in these uncertain economic times. It also protects you against rising health insurance premiums, and will keep you from having to rely on a healthcare system that may not adequately cover your needs.

This scientifically proven therapy, which involves the use of a natural oxygenating substance, creates an environment within the body where disease cannot thrive. This then enables the body to cure itself of practically any disease. For instance, studies have shown that cancerous tumors shrink in the presence of this natural oxygenating substance, and this substance inhibits the growth of other tumors and disease tissues as well.

One reason healthcare costs continue to escalate out of control is that current medical research is focused on the wrong causes of disease. Some claim that viruses, microbes, germs or harmful bacteria are the cause of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, arthritis and other diseases. Others say it’s the toxins in the food we eat, the air we breathe and the substances we consume. And still others say it’s our genes or stress that cause us to acquire disease.

Because this wide array of theories has proliferated for centuries, the process of “curing” disease—and health maintenance in general—has turned into a complex and expensive proposition. And consequently, health insurance premiums have escalated as well.

Madison Cavanaugh, author of The One-Minute Cure: The Secret to Healing Virtually All Diseases, claims that the primary physical cause of all diseases is linked in one way or another to oxygen deficiency. She says that when the human body is supplied with abundant amounts of oxygen, all cancer cells, viruses, harmful bacteria, toxins, pathogens and disease microorganisms are killed because they cannot survive in a high-oxygen environment.

The natural therapy she recommends stimulates the movement of oxygen atoms from the bloodstream to the cells to a dramatically greater degree than is usually reached by other means. Because the therapy costs only 1½ cents a day to self-administer at home, it may be the most affordable health insurance anyone can have.

—Danica Collins

Sedition Or Difference Of Opinion?

The double standard that is liberalism apparently knows no bounds, for now liberal pundits are effectively calling prominent conservatives criminals because of their disagreement with the policies of the Barack Obama administration.

On NBC’s The Chris Matthews Show on April 18, Time columnist Joe Klein all but accused former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Fox News’ Glenn Beck of sedition.

“I did a little bit of research just before this show—it’s on the napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.”

According to Klein, the legal definition of sedition is “a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority.”

John Heilemann one-upped Klein, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh as someone else who is seditious, because he calls the Obama administration the Obama regime.

So that’s where we are now in the political discourse?

Prior to and during the Revolutionary War, many of our Founding Fathers spoke and wrote privately and publicly about the tyranny of the British government. Today, we consider them heroes. To the British they were seditious.

In the 1960s blacks and some whites marched and held peaceful demonstrations—despite violent efforts to silence them—in order to secure equal rights for the black race. Today we consider them heroes. To many, they were seditious.

In the 1970s a group of radical students with communist ideologies bombed 25 sites in the United States—including the Pentagon—and murdered two New York police officers and Brinks truck driver in a botched robbery attempt. They were called The Weather Underground, and their manifesto said, “Our aim is to disrupt the empire… to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks.”

Was that sedition?

One of the members of that group is William Ayers. He’s an Obama mentor and in all likelihood the ghost author of Obama’s Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

During the administration of George W. Bush, liberal activists protested Bush’s every move. A play was even written and performed which celebrated Bush’s assassination. Sedition? None of the liberal media thought so.

But speak out against the Marxist redistributionist policies of the Obama administration and call it a regime—as liberal pundits did to Bush during his administration—and you are somehow being seditious.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality.”

Liberals apparently can’t do that. Of course the reason and wisdom of Jefferson and the rest of Founders is as foreign to today’s liberals as the reasoning behind Mao Zedong’s murderous policies is to conservatives.

Perhaps that’s why political discourse has taken such an ugly turn.

Resurgence Of ‘Anti-government Extremism’ Comes Under Increasing Criticism

Resurgence of 'anti-government extremism' comes under increasing criticism As America marked the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, some organizations have expressed concerns about the rise of rhetoric that can be perceived as anarchist and violent.

One of those organizations was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, which called on Americans to challenge the recent resurgence of what it says is the same anti-government extremism that led to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City masterminded by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

"As we commemorate [this] anniversary … we must also recognize that the same anti-government extremism that led to the attack is growing and is unfortunately moving toward the mainstream," said CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad.

He also pointed to the recent attack on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) facility in Texas, the shooting of guards at the Pentagon and the arrests of anti-government militia members who allegedly planned to kill law enforcement officers to spark an anti-government revolt as examples of this type of danger.

Meanwhile, a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, titled Rage on the Right, noted that "militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose ‘one-world government’ on liberty-loving Americans came roaring back after years out of the limelight."

However, those who have spoken against the government say they are concerned about the administration’s growing reach into their lives, which includes higher taxes, healthcare system regulations and attempts to reduce access to guns. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19731717-ADNFCR

Virginia Tech, Columbine Families Vow Action On Gun Show Loophole

Virginia Tech, Columbine families vow action on gun show loopholeTaking advantage of the recent anniversaries of some of the deadliest shootings on United States school campuses, gun rights opponents have praised lawmakers who are working to close the gun show loophole, and have appealed to others to take up the cause.

In Virginia, the families of those killed or wounded and the survivors of the shooting have expressed their gratitude to U.S. Representatives Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) for co-sponsoring H.R. 2324. The bill was introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Representative Mike Castle (R-Del.) and would require background checks on all firearm purchasers at gun shows.

"Even though [the previous lack of background check requirement] has been fixed at the state level in Virginia, a future shooter would still be able to walk into a gun show in more than 30 states and purchase a firearm(s) from an unlicensed seller without undergoing any background check whatsoever," the group complained in a statement issued by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Meanwhile, on the eve of the 11th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre, the father of one of the victims has asked why it has taken federal lawmakers more than a decade to require background checks at gun shows. Colorado voted overwhelmingly to close this loophole in 2000.

"This loophole in federal law needs to be closed by Congress, so that Colorado’s background check law becomes the law of the land," Tom Mauser said.

Mauser is launching a statewide radio advertising campaign this week, which asks voters to contact Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to urge him to vote to eliminate the provision.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19731749-ADNFCR

Study: Multivitamin Use May Lower Breast Cancer Risk

Study: Multivitamin use may lower breast cancer risk Women who take multivitamins and calcium tablets on a daily basis may have a significantly decreased risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer, according to a new study recently presented at the American Association for Cancer Research’s annual meeting.

Lead author Jaime Matta and his colleagues from the Ponce School of Medicine in Puerto Rico found that while nutrient supplementation did not result in an immediate breast cancer risk reduction, it was linked to positive long-term effects when taken over many years.

For the study, the research team compared the lifestyle habits of 268 breast cancer sufferers to those of 457 healthy women. They found that women who routinely took multivitamins reduced their risk of developing the disease by nearly 30 percent compared to the control group. Furthermore, those who took nutritional supplements and calcium tablets reduced their risk by more than 40 percent.

Matta concluded that vitamin supplements may help subjugate cancer risk by enhancing DNA repair capacity.

"This process involves at least five separate pathways and is critical for maintaining genomic stability," he said. "When the DNA is not repaired, it leads to mutation that leads to cancer."

Fear and Loathing: Why It’s Bullish for Gold

“I hate to say this, but this place is getting to me. I think I’m getting the Fear.” Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

First it was Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. We had to invade Iraq. Never mind that the United States had a no fly zone over the country and had practically destroyed the Republican Guard; that Iraq had no effective way to deliver such weapons or that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department didn’t think such weapons even existed.

Then in 2008 the Washington fear machine was at work again. The White House, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department were screaming that the world was falling into another Great Depression.

The latest End of Days is a prophecy from Hillary Clinton. At the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington last week, the U.S. Secretary of State said that terrorists like al-Qaida pose a nuclear threat. It is all part of the Obama administration’s plan to convince the American people that al-Qaida is going nuclear.

According to journalist Emily Gertz, “Fear of the terrorist has been used for the past several years to induce Americans to accept an increasingly authoritarian government and the dilution of our civil liberties.”

It is not just the fear of terrorists that President Obama and his Liberal elite are using to expand their sphere of influence. It is FEAR of everything: the jobs we might lose, the food we eat; even the water we drink and the air we breathe.

In his essay, The Politics of Fear, Alex Gourevitch writes that fear mongering is part and parcel of the environmental movement. “Environmentalism is a left-wing politics of fear because it rests on the deeply fearful idea that only an overweening threat to our physical and collective health… Threats to the very conditions of life, rather than social controversies over power and distribution, come to motivate political engagement—an engagement that presumes setting to one side inequality and unfreedom (sic) as the central categories of political contestation.”

A Gentler Time
America has vastly changed from when FDR proclaimed: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

No doubt The Age of Fear began with 9/11. Before, Washington did its best to keep a lid on anxieties. The Crash of ’87 is an example.

I was driving to work and the radio announcer said: “The Dow Industrials are currently down 325 points.”

“That’s ridiculous,” I thought. The Dow couldn’t be down that much. Either the announcer was stupid or he was playing a prank.

But it was true. The stock market was plunging. It was Black Monday and the Dow plummeted 508 points, or 23 percent, to 1,739. Half a trillion dollars in wealth had just been erased. Over the next few days the world witnessed the Dow’s fall from over 2,600 to 1,700.

What I remember most about the Crash of ’87 was the Federal government’s response to it. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan not only provided liquidity for the banks but urged calm and told the world that America’s economy was “fundamentally sound”. It was a message reiterated by House Speaker Jim Wright, President Ronald Reagan and U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker. It was our Federal government doing its damndest to reduce panic; to stabilize a dangerous situation.

The stock market crash of ’08 brought an entirely different response from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, as explained by Andrew Ross Sorkin in his bestseller, Too Big To Fail. According to Sorkin, the leadership of the Fed and Treasury opted for a novel strategy to get Congress to ante up half a trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street—fear.

“This is only going to work if you scare the sh** out of them.”

That had been Jim Wilkinson’s advice for Paulson before he and Bernanke left to meet with the congressional leadership at Nancy Pelosi’s office that evening. By Wilkinson’s reckoning, unless they could convince Congress that the world was literally going to come to an end, they would never receive approval for a $500 billion bailout package for Wall Street.

History’s Lessons About Fanning Fears
Washington had struck on something that tyrants have known for centuries—that fanning fear makes a populace compliant to just about anything.

A few years before the Wall Street bailout House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned of impending danger out of Iraq: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology.”

Then in the autumn of 2008 Pelosi did a flip-flop; first opposing and then embracing what had become a $700 billion bailout of the financial markets. In the end Pelosi and two presidents argued that without the taxpayer bailout our entire financial system faced collapse.

No doubt Pelosi will stand shoulder to shoulder with Secretary Clinton on the latest great fear, nuke toting mullahs. The real question is what is Pelosi and the Obama administration really selling? The answer is submission—the handing over of our liberty—in the name of national defense, the economy and the environment.

Of course pedaling fear is nothing new. Ancients like Alexander did it. So too has the Catholic Church, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. The difference is that America’s leaders once allayed our fears. Today they incite them. FDR was wrong, what we really need to fear is the fear-makers themselves.

Washington’s New Strategy Will Send Gold Soaring
America’s leaders might not be less moral than those before them (I will let you decide). What has changed is that Washington once had a vested interest in quieting fear. It was how government supported the once mighty U.S. dollar.

What is painfully evident is that over the past decade the Federal government has been intent on getting its way, the dollar be damned. And it certainly has been. The U.S. dollar index, a measurement against a basket of other currencies, has fallen by one third. During the same period the price of gold has risen fourfold.

Action To Take: Expect Washington to fan fears on everything from the environment to the economy, even at the expense of the dollar. That means you should diversify out of most dollar instruments and buy physical precious metals. I urge you to store 1-ounce gold and silver Eagles and 1-ounce platinum rounds for your safekeeping.

Yours for real wealth and good health,

John Myers
Myers’ Energy and Gold Report

Communists and the United Nations

On April 25, 1945, 45 countries convened in San Francisco for the founding conference of the United Nations (U.N.). The general secretary of the meeting was none other than the notorious Soviet espionage agent, Alger Hiss. He had been picked personally for the post by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and was promptly approved by FDR’s buddy, “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Hiss was not the only American involved in the formation of the United Nations who was later revealed to be a Communist. In fact, of the 18 Americans cited by the State Department in 1950 as “the important men who shaped the UN,” all but one was later identified as Communists. The lone exception was former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who may not have been red, but was certainly very pink.

With such a record it is no surprise that the U.N.’s “Universal Declaration of Rights” makes absolutely no mention of the source of our rights being a Creator—or anything else but government—and further says that all rights and freedoms “shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law.”

No wonder that the U.N.’s idea of “world peace” has always and everywhere been the same as “world socialism.” Or why so many responsible Americans insist that the U.S. should get out of the U.N.—and vice versa.

—Chip Wood

Poll: Public Confidence In Washington Plummets To A Near 50-year Low

Poll: Public confidence in Washington plummets to a near 50-year low Nearly eight in 10 Americans do not trust the Federal government and have little confidence that it is capable of solving the nation’s woes, according to a recently released survey from the Pew Research Center.

Specifically, the poll found that just 22 percent of respondents said that they can trust the federal government almost always or most of the time, marking one of the lowest public confidence rates in the last 50 years. Moreover, nearly 50 percent of those surveyed said that the government negatively affects their daily lives and is a "threat to their personal freedom," Politico.com reports.

The poll, which surveyed 2,505 adults, also found that an overwhelming majority of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Congress. Over the last 12 months, the congressional approval rating has fallen from 50 percent to a quarter-century-worst 26 percent.

Andrew Kohut, director of the research center, said that the waning public confidence in Washington is due to a "perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government—a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials."