Will Rand Paul Spell Trouble For The Right?

Will Rand Paul spell trouble for the right?Although he has been called "the darling of the Tea Party," Rand Paul’s select comments since his win in the Kentucky Republican primary last week have some GOP members scratching their heads.

Just hours after Paul declared his victory, he gave an interview in which he implied that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limited businesses’ rights to set their own policies and decide which customers or clients to serve.

Although he later tried to qualify his statement by saying that he supported the act and would not press to repeal it, the damage appeared to be done.

Criticism came not only from Democrats but also many Republicans, with Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, saying Paul’s philosophy "is misplaced in these times."

"I don’t think it’s where the country is right now. The country litigated the issue of separate but equal," Steele told the Fox News Sunday show. "I think in this case Rand Paul’s philosophy got in the way of reality."

However, the controversy has not stopped there, as Paul stirred more controversy by saying that President Obama’s criticism of British Petroleum for the Gulf oil spill was "un-American."

Prior to the primaries, the Senate Republican leadership failed to endorse Paul, instead throwing its support behind his opponent Trey Grayson. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19796561-ADNFCR

Study: Excess Abdominal Fat Linked To Dementia

Study: Excess abdominal fat linked to dementiaLong-term obesity is a well-known cause of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. However, a new Boston University School of Medicine study suggests that excess abdominal fat may also be linked to a greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.

For the study, a research team led by Sudha Seshadri recruited nearly 800 adults over the age of 60 and analyzed their body mass index, waist circumference, waist to hip ratio and percentage of abdominal fat. The investigators also performed an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on each participant to examine their total brain volume and their number of brain infarcts.

As expected, the researchers identified a strong inverse association between increasing body mass and smaller brain volume—a known risk factor for dementia.

"More importantly our data suggests a stronger connection between central obesity, particularly the visceral fat component of abdominal obesity, and risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease," said Seshadri.

While further studies need to be conducted to analyze how obesity prevention can affect dementia risk, the researchers speculate that consuming a low-fat, nutrient-rich diet can significantly improve brain health.

Organization Protests Plans For NYC Mosque

Organization protests plans for NYC mosqueEarly next month a self-described human rights organization will conduct a rally at Ground Zero in New York City to protest the construction of a mosque at the site where terrorists brought down the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) plans the rally for June 6 and has invited anyone interested to join, especially those who lost family or friends, or who were injured on Sept. 11.

"What could be more insulting and humiliating than a mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center buildings that were brought down by an Islamic jihad attack?" asked SIOA executive director Pamela Geller.

She added that "any decent American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn’t dream of such an insult. It’s a stab in eye of America."

SIOA says it works to defend human rights, religious liberty and the freedom of speech against "Islamic supremacist intimidation" and to block any attempts to bring elements of Sharia law to the United States.

According to the organization, groups supporting the June 6 event include ACT! for America (ACT! Manhattan chapter), Z Street, Freedom Defense Initiative, Faith Freedom International and the Center for Security Policy.

Congress Pushes To Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy Before November

Congress pushes to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' policy before NovemberSeveral media outlets are reporting that Congress may schedule a vote this week to repeal the highly controversial "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, which bans openly gay individuals from serving in the military.

The proposed vote comes as a surprise to many conservatives, as the Pentagon has yet to complete its year-long evaluation of how to best implement a new policy.

Many political pundits believe that the Democrats are pushing for an early vote because the review is not expected to be completed until December 2010, a month after the upcoming congressional elections.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Congress "in the strongest possible terms" two weeks ago to hold off a vote on the measure until the Pentagon’s evaluation has been completed, it seems as if he is now willing to step aside, according to ABC News.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that Gates "continues to believe that ideally a review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the "don’t ask, don’t tell" law. With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment."

Representative Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) is expected to propose the repeal later this week in an amendment to the annual defense spending bill.

Senate Passes Historic Financial Overhaul Reform Bill

Senate passes historic financial overhaul reform billAfter barely clearing the 60-vote threshold to end debate, Senate Democrats passed a financial reform bill last week that will revolutionize the way that large banks operate.

The legislation, which now needs to be reconciled with the House version that was passed in December, will increase the role of federal regulators, establish new procedures to prevent bailouts and limit the use of derivatives, according to CNN.

"To Wall Street, it says: No longer can you recklessly gamble away other people’s money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "It says the days of too big to fail are behind us. It says to those who game the system: The game is over."

While the majority of Republicans agree that reform was necessary, most feel that the measure will negatively impact the marketplace.

"This bill doesn’t listen to the American people—it promises massive government overreach in ordinary business transactions," said Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). "The decisions we’ve made will have an impact on the lives of Americans for decades to come."

Republicans leaders also heavily criticized the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nation’s two largest mortgage companies, will be virtually unaffected by the new measures. Due to last year’s Federal bailout, both corporations are now government-affiliated.

Gentlemen: Is Your Sex Life Killing You?

Sex feels good, and the proper amount of sex can help maintain physical and emotional health. But balance is the key. Both having too little or too much sex can lead to unhealthy conditions. Let us look at the effects of too much sex, too little sex, and what the proper amounts should be based on your age and condition.

How Much Sex Is Too Much?
The theories of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) warn that a man who engages in too much sex can become what is known as “kidney jing deficient.” Jing is a term that refers to the body’s essential fluids, distilled by the kidneys from what we eat and drink. The kidneys are thought of as the body’s “batteries” and the place where jing is stored. Chinese health theory suggests we are actually equipped with enough jing (life essence) to live 120 years. The problem is we exhaust this essence through poor diet, lack of rest, lack of exercise, the effects of stress, disease and… an unhealthy amount of sex.

Signs and symptoms of kidney jing deficiency include a weakening of the bones, hair loss, a graying of facial color, loosening or loss of teeth, soreness in the lower back, weakness of the legs (particularly behind the knees), poor memory, loss of libido, impotence and a general lack of sexual desire. If you are suffering from any of these signs and symptoms, perhaps you should consider if too much sex is killing you… or at least weakening you.

With too frequent ejaculation, jing (semen, the essence of pure fluids and life energy) is depleted from the body. Moreover, as a man passes middle age, the excessive loss of jing can cause the disastrous effects described above. Like contact sports, sex is a young man’s game. Middle aged and older men need to retain their jing (semen essence) and ejaculate less frequently. (There is an entire art in Yogic and Taoist traditions of men learning to come to orgasm while not releasing a single drop of semen. (More on this in another article)

Two-thousand years ago Su Nu Jing, the classic text on TCM, was published. It advised how much sex/ejaculations are safe for a man to have. For example, a healthy 20-year-old can ejaculate twice per day with no adverse effects. Also, to maintain proper health, the 20-year-old should have a minimum of one ejaculation every four days.

The following chart suggests the sex guidelines from that classic text:

Average Health
Good Health
20+Every 4 days1X Day2x Day
30+Every 8 daysEvery other day1x Day
40+Every 16 daysEvery 4 daysEvery 3 days
50+Every 21 daysEvery 10 daysEvery 5 days
60+Every 30 daysEvery 20 daysEvery 10 days


Of course, these are rough guidelines set forth within the theories of TCM. This gives you an idea of the frequency a man should have sex in order to maintain good health and balanced emotions.

The average 20-year-old male who is engaging in masturbation three times a day is probably overdoing it. This could possibly affect his grades (poor memory) or affect his tennis match (with weak knees and sore low back).

If you are a 40-year-old executive thinking of having that affair with the 24-year old-intern, you might want to consider if you are in good enough health to survive an extramarital affair. You could wind up suffering from hair loss, aging of the face, low back soreness, weak legs, poor memory, loss of libido, impotence and lack of sexual desire that could cost you your career and your health… not to mention your marriage (if applicable).

How Much Sex Is Too Little?
Keep in mind that no sex at all is unhealthy. Psychologically, it can cause resentment, depression and anxiety. Sex is important for relationships, not just emotionally, but for the organ systems as well. Ladies, when men tell you they feel like they are dying from lack of sex, it’s partially true. In reality, the choked up emotions and lack of connection can cause him to suffer what is known in TCM as liver qi stagnation.

According to TCM theory, the liver functions to move the qi (life energy) freely in the body. So, liver qi stagnation is a pathogenic flow of qi manifesting in some of the following signs and symptoms: feeling of distension in the chest and hypochondrium, sighing, hiccup, melancholy, depression, moodiness, unhappiness and feeling of a lump in the throat. Often the etiology of this syndrome includes emotional problems, a state of anger, frustration and/or resentment.

If this condition persists it can grow into what is called liver fire. The signs and symptoms associated with live fire include irritability, anger, shouting, ringing in the ears, temporal headache, bitter taste in the mouth, dream disturbed sleep, a red face and red eyes. This is the result of long-standing emotional states of anger, resentment or frustration. This can cause problems like high blood pressure, tinnitus, insomnia, migraine headache and the like.

Good sexual relations are a part of good health. Overdoing it can be detrimental to health, and so can too little of it.

My advice: Be happy and be wise in the ways of lovemaking.

—Dr. Mark Wiley

FRC Criticizes New York Cross-Dressing Ruling Case

FRC criticizes New York cross-dressing ruling case While some advocates claim that a ban on cross-dressing amounts to the violation of transgender people’s rights, a family organization has presented the opposite argument while commenting on a recent American Eagle Outfitters case.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo successfully challenged the clothing retail chain to change its policies to be more transgender-friendly. According to The New York Daily News, the company will abandon the rule about employee "personal appearance" that banned men from wearing women’s clothing and vice versa.

"If more places would follow behind American Eagle’s experience, a lot of us would be able to work more," said Joi-elle White, a transgender member of Make the Road New York, adding that "there would be less of us on the street or on the internet risking our [lives] just to survive."

However, Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins has expressed his disappointment with the outcome, and linked the case to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), currently under consideration in Congress.

"Every American who believes in the right of employers to set dress and grooming standards for their employees should be alarmed by how this attorney general has used bullying tactics and litigation to impose cross-dressing policies on American Eagle Outfitters," Perkins warned. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19793362-ADNFCR

In A Letter To Pentagon, Civil Rights Groups Defend Press Freedom

In a letter to Pentagon, civil rights groups defend press freedom Several human and civil rights organizations sent a letter to top officials at the Pentagon demanding the reversal of the ban on several reporters covering military commission hearings of foreign terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay.

The letter was prompted by the ban imposed on four journalists from the United States and Canada for publishing the name of an interrogator in one of the cases.

The four, who include reporters from The Miami Herald, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and Canwest News Service, allege the ban is "illegal and unconstitutional," because the name of the interrogator was already in the public domain, and publishing it did not constitute a violation of the Pentagon’s rules, according to media reports.

In their intervention, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the National Institute of Military Justice said that "this [decision] not only runs counter to the U.S. administration’s stated commitment to transparency in government, but will also bring the military commissions into further disrepute, internationally and within the U.S."

The Pentagon has said the newspapers in question can continue to cover the story, which involves detainee Omar Khadr, but they must send other journalist to do so. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19793301-ADNFCR

Adding Spices To Ground Beef Can Help Eliminate Cancer-Causing Compounds

Adding spices to ground beef can help eliminate cancer-causing compoundsResults of a new Kansas State University study suggest that adding certain spices to ground beef may help lower the accumulation of dangerous compounds that are known to cause cancer.

For the study, lead author Scott Smith and his colleagues sought to identify natural ways to reduce the carcinogenic compounds that are commonly produced when ground beef is grilled, fried or boiled. Known as heterocyclic amines (HCAs), these compounds have been proven to increase the risk of developing colorectal, stomach, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

"Cooked beef tends to develop more HCAs than other kinds of cooked meats such as pork and chicken," Smith said. "Cooked beef patties appear to be the cooked meat with the highest mutagenic activity and may be the most important source of HCAs in the human diet."

Working off of the theory that antioxidants can help combat dangerous carcinogens, the researchers tested the effectiveness of several spices in inhibiting the formation of HCAs. They found that fingerroot, rosemary and turmeric were the most successful.

In fact, rosemary extract was able to reduce HCA formation by 61 to 79 percent.

Financial Reform Legislation Puts Natural Supplements At Risk

Keep your eyes focused on the rogue corporatist Congress over the next couple of weeks as the reconciliation process takes place to merge the House and Senate versions of the financial reform legislation in a conference committee.

While the provisions in the two bills which further centralize control over the financial system in the hands of power-grabbing chief executive are bad enough, a provision in the House version that has nothing at all to do with finance has really caught our attention and must be defeated.

It’s an amendment that would give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to require supplement companies perform at least two human studies before making any claims for their products, according to the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH). Currently, supplements are regulated under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).

The amendment to HR 4173 was introduced by Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and has nothing to do with the financial services industry. But it will limit your ability to acquire and use natural health supplements.

The trials the amendment requires are time-consuming and beyond the financial means of most supplement companies, according to the ANH. And even if the companies could find the money, the FTC could require more and more costly versions of these studies, or more of those studies. At each stage, fewer supplements would be available, and those available would cost more and more, until they became as costly as drugs.

The decisions about supplements would then be placed in the hands of five unelected FTC commissioners who could issue binding regulations in a wide range of areas. And companies that didn’t comply with the new rules could be put out of business.

It’s not an unusual tactic as the FTC has done this before with other companies who didn’t toe their line.

“According to renowned constitutional attorney Jonathan Emord, ‘The provision removing the ban on FTC rulemaking without Congressional preapproval contained in H.R. 4173 invites the very same irresponsible over-regulation of the commercial marketplace that led Congress to enact the ban in the 1980s. FTC has no shortage of power to regulate deceptive advertising; this bill gives it far more discretionary power than it needs, inviting greater abuse and mischief from an agency that suffers virtually no check on its discretion.’” (www.anh-usa.org)

Waxman is an enemy to freedom, choice in medical decisions and to the supplement industry. On his website, Waxman writes: “I am troubled that the FDA lacks the basic information necessary to protect consumers from unsafe dietary supplements. The FDA clearly needs to have more resources to give consumers real protection. I intend to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that FDA has the tools it needs to address this and other important public health missions.”

What he means is that big pharma doesn’t profit from natural supplements so Big Brother needs to quash them. By the way, the top four industries contributing to Waxman’s campaign in the 2009-2010 cycle are: hospitals/nursing homes; health services/health maintenance organizations (HMOs); lawyers/law firms and health professionals.

While it’s bad enough that Congress’ elected elitists are more interested in protecting their sugar daddies (large financial firms that slip large amounts of cash into their pockets) than Average Joe; what’s worse is their desire to limit your freedom to make choices about which natural health supplements you can take.

We urge you to call your Senators and member of Congress this week and tell him or her to make sure no provisions restricting the use of supplements get included in the final version of the financial reform bill. You can find your member of Congress here.

And finally, I’m often struck (or saddened) by the comments from some who post on this site who fail to see how their government moves past socialism toward fascism on a daily basis. They often ask—sometimes by logging in under several different names and carrying on a conversation with themselves in an effort to disrupt a discussion—exactly what freedoms are being taken away by an overreaching corporatist government.

Well, here’s one: the ability to make your own decisions about your health and how you choose to remain healthy.

There are many others: like freedom of speech, freedom of association, gun ownership, the ability to own property (if you are required to pay a tax in order to keep it, is it truly yours?), freedom to operate a business as you see fit, freedom to pass along your earnings to your children and the freedom to decide whether your children are given potentially harmful vaccinations (enforced through rules requiring vaccinations to enroll in public schools).

If you are too blind to see that these things are happening daily, then may God help you, because you are incapable of helping yourself.

Wall Street Reform Bill Fails To Advance In The Senate

Wall Street reform bill fails to advance in the Senate Following nearly a year of contentious debate, the Democrats’ Wall Street reform bill stalled in the Senate last week, as all but two Republicans voted against the measure designed to overhaul the financial regulatory system.

Joining the GOP in preventing the advancement of the bill were two Democrats—Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)—who oppose the legislation because they do not feel that it goes far enough.

Soon after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized Republicans for blocking a piece of legislation that would prevent bailouts and strengthen consumer protections, according to CNN.com.

"Wall Street and, obviously, 39 out of 41 Republicans… think that things going on, on Wall Street, are just fine," Reid said. "I think that’s a real stretch to think the American people think that they want this to go on as in years past."

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that the bill is just another example of the increasingly intrusive nature of big government.

"Not only does the bill still contain a massive new government agency with broad new powers over consumer spending and Main Street businesses, it does nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the main protagonists in the financial meltdown," said McConnell.

Reid indicated that the Democrats plan to hold another vote on the bill in the coming days.

Obama The Hitman: First A Cleric, Who’s Next?

The administration of President Barack Obama has itself tied up in quite a knot.

The administration that opposes enhanced interrogations, that wants to treat terrorists caught both on the battlefield and in country as common criminals, that wants to try suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a New York City courtroom, that read Miranda rights to the foreign-born underwear bomber right away but delayed it for hours for the naturalized citizen Times Square bomber, has targeted an American citizen living in Yemen for assassination.

Of course, since the United States government has a policy against assassination that’s not what it’s being called. But what else do you call the order designating American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki as a target for a strike by a drone missile?

Awlaki is suspected by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of actively plotting violence. He is described in The New York Times as “a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States.” The CIA says it believes Awlaki’s rhetoric inspired Times Square attempted-bomber Faisal Shahzad.

Of course Shahzad’s visit to Pakistan where he met with a member of an intelligence group with ties to the CIA surely had nothing to do with the bomb attack, but that is a topic for another day.

Whether Awlaki gets blown to bits by a Hellfire missile or shot in the head by a sniper, he’s dead and the U.S. government has become judge, jury and executioner.

To eavesdrop on Awlaki’s telephone calls the CIA—because of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—would first be required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But to target him for death the CIA only needed approval from the National Security Council (NSC).

As former CIA lawyer Vicki Divoll told The Times, “Congress has protected Awlaki’s cell phone calls. But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

I wonder if Awlaki will be read his Miranda rights before the missile explodes, or will Attorney General Eric Holder wait until afterwards and read them over Awlaki’s bits and pieces.

But wait. That might not be a problem because some in Congress want to take away Americans’ guaranteed citizenship rights if they target fellow citizens with terrorist violence.

Senator Joe Leiberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said recently, “If you’re attacking your fellow Americans in an act of war you lose the rights that come with citizenship.”

And this is where it gets really sticky. The Obama administration has yet to call the Times Square bomb plot an act of terrorism. On the White House website it is referred to as the “Times Square incident.” Or, to paraphrase Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, it was a potential man-caused disaster.

We are no longer sliding down a slippery slope. Now we are cascading down a steep mountainside.

It began soon after 9/11 with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in the weeks following the attack. That act is already being used to strip U.S. citizens of their rights. Just ask Jose Padilla and Ashton Lundeby how that act is working out for them.

Now we have an administration that has shown a proclivity to use missile attacks from Predator drones to kill what it is calling insurgents or terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan—and killing innocents in the process—saying that it’s time to use them in a country we’re not currently at war with to kill an American citizen who hasn’t harmed anyone himself.

That same bunch doesn’t call planting a bomb in Times Square terrorism. But it warns that those who oppose its policies—and show their opposition by demonstrating and holding up signs outside the Capitol building and in cities and towns across the country—are potentially inciting attacks similar to Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

If they think the rhetoric of Tea partiers—or Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or whoever—is somehow inciting violence, how long is it before the administration starts authorizing drone missile attacks on them?

Apparently, all it takes to get on the CIA’s short list for a missile strike is for someone in the administration to decide you are inciting violence. That doesn’t bode well for a group that has drawn the ire of Obama, his administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, who are on record as considering Tea partiers, former military members and anti-healthcare reform protestors as Nazis and terrorists.

American citizens… beware… this administration thinks you’re more dangerous and deserve fewer rights than foreigners planting bombs on U.S. soil. And if you hear the far-off hum of an airplane or the whoosh of a missile being fired, run like Satan himself is on your heels.

But if you’re al-Qaida don’t worry. Holder will read you your rights and have a court appointed attorney standing by.

How Can I Prepare For The Future When I Struggle To Get By?

Dear Bob

What about people who don’t have large sums of money to “invest” in your precious metals. What about the poor or the ones who struggle every day to get by. What do they do?


Dear ALC,

I understand that many are struggling to get by, especially those who are out of work or are on fixed incomes. However, you can still take steps to prepare for an uncertain future. Without knowing your specific situation I can’t give more than general advice. However, you should work to extricate yourself from debt. You should set aside a little non-perishable food (as much as you can afford) every time you go shopping. To invest in precious metals, I would recommend silver. Its price is around $17-$18 per ounce and you can buy it one ounce at a time, if that better fits your budget.

Best Wishes,

Mayor Bloomberg Moves To Relax Gun Rules, But Advocates Still Unhappy

Mayor Bloomberg moves to relax gun rules, but advocates still unhappyNew York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said his administration will simplify the process whereby New Yorkers can obtain gun permits, reversing what gun rights advocates have long criticized as arcane and restrictive rules. However, his move appears to have failed to satisfy gun proponents.

The decision—which the administration explains is meant to increase efficiency by allowing for better investigation of applicants who might not qualify for a gun, while processing those fit to have them more swiftly—has been described as a reversal for Bloomberg who has been known for his anti-gun policies, according to The New York Times.

However, representatives of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have said that on reviewing the new regulations they see the announcement as "a lot of flash and very little substance."

The program, which Bloomberg said will streamline licensing requirements, reduce renewal fees and speed up the application process, "sounds good on the surface," said SAF executive vice president Alan Gottlieb.

He noted, however, that there is only one handgun licensing office in Manhattan and only one office for registering and licensing rifles and shotguns in Queens.

"The handgun application fee is $340, and there is a $94.25 fingerprinting fee on top of that. This fee structure screams ‘for elites only’ because those fees are outrageously expensive for average citizens," Gottlieb concluded.

Gingrich Nazi Comparison Stirs Firestorm Of Criticism

Gingrich Nazi comparison stirs firestorm of criticism Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has found himself in a hot seat for the controversial comments he made in his latest book, where he compared President Barack Obama’s administration to the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

In To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine, Gingrich wrote that Obama and his closest Democratic collaborators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), are implementing a socialist agenda, especially in areas such as the healthcare reform and economic stimulus, according to media reports.

In Gingrich’s view, these types of policies pose "a great threat" to America, and are comparable to those that characterized Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

His comments have provoked a strong reaction from many groups, including the American Jewish Council (AJC). David Harris, executive director of the AJC, said the analogy was "foolish and dangerous."

"It is vital that the Republican leadership say clearly that such analogies are unacceptable," Harris said. "Unfortunately, as the recent controversy over the new immigration law in Arizona also demonstrates, demonizing political opponents as Nazis is becoming all too common in American political debate."

Criticism has also come from Gingrich’s own political allies. Former GOP Congresswoman Susan Molinari told talk show host Joy Behar that she wanted to "distance myself from that remark. To compare anything that is going on in this country to the atrocities of Nazi Germany in any way, shape or form is just crazy," quoted by CNN.

FAIR: Obama’s Aunt’s Case Illustrates ‘Abuse Of U.S. Political Asylum Policy’

FAIR: Obama's aunt's case illustrates 'abuse of U.S. political asylum policy'President Barack Obama’s paternal aunt Zeituni Onyango, who is a citizen of Kenya and was living in the United States illegally, has been granted political asylum by a court in Boston.

The court accepted Onyango’s argument that she feared violence—she and Obama’s father, who was her half-brother, were members of the Luo tribe, a minority in Kenya—if she returned to that country. The ruling opens the way for her to apply for legal permanent residency in a year, according to The Boston Globe.

However, the court’s decision has angered immigration reform proponents, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The organization called it "a case study in how those seeking to evade U.S. immigration laws can manipulate the system," and demanded that the entire record of the case be made public.

FAIR representatives were particularly angered at the fact that Onyango was granted the asylum despite having her 2004 petition denied by a Federal immigration court, a ruling she ignored.

"[The] case is an all-too-typical example of how our asylum laws are used to thwart the enforcement [of] U.S. immigration laws," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR, adding that "the system allows people who defy our laws repeated opportunities to [come up with] new reasons to be granted legal permission to remain."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19785087-ADNFCR

Study: Vitamin E May Help Prevent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Study: Vitamin E may help prevent chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseAccording to a new Cornell University study, older women may be able to significantly decrease their risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by regularly taking vitamin E supplements.

For the study, researchers analyzed the medical data of more than 40,000 women over the age of 45 who were randomly assigned to take either 600 mg of vitamin E or a placebo every other day for several years.

At the conclusion of the research, the investigators found that participants who regularly took nutritional supplements had an approximately 10 percent lower risk of being diagnosed with COPD compared to those in the control group. However, vitamin E had no statistically significant effect on preventing the development of asthma.

"If results of this study are borne out by further research, clinicians may recommend that women take vitamin E supplements to prevent COPD," said lead author Anne Hermetet Agler.

She also noted that the benefits of vitamin E supplementation were apparent in smokers and non-smokers alike.

The findings will be presented at the ATS 2010 International Conference in New Orleans later this week.

Obama Asks National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair To Resign

Obama asks National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair to resign In the wake of several attempted terrorist attacks and recent quarrels with the White House, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said May 20 that he will resign at the end of May. Several media outlets are reporting that the move was not voluntary, and that President Obama had asked Blair to step down.

During his 16-month tenure, Blair continually clashed with CIA Director Leon Panetta, who tried to limit the size and power of the director’s staff, according to The New York Times. Blair was also highly critical of the expansion of the CIA’s covert activities program, which he felt contributed to the nation’s tarnished global image.

Meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers said that Blair is being used as a scapegoat to cover up the failures of other members of Obama’s staff, Fox News reports.

"Blair’s resignation is the result of the Obama administration’s rampant politicization of national security and outright disregard for congressional intelligence oversight," said Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

"Dennis Blair was the one person you could count on for rationality among Holder, Napolitano and Brennan—and he’s the one the president let go."

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper is said to be the leading candidate to replace Blair.

Anchor Babies And The Illegal 14th

The response is still pouring in to my column last week on our immigration policies. Or rather, our lack of same. If you haven’t read Arizona, Si! Obama, No! and want to get caught up on the topic, just click here.

When you finish reading my column be sure to scroll down to the bottom and read some of the hundreds of comments that readers have posted. You will be very impressed by the passion and, yes, the wisdom shown by many writers. They may be a cantankerous bunch, as I’ve said before, but there is no question that they are motivated by a fierce dedication to our country and the principles on which it was founded. I’d sleep better at night if more of them were on guard in Washington instead of the pathetic bunch of compromisers we’ve got now.

I don’t think there was anything in that column or the comments that followed that most readers would find shocking or unbelievable. Maybe something contrary to their own passionately held beliefs, sure, but there is nothing there that is startling, outrageous or even extremely controversial.

Today’s column will be different.

This week I want to discuss two important corollaries to last week’s column. The first is something that is almost never mentioned in this debate, but should be. The second is something that I have never seen raised. But it’s at the heart of much that has gone wrong in this country during the last 150 years.

Let’s begin with one of the most startling aspects of our present immigration crisis:

It is the official policy of the United States government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States.

Not only that, but by becoming a newly franchised citizen, that infant is permitted to sponsor American citizenship for its mother, father and other relatives.

Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to the citizenship of others can be made.

On the face of it, this sounds patently absurd. How can a newborn baby be eligible for citizenship when his or her parents are not? Not merely eligible, mind you, but granted it automatically?

Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked, and their answers, had to be in English.

As an essential part of the process every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he or she had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home—the United States of America. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.

There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with hugs and tears and enthusiastic applause.

That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean. But today we are required to bestow it on anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is absolutely insane.

The new citizen is immediately entitled to all the benefits that accompany citizenship—schooling, medical care, food stamps and other welfare and a whole host of “public assistance.”

Moreover, that new citizen is now entitled to invite other family members—mother and father, aunts and uncles, cousins and grandparents, nephews and nieces—to come visit them in their newly adopted country and even apply for citizenship here.

How did such utter craziness come to be accepted as the law of the land?

Well, the first thing you need to know is that there is no such law.

If you ask how automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants came about you’ll be told that the 14th Amendment requires it.

This is a flat-out lie. But it’s a lie that’s been promoted by those who want to overturn the established laws and customs of our country. It’s a lie that the highest officials in this country—from the White House on down—pretend is true.

Let me share some important history with you. The 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress at the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to make sure that newly enfranchised blacks were not denied the rights of citizenship when they returned to their homes in states that comprised the former Confederacy.

Sadly, the 14th Amendment is worded so vaguely that an activist court—spurred on by politically motivated attorneys—can interpret it almost any way it chooses. Here’s the relevant section:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? If you do a little research on the topic you’ll discover that this amendment was most emphatically not meant to include the children of aliens—even if their parents were in this country legally. Lawmakers assumed that since their parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they were citizens—that is, their native country—so were their offspring, no matter where they were born.

Ah, but if you do a little more research, you’ll discover a secret that’s been kept out of our history books for more than 100 years:

There are compelling reasons to believe that the 14th Amendment was never legally adopted by a sufficient number of states to make it a valid part of our Constitution. This is why the second part of today’s column is called “the Illegal 14th.”

First we begin with the fact that the Southern states never left the union. Oh, I’ll admit they tried to. We fought a terrible war over the issue. But Abraham Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate, legitimate government. Instead, he fought the war to keep the Confederacy from seceding. When the North won, Lincoln was ready to welcome the South back “with malice toward none.”

But if the Southern states never left the Union, then as soon as hostilities ended, those states and their citizens were entitled to all of the promises and protections of the U.S. Constitution. With me so far?

In the aftermath of the war all of the states that had comprised the Confederacy reformed their state governments, including both branches of their legislatures. (Remember, the Constitution guarantees every state “a republican form of government.”)

When the Federal Congress approved the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and submitted it to the states, it was promptly ratified by most of the states in the former Confederacy and became part of our Constitution.

But this was not enough for the Radical Republicans (as they were called then) who controlled Congress. They wanted to punish the South. Even more important, they didn’t want the Southern states sending people to Congress who would oppose their plans for Reconstruction. So they proposed the 14th Amendment.

I can find no evidence that the 14th Amendment was ever approved by a two-thirds majority of the House and the Senate as the Constitution requires. In fact, there were plenty of contemporaries back in 1878 who said it was not. Nevertheless, the Radical Republican majority approved a resolution saying it had passed and submitted it to the states.

Six states that had approved the 13th Amendment balked at approving the 14th. The legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina said “no!” (So, incidentally, did New Jersey and Ohio.)

The Radicals in Washington were furious. They promptly approved a series of bills, called the Reconstruction Acts that divided the former Confederacy into 10 military districts. The legislatures of each state were ordered dismissed “by force of arms” and were replaced by political hacks appointed by the Federal army of occupation. Seven of these military-controlled bodies then did as they were told and “ratified” the 14th Amendment.

These “rump” governments were a far cry from “the republican form of government” that the Constitution guaranteed each state. Our Founding Fathers would have been aghast at what was done in the aftermath of that very un-civil war. And they wouldn’t have agreed for a second that any “vote” by these so-called legislatures could authorize a change to the Constitution.

But change it they did. When news of these coercive measures reached Washington, Secretary of State William Seward at first refused to ratify the amendment. He was quickly brought into line by the Radical Republicans in Congress however, and on July 20, 1868, he dutifully proclaimed that the 14th Amendment was now part of our Constitution.

And here’s something you probably never considered: The effects of this nefarious bit of legislative chicanery go far beyond citizenship for a few million children of illegal immigrants.

Bet you didn’t know that the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court as the legal justification for banning prayer in public schools… or authorizing abortion on demand… for requiring the forced busing of children… or scores of other usurpations of power by our central government.

If you’ve stayed with me this far I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, “Can this possibly be true? And if it is, how is it possible that the legality of the 14th Amendment has never been challenged in the courts?”

My answer to the first question is, “Yes, I believe it is true. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified.”

My answer to the second is, “I don’t know.” I have not been able to find any record that any Federal court has ever issued a ruling on the adoption of “the illegal 14th.” I can’t even find evidence of the issue being raised in a lawsuit filed in a Federal court.

I can understand why those who benefit from today’s Goliath Government want to keep this issue swept under the heaviest rug they can find. But where have the conservative and libertarian talk shows, think tanks, advocacy groups and tax-free foundations been for the past 50 years? Have any of them raised this issue? Written articles about it? Made even a peep of protest?

If they have, I’m not familiar with it. If you know otherwise please tell me, because I really would like to know.

And so should every American who’s concerned about the future his country.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

Annie, Hannity, Goldman Sachs And Gold

*Leapin’ lizards, folks, Annie’s gone. I’m sorry to report that Little Orphan Annie won’t live to see 100. The folks at Tribune Media Services say the last column of the iconic comic strip has been sent to the handful of newspapers that still run it. The column made its debut on Aug. 5, 1924. Annie and her dog Sandy have enjoyed a lot of unlikely adventures since then. The spunky little girl—the inspiration for a radio show, several movies and a Broadway musical—never got any older. She never got any pupils in her eyes, either.

*Sean Hannity knows one when he sees one. Re: my column a few weeks ago, Is Barack Obama a Socialist?, one popular media conservative says he has no doubts. In his best-selling book, Conservative Victory—Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda, Sean Hannity titled one chapter “Obama the Socialist.” In it he says our president “meets the dictionary definition” of being one. I still disagree, Sean.

*Guess who got the most money from Goldman? I’m not talking about bailouts to banking buddies, but instead, political contributions by those “Wall Street fat cats” our politicians love to bash. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Goldman Sachs wrote a lot of checks to the contenders. Here’s who got what: No. 1, Barack Obama—$996,595; No. 2, Hillary Clinton—$411,150; No. 3, Mitt Romney—$234,275; No. 4, John McCain—$230,095. Looks like Wall Street can spot a winner when it sees one.

*Would you like gold with that? Did you see that large, full-color photo of a gold-dispensing vending machine last week? It ran in several newspapers, including The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The machine is located—you won’t be surprised to learn—in the lobby of the Emirate Palace hotel in Abu Dhabi. Maybe there’s a trend here. Last year Harrods’s, the luxury department store in London, began selling gold coins and bars to its affluent customers who wanted them. How soon before we see gold being offered for sale at Wal-Mart?

—Chip Wood

Arizona Threatens To Cut Power To L.A. Unless Boycotts Are Lifted

Arizona threatens to cut power to L.A. unless boycotts are lifted An Arizona utility commissioner said on Wednesday that he is willing to cut off Los Angeles’ power if the city moves forward with its economic boycott of the Grand Canyon State.

Last week, the L.A. City Council overwhelmingly approved a measure to suspend a variety of business contracts with Arizona due to the state’s controversial new immigration laws.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa this week stating that he was "dismayed" with the council’s decision, and would entertain the idea of fighting a boycott with a boycott unless it reconsidered the measure, according to CBS News.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation," he wrote.

"However, if you find that the city council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy," Pierce added.

Currently, more than one-quarter of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from Arizona-based power plants, Fox News reports.

Representative Mark Souder Admits To Having An Affair, Resigns

Representative Mark Souder admits to having an affair, resigns Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) announced his resignation on Tuesday after admitting having an extramarital affair with a part-time female staffer.

The eight-term congressman—a conservative Christian who often preached family values—recently survived a contentious primary election where he garnered less than 50 percent of the vote.

Souder was mysteriously absent from Washington for the last two weeks while rumors of his alleged affair began to surface. The congressman had claimed to be home attending to his ill wife while missing several key votes in House, Fox News reports.

"I wish I could have been a better example," said Souder. "In this poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process."

With Souder’s resignation, the GOP may be at a greater risk of losing the seat to a Democratic challenger. A spokeswoman for Indiana Republican Governor Mitch Daniels said that a special election will be held in the next 30 days to select a Republican candidate, according to The Associated Press (AP).

The winner of the election will move on to face Fort Wayne, Ind., city council member Tom Hayhurst, who nearly beat out Souder in the 2006.