Another Assault On Free Speech

Free speech opponents in Congress found a way to squeeze a bill through the House of Representatives that will stifle 1st Amendment rights for the four months prior to an election.

The deceptively-named DISCLOSE Act of 2010 should more accurately be called the Incumbency Protection Act, because protecting their jobs is precisely what the liberals in the House are trying to do.

The bill reverses the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC that upheld the right of corporations to spend on political advertising in candidate elections. The 5-4 decision prompted President Barack Obama to classlessly chide the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address; an event unprecedented in its hubris.

What the DISCLOSE Act, passed late yesterday, will do is force any corporation that runs political advertising to name its top five contributors in the ad and make a complete list available upon request. It will also drown the corporation in red tape in order to comply with the vagaries of the bill.

At first glance one might think banning corporations from political advertising would be a good thing. But think again.

Corporations in this sense mean not large companies—say General Electric or Goldman Sachs—but special interest groups that advocate for their members like the National Rifle Association (NRA), AARP and Chamber of Commerce. And what’s worse, if you and a group of your friends wanted to ban together, pool your money and run adds opposing your local Congressman or State Senator, you would not be able to do that.

Not surprisingly, the bill does not affect the way unions spend. In fact The Hill recently reported that two unions will spend close to $100 million to re-elect the present majority in Congress.

So what Congress wants to do is let unions spend willy-nilly the money from dues that its members are FORCED to pay, and spend it on causes or candidates that members themselves may or may not agree with. But organizations in which people voluntarily make contributions because they support its cause or agenda are unable to advertise on their members’ behalf.

And liberals in Congress think that’s fair.

The 1st Amendment was written not to protect the speech that everyone wants to hear. It’s there to protect the speech that people don’t want to hear. For the fascists in Congress, at election time that’s just intolerable.

The Scariest Picture You’ll Ever See

Take a good long look at the map below. Pay special attention to the areas that are in blue. Compare them, in size and location, to the areas that are in red. Then let me tell you why the numbers (and the colors) are so significant.

2008 elections results by county

What you’re looking at is a map of the 2008 Presidential election, broken down by the results in each county. If Barack Obama received most of the votes in a particular county, it appears in blue. If John McCain was the winner, that county is in red.

If you added up the land mass of every blue and red county you’d see something really striking—the Republicans won 80 percent of this country, when measured by acreage. John McCain got a majority of votes in 2,417,000 square miles of the United States. Barack Obama, by comparison, won in just 580,000 square miles.

Ah, but now let’s look at the population numbers for each county. McCain still came out ahead, but not by much. The total population of counties won by Republicans was 143 million, while the population of counties won by Democrats was 127 million.

Basically, the Democrats swept the populations centers—the cities and more populated suburban areas—while the Republicans won everything else.

Now, guess what you would find if you could then overlay this map with one showing the distribution of food stamps, unemployment checks, subsidized housing and other welfare payments? Sure, there will be some in all of those red areas. There are plenty of Republicans receiving Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure there are even some Republican farmers who get paid not to grow crops. And there are certainly some Republican businessmen getting subsidies from Uncle Sam.

But the overwhelming majority of voters in the red areas pay more into government than they receive; while just the opposite is true in the blue areas. The majority of people there receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. In fact, 45 percent of adults in America pay no income taxes at all. Not one red penny. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Can you guess where most of those people live? And which party they vote for? While you ponder the significance of these statistics let me repeat a quotation I used in last week’s column when I was discussing the differences between a republic and a democracy:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, and is always followed by a dictatorship.”

The statement does not come from one of our Founding Fathers (although I’m sure that, to a man, they would agree with its warning). No, it was written long after our revolution, by a Scottish historian named Alexander Fraser Tytler. By the way, he wasn’t predicting the collapse of our republic; he was talking about what happened to the Athenian democracy 2,000 years ago.

Back to that map that’s bothered me so much. In most of the country the numbers are so close that an election can go either way, depending on which side is the most motivated. If the Democrats and their union allies and community organizers do a better job of getting out the vote, they win.

If the Republicans are inspired and enthusiastic enough about their candidate that they become almost evangelical in getting their friends and neighbors to vote, they carry the day. (This is especially true if they can appeal to enough independents to put the good of the country ahead of their own desire for some of that government booty.)

Now, let me ask you another question. How do you think this very delicate balance will change if several million illegal aliens are allowed to vote in our elections? May I see a show of hands of everyone who thinks the Republicans will get a majority of those votes? Anyone? Anyone?

I think you can guess where I’m going with this. For a lot of reasons we’ve discussed before, the Democrats not only won the White House two years ago, they also won a super-majority in Congress. Until Scott Brown won the Senate seat in Massachusetts last year the Republicans didn’t even have the manpower to mount a filibuster.

If you went by the numbers alone you’d have to conclude that the Democrats could pass anything they wanted. And yet look at all the trouble they’ve had getting their legislative program adopted. Yes, by using enough bribes, bluster and baloney they finally got Obamacare approved. But just by the skin of their teeth. Almost everything else they’ve wanted and Obama has promised is dead in the water. Cap and trade? Card check for unions? Unemployment payments forever? Fuggedaboutit. They just won’t happen. Not unless a lot more Democrats become a lot more suicidal.

Remember, the vast majority of people in Congress aren’t dedicated liberals or dedicated conservatives. The only thing they’re dedicated to is staying in office. They love the power and perks that come with being a member of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Where else would you get to spend billions of dollars of other people’s money—and usually be thanked for it?

Remember, when you rob Peter to pay Paul you can count on getting the thanks of Paul. And his vote, too.

So what can we do about it? To paraphrase a comment I received from an alert reader a few weeks ago, we have three boxes we can use.

The first is the soap box. By and large, we’re doing a good job telling ourselves what’s wrong. But we’re not doing as well telling others.

If the fate of this republic depended on it, over the next four months, could you get one other person to share your concerns and vote accordingly? Believe it or not, that’s all it would take. Conservatives would win enough seats in the House to bring Obama’s socialistic schemes to a screeching halt. (And a lot of members who used to rubber-stamp every liberal boondoggle would begin to sound like Sarah Palin.)

That brings me to the second box we need to use—the ballot box. If just 10 percent of the people who voted right last time got one more person to vote with them, the politicians who promise to help take back our country would win in a landslide.

Listen, we have all the resources we need to turn things around. No matter how much some on the left might like to, government can’t shut us up or shut us down. We have all of the time, the talent and the funds we need. Let’s use them while we still can.

If we don’t, the day may come when the only avenue left to defeat total government is the third box. It’s the one that won our liberty the first time. I’m talking about the ammo box. Pray God we won’t have to use it again.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

PC Police, An Expensive Stock Tip, Vuvuzelas And A Good Question

*The PC police strike again. David Morales, a Rhode Island second-grader, wanted to honor American troops at a special class event. So he took a camouflage baseball cap, put an emblem of the American flag on the front and then glued several plastic soldiers from his collection around the cap. Sounds creative and patriotic, right? Not according to school officials in Providence, R.I., who declared that, because the tiny plastic figures were holding rifles, the cap violated the school’s zero-tolerance policy banning weapons. Off it came until David could take it home. Gee, do you think that’s why they’re called the armed forces?

*Could a stock tip be worth that much? For the past 11 years Warren Buffett has allowed the Glide Foundation, one of his wife’s favorite charities, to auction off a luncheon date. And every year, the cost of that lunch has gone up. This time, the winner will pay $2.6 million to take seven guests to lunch with the Bard of Omaha. I know the steaks at Smith and Wollensky in New York City are good. But $260,000 each?

*Yes, there’s an app for that. I haven’t been watching much of the World Cup this year. First, soccer is not one of my favorite spectator sports (unless a grandchild is playing). But second, the noise from all those plastic vuvuzelas is enough to drive me crazy. If you can’t afford to buy one, turns out you can get a free app for your iPhone. The folks behind Vuvuzela 2010 say more than a million people have downloaded the app so far. Hope none share an office or car pool with you.

*Question of the week. I saw this on a bumper sticker a few days ago: “If ignorance is bliss, why aren’t more people happy?” (Think about it for a minute.)

—Chip Wood

Poll: Most Americans Want Access To Guns, Support For Stricter Control Decreases

Most Americans want access to guns, support for stricter control decreases, poll finds A new survey has found that most Americans believe in access to guns, and while pluralities prefer stricter gun control laws, the number of people holding this view has declined in recent years.

The poll was conducted last month by Harris Interactive and found that 45 percent of respondents favor stricter gun control. At the same time, the researchers noted that the percentage has fallen since 2008 when 49 percent felt that way.

Moreover, slightly more than 30 percent of Americans say they have a gun at home today, for an estimated 42 million households. Furthermore, a staggering 80 percent believe people should have access to rifles or shotguns as well as handguns (74 percent).

Finally, nearly half of those polled believe that unconcealed weapons should be allowed, with 45 percent having the same opinion with regard to concealed weapons.

The results come as the Illinois State Rifle Association prepares for its 8th Annual Open House on June 26.

The event will feature demonstrations of range facilities, displays of vintage military equipment as well as vintage and modern sporting firearms, and the opportunity for the public to test-fire the latest weapons. There will also be a press briefing regarding the McDonald v. Chicago case that is now being argued before the Supreme Court. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19854576-ADNFCR

New Orleans Judge Rejects Obama Administration's Drilling Moratorium

New Orleans judge rejects Obama administration's drilling moratoriumA Federal judge has blocked the six-month moratorium on offshore drilling ordered by President Obama following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

After listening to two hours of arguments from lawyers representing several Louisiana drilling companies, United States District Judge Martin Feldman granted a preliminary restraining order that will temporarily overturn the ban and allow deepwater drilling projects to resume.

Feldman ruled that the decision to impose the moratorium, which suspended drilling on 33 active wells off the Louisiana coastline, was "invalid," as it arbitrarily assumed that all deepwater drilling poses a threat to the surrounding community, according to the Associated Press (AP). He also suggested that the economic impact of the ban would be more harmful than any potential hazard associated with offshore drilling.

"An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," ruled Feldman.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the president would immediately appeal the judge’s decision, which "puts the safety of those on the rigs and the safety of the environment in the Gulf at a danger."

According to Public Policy Polling, the oil industry represents 16 percent of Louisiana’s GDP and accounts for nearly 20,000 local jobs.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19852924-ADNFCR

Republicans Block New Jersey Tax Increase For The Rich

Republicans block New Jersey tax increase for the rich The New Jersey Assembly failed on Monday to override Republican Governor Chris Christie’s veto of a bill that would have levied an additional tax on residents that make more than $1 million annually.

State Republicans indicated that they voted against the one-year, 2 percent tax hike on the Garden State’s top 16,000 earners because the estimated $600 million in revenue would not go toward closing New Jersey’s historic budget shortfall, MyFoxNY.com reports. Instead, the money would be used to restore tax rebates for senior citizens and the disabled.

The measure to override the governor’s veto was supported by all 47 Democrats and voted against by all 33 Republicans. Christie’s spokesman Michael Drewniak told the news source that the governor vetoed the tax increase last month because he felt it would discourage hiring.

Republican Assemblyman Jon Bramnick called the proposed measure another example of Democrats’ general affinity for taxation, according to KYW1060.com.

"You can rename it. You can decorate it. You can change the words but the bottom line is this caucus and this governor is going to stand up for the taxpayers of this state and there’s going to be no more taxes," he said.

If the veto had been overridden, residents who made more than $1 million would have been forced to pay a 10.75 percent income tax next year.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19852929-ADNFCR

Diabetics With Poor Blood Sugar Control Often Have Vitamin D Deficiencies

Diabetics with poor blood sugar control often have vitamin D deficiencies Diabetic patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have added difficulty controlling their blood sugar, according to a new Johns Hopkins study.

Lead author Esther Krug, an assistant professor of medicine at the university’s School of Medicine, and her colleagues analyzed the blood work of 124 patients with type 2 diabetes who visited their endocrinologist between 2003 and 2008.

They found that 91 percent of patients, aged 36 to 89, were suffering from either a vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Only 6 percent of respondents were taking nutrient supplements at the time of the study.

Furthermore, patients with the lowest levels of vitamin D had the highest hemoglobin A1c value, a gauge of blood sugar control. African American diabetics, on average, had the lowest serum levels of the nutrient and the poorest blood sugar control.

"This finding supports an active role of vitamin D in the development of type 2 diabetes," said Krug. "Since primary care providers diagnose and treat most patients with type 2 diabetes, screening and vitamin D supplementation as part of routine primary care may improve health outcomes of this highly prevalent condition."
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19850042-ADNFCR

The Line Between General And State Government

The recent dustups between Gulf States and the Federal government over BP Deepwater Horizon oil gusher cleanup efforts demonstrate the folly of a gargantuan, obtrusive and obtuse Federal government trying to micromanage an operation that should be coordinated locally.

First there was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and his idea to build what would essentially have been barrier islands to intercept the oil before it reached the state’s delicate marshlands. Then there were efforts by Alabama Governor Bob Riley to string a massive system of booms to keep oil off the Alabama coastline and out of Mobile Bay.

These efforts were delayed by days and weeks while the Federal bureaucracy stumbled and bumbled over whether the ideas were good ones, or whether others might be better. Meanwhile, oil began washing up on shore.

Then there was halting of the cleanup efforts of some of the local governments by the Federal environmental police due to a perceived risk to some wildlife.

Finally, the coup de grâce, the Coast Guard’s forced docking of oil sucking barges off the Louisiana coast to check whether there were enough life preservers on board.

The Federal government proved during the hurricane Katrina aftermath, the Deepwater Horizon aftermath and in countless other ways that when it tries to get involved on a local level it only succeeds in getting in its own way—and in the way of those actually doing something.

As Riley complained of the so-called unified command in charge of the oil spill cleanup effort, each member of the command had veto power over any idea. One would raise a good fix and another would veto it because it might harm a turtle or cause a worker some discomfort (as in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s ruling that beach cleanup workers could only labor 20 minutes of each hour because of the heat).

In response to the Federal government’s inaction, Jindal decided to build the islands himself. Riley ordered municipalities along Alabama’s beaches to do what they needed to do to clean the beaches and promised them compensation. Municipalities in Florida are doing the same thing. And all are avoiding involving the Feds whenever possible.

During the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention James Wilson, speaking on the line dividing powers between general (Federal) government and particular state governments, said:

“Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? I hope, sir, they will not be the enemies of each other, or resemble comets in conflicting orbits, mutually operating destruction; but that their motion will be better represented by that of the planetary system, where each part moves harmoniously within its proper sphere, and no injury arises by interference or opposition.”

So far those disputes resemble comets in conflicting orbits rather than harmonious planets. Let’s hope the Feds will get out of the governors’ way and just make sure the funds needed for the local efforts are there.

The Coast Guard is rightfully overseeing cleanup efforts in the Gulf. But its time could be better spent monitoring oil skimming operations than worrying over whether a barge operator who has spent a lifetime at sea is wearing his lifejacket.

And as for the oil spewing forth from 5,000 feet below the ocean’s surface 40 miles out, that’s where the Feds should be concentrating their efforts. They should be providing BP with all the assistance it needs to contain the gusher. And that means bringing in top oil drilling experts from around the world and any other materiel or resources other countries may provide.

It also should mean for the Federal government to get its boot off BP’s neck. It’ll be a lot easier to work that way. There will be plenty of opportunity for the government to get its pound (or ton) of flesh once the gusher is capped and oil is no longer lapping along the beautiful Gulf Coast.

Louisiana Passes New Law Defying Federal Healthcare Overhaul

Louisiana passes new law defying federal healthcare overhaul Ever since Congress passed the healthcare reform last March, many states have been trying to sue the Federal government or vowing to pass their own legislation to block the overhaul. Last week, Lousiana has become the latest state to do so.

Following in the footsteps of Virginia, Idaho, Arizona and Georgia, the Louisiana legislature passed House Bill 1474 on June 18, which was modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. The new legislation removes the requirement—present in the federal bill—to force individuals to buy or maintain health insurance coverage.

"Louisiana [sent] a clear message to the president and Congress that there is broad, bipartisan opposition to the centerpiece of their health reform agenda," said ALEC Health Task Force Director Christie Herrera.

The state’s legislature also became the first Democrat-dominated assembly in the country to pass a similar measure.

The bill will now head to the desk of Governor Bobby Jindal who is expected to sign it into law. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19851864-ADNFCR

Anti-inflation Organization Appeals To Fox News To Cover Tea Party Candidate

Anti-inflation organization appeals to Fox News to cover Tea Party candidate Amid the growing sings of power from big spending and big government opponents, the National Inflation Association (NIA) has been flexing its political muscle by appealing to its members to contact a national TV network to support a Tea Party candidate.

The candidate in question is Peter Schiff, who is running for the United States Senate from Connecticut. He has declared himself a Tea Party candidate—devoted to fiscal prudence, debt elimination and small government—but the NIA has criticized Fox News for "blacking out" his campaign.

"NIA believes that Peter Schiff fully understands the hyperinflationary crisis our country is approaching and how to prevent it," the organization said in a statement.

It added that "we need [him] in Washington if we want to have any hope of preventing hyperinflation and the complete destruction of the U.S. dollar."

To that end, the NIA has appealed to its members to email Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly to encourage them to invite Schiff on their shows.

In the upcoming Aug. 10 Republican primary, Schiff will run against Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19851895-ADNFCR

Obama's Oil Spill Panel Gets Scrutinized

Obama's oil spill panel gets scrutinized The expert panel recently assembled by President Obama to investigate the causes of the nation’s worst ever oil spill is being criticized for having virtually no technical background in the field of offshore drilling.

According to the Associated Press (AP), only two of the seven appointed commissioners have a background in science, one of whom is an expert in optics and physics, not engineering. The other five panel members have spent the better part of their careers as policymakers.

The news source also reports that several of the commissioners have already publicly expressed their discontent with the nation’s current energy policy and its reliance on oil.

"We can blame BP for the disaster and we should," blogged panel member and environmental activist Frances Beinecke in late May. "We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America’s addiction to oil."

"The Gulf oil spill isn’t just an accident," she wrote in a separate blog. "It’s the result of a failed energy policy."

Meanwhile, two other panel members—including chairman Bob Graham, former Democratic Governor of Florida—have fought to prevent offshore drilling off the east coast over the last few years.

President Obama requested on Monday that Congress approve $15 million in funding to help pay for the commission, Politico.com reports.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19850344-ADNFCR

Brown Rice Consumption May Help Stave Off Diabetes

Brown rice consumption may help stave off diabetesOver the last decade, rice consumption in the United States has skyrocketed. However, people who eat daily portions of milled white rice may not be receiving the health benefits that they had once assumed.

Results of a recent Harvard University study suggest that individuals can significantly reduce their risk of developing diabetes by replacing white rice in their diet with brown rice.

For the study, lead author Qi Sun and colleagues compared white and brown rice consumption to the incidence of diabetes in the nearly 200,000 men and women who took part in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital-based Nurses’ Health Study.

After analyzing the data, the investigators estimated that an individual who replaces 50 grams of white rice with the same amount of brown rice at least twice a week can lower their diabetes risk by 16 percent.

Sun speculates that this disparity is, in part, due to the nutritional layer of brown rice that is stripped away to make white rice.

"The other consequence of the refining process includes loss of fiber, vitamins, magnesium and other minerals, lignans, phytoestrogens, and phytic acid, many of which may be protective factors for diabetes risk," Sun noted.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19847499-ADNFCR

Discover Safe And Natural Options To Boost Your Heart Health And Promote Healthy Arteries

If you are over the age of 50, you may have seriously clogged arteries as a result of poor diet, genetics or a lack of adequate vitamin and mineral supplementation. That means all 75,000 miles of your arteries, veins and capillaries may be full of plaque that can cause a blockage.

But new research indicates that two key nutrients can help you combat the causes of heart problems, toxic build-up and decreasing energy levels.

As a medical professional, I agree with modern science that indicates consuming a high-fat diet can lead to heart disease, but new evidence has surfaced to explain the process. Research from the University of Cincinnati examined high-fat diets and the effect they can have on the adipose—or fatty—tissue surrounding the coronary arteries. Neil Weintraub, M.D., and colleagues found that the fats cells were highly inflamed, which suggests that the blood vessels could become inflamed. This is one of the first indicators of clogged arteries, or atherosclerosis.

Another startling discovery showed that rats on a high-fat diet for only two weeks already showed the effects of inflammation in the tissue around the arteries.

“These new findings suggest a direct link between poor dietary habits and inflammation of blood vessels, mediated by the fat cells surrounding the blood vessel wall,” said lead author Weintraub.

In order to maintain healthy blood vessels and help reverse the effects of a high-fat diet, I suggest oral chelation with the amino acid ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid—or EDTA.

Indeed, EDTA chelation is very controversial—especially when discussed as an alternative to expensive heart surgery. The truth is, most doctors are inexperienced when it comes to chelation and don’t understand how it really works.

There are a few thousand doctors in the United States who perform intravenous (I.V.) chelation in their offices, but the vast majority of doctors have not witnessed the impressive results of EDTA for themselves.

Like nearly every other area of medicine, you will find articles “for” and “against” chelation. It is interesting how medicine is presented to the public—through the eyes and interests of the controlling parties who stand to profit the most.

Keep in mind, doctors and surgeons who continue to gain huge profits by performing angiograms… placing stents… performing balloon angioplasties… and cracking the heart open… do not want to read glowing reviews about this therapy.

And heart drug-related pharmaceutical companies would love to see chelation proven ineffective—to keep their competition down!

However, clinical and scientific studies show that the nutrient EDTA is effective at helping eliminate plaque from the arteries.

Here’s how it works: EDTA binds to the calcium deposits stuck to your vessel walls and carries them to the kidneys. Those plaque deposits are then safely carried out of your body with the urine. This process opens up your small vessels and blood can flow freely throughout your body.

What’s more, by increasing the circulation of your life-giving blood, EDTA can help:

  • Promote healthy blood pressure
  • Reduce chest pain
  • Reduce swelling in your legs and ankles
  • Maintain good HDL cholesterol levels
  • Promote healthy kidney function
  • And more!

Linus Pauling, Ph.D., two-time Nobel Prize-winning scientist states, “Published research and extensive clinical experience showed that EDTA helps reduce and prevent arteriosclerotic plaques, thus improving blood flow to the heart and other organs. The scientific evidence indicates that a course of EDTA chelation might eliminate the need for bypass surgery.”

The evidence speaks for itself—the benefits of chelation are remarkable. In fact, if you suffer from age-related memory loss… poor vision… constant colds and flu… cold hands and feet… and more… then EDTA chelation can help reduce those symptoms, too.

—Dr. Michael Cutler

The First Step To Solving A Problem…

With the recent announcement by the Obama Administration that a Federal lawsuit targeting Arizona’s enormously popular immigration law is nigh, the transparency of the left’s opposition to Arizona’s SB1070 has been made manifest.

During his administration, President Bush talked tough on illegal immigration, but did very little to curb it. President Obama is now going one step further… doing very little to curb illegal immigration while talking tough on those who plan to. Obama seems more interested in developing some kind of Federalized Internal Affairs Division, searching for crime while ignoring the criminals.

The President is trying to recast the debate. It’s entirely reasonable to examine his reasons.

Most of the realities regarding illegal immigration are patently obvious. Virtually untraceable labor pools operating outside the law mean unemployed taxpayers and strained social services. Virtually untraceable routes into the United States mean endangered taxpayers and… strained social and law enforcement services—the presence of abandoned prayer mats along our southern frontier doesn’t mean the coyotes are developing an interest in yoga. A President bent on obfuscating both the latter and former by accusing his opposition of everything short of a return to Jim Crow is the worst of kind of political gamesmanship.

It’s well known that Arizona’s new law—set to take effect late next month—is nothing more than a state asserting responsibility abdicated by the Feds. One would presume most LEGAL citizens would be overjoyed to see a state willing to step in where the Feds are standing down. In fact, SB 1070 is similar not only to 8 U.S. Code Sections 1304 and 1306, but shockingly—CALIFORNIA Penal Code section 834b. The fact that the Brotherhood of Undocumented Onion Pickers has yet to march on Sacramento belies the political realities. The President can hardly risk torpedoing his fellow travelers Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer by allowing his jackbooted legal legions to extend their L.A. Law redux into the Land of La Raza.

To be fair, the broad-based support for SB 1070 doesn’t necessarily prove the quality of the legislation. I could get 70 percent approval for legislation which would constitute extraordinarily bad thinking: Free BMWs for everyone! Federally subsidized beer purchases! National Throw Something Heavy at Keith Olbermann Day!

OK—that last one has real merit.

The problem we have now is that the majority is right. But the majority lacks power. In the worst kind of twist of fate, the minority has the juice to (to paraphrase Interior Secretary Ken Salazar)—step on the neck of John Q. Public.

And the Feds are going straight to the courts to shop for the appropriate neck-breaking footwear. There’s already a class-action lawsuit in Federal court seeking to halt SB 1070. A rogue’s gallery of left-wing groups with close ties to the current administration is challenging Arizona’s endeavors: the ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Network, the NAACP, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the—I’m not making this up—Malibu Community Labor Exchange. Makes you wonder who’s delivering chalupas to the guys trimming Mel Gibson’s hedges. At the very least, it’s nice to see the NAACP doing something other than waging jihad on Hallmark greeting cards.

Now the Feds are threatening to bring in the heavy artillery. Talk about rigging the game: if Eric “the red” Holder’s goons-with-briefcases bring the heat to Arizona’s doorstep in a Federal courtroom, the supporters of SB 1070 get to pay the lawyers on both sides. Beyond the obvious Constitutional violations of Federal tinkering with Arizona’s law enforcement—hello 10th Amendment—there’s the more troublesome issue: Obama and his thugs are trying to get us mired in a spurious discussion on race in order to cow us into ignoring a blatant effort to expand his constituency.

Throwing the verbal hand grenade of racism is clever, if only because people on the left will always believe it, and are redoubtable and vital allies for an administration which seems bent on becoming a political exemplar of ham-fisted authority. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis thinks illegals have a “right to fair wages.” Actually, Madam Secretary, illegals have the right to be Mirandized (and in a language other than English, even!)

With Obama telling Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.) that he’s going to lean into meaningful immigration reform only if amnesty is on the table, he’s drawing the proverbial line in the dust: no enforcement now, no enforcement tomorrow, no enforcement forever.

Or at least until this column is printed en espanol. Vaya con Dios!

Kill Switch Would Kill The Internet

Relax!

It’s always a comforting feeling when the fascists tell you to relax. And that’s what Senator Joe Leiberman (I-Conn.) told everyone to do Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley.

Crowley asked about the Kill Switch bill Lieberman co-sponsors with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would allow the President to shut down the Internet in a time of emergency.

The President will never take over the Internet, Lieberman—with a warm smile—assured the audience. The government shouldn’t take over the internet. The president would only do that in catastrophic times. Not going to do it every day. It’s only for national security. Relax.

“Right now China—the government—can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too,” Lieberman said.

Of course, in China the government runs over its people with tanks. It drags them off to prisons without trial for practicing Christianity or saying something government doesn’t like, where they disappear forever—probably with a bullet in the brain. I wonder if Lieberman thinks our government should have those abilities as well.

China also censors the Internet—every day—to stifle the free flow of information… because it can.

The worry for Lieberman and his fascist buddies—the elected elitists who march to the orders of the New World Order—is not what would happen to America if some outside entity launched a cyber attack on the United States.

The worry is that the Internet has opened up a treasure trove of information and an ability to share ideas with freedom-loving people all over the world. No longer is the main stream media the sole purveyor of information.

So that information can no longer be controlled. More and more people are learning the truth about government and the secret machinations that go one behind the scenes. They are learning about the corporatists that pull the strings. They are learning about the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. They are waking up.

CFR member and Bilderberger Zbigniew Brzezinski recently lamented that people are becoming more aware of what’s going on in the world than ever before, and this awareness is harming their agenda.

So the U.S. government is gearing up for a crackdown on the information flow—or at least to have that ability when needed. Ignorant people, after all, are easier to control.

You may remember the protests in Iran a few months ago. The government there shut down the press. There was a complete information blackout throughout traditional media.

But we saw the atrocities that were taking place there—the shootings, the beatings, the imprisonments of the opposition—because of Facebook and Twitter. Despite the government’s best efforts to control the information coming out of Iran, the world knew the truth because of the Internet.

And protesters were able to organize large crowds in central locations and avoid the state police forces because they were able to communicate via the internet after other communications were shut down.

Not ready to think your government might be no better that Iran’s? Then surely you’ll consider that such a bill allowing control of the Internet would be used to monitor your Internet usage so it can be taxed… so web sites opposing the Big Government’s message can be better monitored and shut down.

The Federal Trade Commission recently proposed a plan—called a Drudge Tax—to tax websites and electronic devices in order to bail out failing newspapers—the propaganda rags of the ruling class. And since that didn’t fly with the masses the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now says it wants to control prices and set rules for what traffic Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must carry.

Censor the Internet? That would never happen here, would it Senator Lieberman?

No, he smiles and chuckles at the foolishness of the little people. Relax. National security and all.

Republicans, Democrats Blast Barton For Apologizing To BP

Republicans, Democrats blast Barton for apologizing to BP Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) was heavily criticized from both sides of the aisle last week for publicly apologizing to BP chief Tony Hayward.

"I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday," Barton said to Hayward, referring to the White House’s decision to demand that the oil giant set up a $20 billion account to help repay the victims of the disaster.

Barton’s condemnation of the hard stance taken toward BP evoked critical responses from Democrats and Republicans alike, all of whom demanded that the Texas congressman retract his apology, which he eventually did.

Democratic leaders quickly took advantage of Barton’s BP apology, running television ads showcasing his statement.

During an appearance on ABC’s This Week, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel referred to the gaffe as a "political gift," and said that the apology is a prime example of the GOP’s affinity to protect big business.

"I think what Joe Barton did is remind the American people, in case they’ve forgotten, this is how the Republicans would govern," said Emanuel. "They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen and the communities down there affected" by the spill.

Emanuel also took the opportunity to ridicule the comments made by Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, who referred to President Obama’s criticism of BP as "un-American."
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19850346-ADNFCR

Poll Shows Americans Unimpressed With Obama's BP Speech

Poll shows Americans unimpressed with Obama's BP speech President Obama addressed the nation last week, nearly two months after the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began, but a new survey shows Americans gave him a low mark for his effort.

The president has been heavily criticized for what some see as his aloofness and reluctance in his dealings with the company and for insufficient efforts to stop the leak, so when he took to the airwaves to vow to "make BP pay" for the damage, the administration hoped to reverse that impression.

However, a new poll conducted by HCD Research revealed that compared to Obama’s previous major speeches, the BP address was poorly received across America. The company looked at eight major speeches the president has given since he took office 18 months ago—including the State of the Union, healthcare and Wall Street reform—and found that the respondents gave it the average mark of just 4.4 on a 1-7 scale.

By contrast, his first State of the Union in January 2009 scored 5.5.

Despite this poor result, however, the administration subsequently struck a deal with BP to set up a $20 billion escrow account to be managed by a third party in order to help individuals and businesses affected by the disaster.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19849410-ADNFCR

Arizona Law Still Popular Among Many Americans

Arizona law still popular among many AmericansAs the Federal government tries to mount a legal challenge to the controversial Arizona immigration law, a new poll has found that a majority of Americans continue to support the measure, in line with some of the early polls that were conducted shortly after it was passed in April.

According to a newly released Washington Post-ABC poll, a total of 58 percent of respondents support the law, which would give local police new powers to demand ID from individuals who they "reasonably suspect" of being in the United States illegally.

The news source specifies that the survey further found that Republicans and independents are the strongest supporters of the bill, while Democrats—especially those who belong to minority groups—are most adamantly against it.

The poll also suggests that slightly more than half of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s handling of border control issues.

Ever since the bill passed and was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, civil rights advocates have warned it may open the door to racial profiling of minorities and may thus be unconstitutional.

Despite the uproar and mounting legal challenges, it is expected to come into effect at the end of July. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19847632-ADNFCR

BP: Blame Petroleum

Birds covered in oil make a great advertisement for renewable energy.”
The Financial Times, June 16, 2010.

As I watched President Barack Obama’s Oval Office speech last weekin which he offered up empty buckets of hopeI reflected on the Greens and the crisis their President is muddling through. Like a cop, there never seems to be a Green around when you need one.

Certainly the Save-The-Earth Squadron has been noticeably silent on the Gulf oil spill. In fact there hasn’t been a peep from the animal rights activists, even in the face of CNN’s continuous coverage of oil stricken pelicans.

According to Politico, “As the greatest environmental catastrophe in U.S. history has played out on Obama’s watch, the environmental movement has essentially given him a passall but refusing to unleash any vocal criticism against the president even as the public has grown more frustrated by Obama’s performance.”

In fact, environmental groups sacrificed some seals to run a full page ad in The Washington Post earlier this month. Incredibly, the ad does not fault Obama over the ecological catastrophe. In fact it thanked him for putting on hold an Alaska drilling project. “We deeply appreciate your decision…” the ad tells Obama.

It gets even more surreal.

“President Obama is the best environmental president we’ve had since Teddy Roosevelt,” Sierra Club chairman Carl Pope told the Bangor Daily News earlier this month. “He obviously did not take the crisis in the Minerals Management Service adequately seriously, that’s clear. But his agencies have done a phenomenally good job.”

Good job? Can you imagine if this disaster belonged to John McCain and Sarah Palin? The Greens would be marching on Washington with ropes in hand. So what is going on?

I think the answer is pretty easy: Greens are not outraged by what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico because it is a means to and end. The end being a President that wants to reshape the U.S. economy right down to the last solar panel.

“These guys have bet the farm on this administration,” said Ted Nordhaus, chairman of an environmental think-tank, the Breakthrough Institute. “There has been a real hesitancy to criticize this administration out of a sense that they’re kind of the only game in town. These guys are so beholden to this administration to move their agenda that I think they’re unwilling to criticize them.”

Even as Obama compares the oil spill to 9/11, the silence of the environmentalists is deafening. It is all part of the Green’s strategy to paint petroleum as the enemy. And Obama is marching lockstep with them.

“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11,” said the President, “I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”

Obama is using the catastrophe to push forward climate and energy reform. These are not my conclusions. This is what the President has vowed: “(We will) move forward in a bold way in a direction that finally gives us the kind of future-oriented… visionary energy policy that we so vitally need and has been absent for so long.

“One of the biggest leadership challenges for me going forward is going to be to make sure that we draw the right lessons from this disaster,” the President said.

Obama said he did not know if America would shift from an oil-based economy in his lifetime, however he added that now was the time to “start making that transition.”

Obama’s comments and the Federal government’s need to look like it is doing something about the oil spill led the CEOs from Big Oil to Capitol Hill last week with promises to reform while pleading their case for petroleum.

The executives of the five biggest oil companies operating in the U.S. faced accusations that the Deep Horizon oil spill is somehow the fault of all of them. The bosses of BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips delved into the safety of offshore oil exploration and drilling and even had to muster arguments as to why oil is a necessity to the American economy.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda
I can see why BP was grilled by Congress; but I am baffled why the other Big Four were called before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

"This blowout happened at a BP well,” declared Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), “but, if it occurred at an ExxonMobil or Chevron well, they wouldn’t have been any more prepared to respond.”

Excuse me Mr. Waxman, but it didn’t occur at an ExxonMobil or a Chevron well. It happened at a BP well, and while we are on the subject let’s talk about why it happened. It happened because the available terra firma of the U.S. has been over drilled, over pumped and sucked dry.

Still Chairman Waxman and the rest of the committee have Big Oil back-peddling. ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva looked like a kindergarten kid ready to cry as he explained that the Federal government’s energy policy must "recognize that we have a robust oil and gas industry that generates vital U.S. jobs, as well as substantial state and Federal revenue from tax and royalty payments."

Obama’s Testing The Waters
Common sense suggests that Mulva and the rest of the non-BP executives should have told Congress to shove-off, that they are in fact keeping America’s economy afloat and, oh by the way, providing you with transportation home. Big Oil isn’t doing this. Instead they are allowing themselves to become whipping boys for Must See Congressional TV. That tells me that something bigger is afoot. Exactly what that is is being revealed by Obama.

From the Oval Office Obama said: “The time to embrace a clean energy future is now.”

It just so happens, writes The Financial Times, that wind turbine makers and solar panel companies are ramping up their pressure on Congress and getting a sympathetic ear.

A member of the Clinton White House (Bill’s not Hillary’s) told The Times that renewable companies had to seize the moment quickly. "Most events do not engage people’s heartstrings and neurons together. This one does," he said, adding: "It cries out for the President to push the Senate to act this year."

First come the heartstrings then come the purse strings. By the time this thing finishes up the environmentalists will be tickled silly. For them the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is a perfect storma stupendous way for the Greens to collect a lot of green from ordinary people like you and me.

Action To Take: The rant against Big Oil is mostly for show. However, BP (NYSE: BP, $29.58) is a mess and it is only going to get worse.

Chart

Fortunately we sold BP on May 5 and recommended you do the same in A Crude Coincidence—The Gulf Oil Spill Works Out Well For The Greens. BP traded that day at $52 per share. At this writing it is trading under $30 per share. If for some reason you still haven’t sold your shares, do so now. Obama and the Big Green Machine may bankrupt BP.

Yours for real wealth and good health,

John Myers
Myers’ Energy and Gold

Not Worth A Continental

The Continental Congress was struggling to find funds and provisions for the Revolutionary forces when it decided to issue its own currency. On June 22, 1776, it issued $2 million in paper money. The currency featured the likeness of Revolutionary soldiers and carried the inscription, “The United Colonies.”

The “Continentals,” as the bills were known, were not backed by gold or any other assets. Merchants distrusted their value and demanded more and more of them for the same amount of goods. General George Washington complained that, “A wagonload of currency will hardly purchase a wagonload of provisions.”

By the end of the war the new currency was virtually worthless. The bills were ultimately redeemed by the new United States government at 1/100th of their face value. Because of this experience, the phrase “not worth a Continental” became a way to describe something that was virtually worthless.

The lesson also convinced our Founding Fathers to insist that any currency issued by the U.S. government be fully redeemable in gold or silvera requirement that became part of our Constitution and was honored for the next 100 years. Today, of course, our currency is only backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States,” which some cynics (this writer included) say explains why the value of the dollar continues to fall.

—Chip Wood

Vitamin D, Calcium Supplements Do Not Increase CAC Scores

Vitamin D, calcium supplements do not increase CAC scores Women who take moderate doses of vitamin D and calcium supplements are not at any additional risk of having abnormally high coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores, a new study has found.

Principal investigator JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and her colleagues undertook the study in response to the growing concern of many female patients who question whether some supplements can increase calcium deposits in the blood. These deposits can create blockages and increase a person’s risk of suffering a cardiovascular-related event, according to InSciences.org.

For the study, the investigators randomly assigned 754 women aged 50 to 59 to receive either 1,000 mg of elemental calcium and 400 IU of vitamin D3 or a placebo every day for an average of seven years.

At the point of follow-up, the CAC scores of women in both groups were similar, and the researchers were unable to identify any evidence linking vitamin supplementation to calcium deposits in the blood. Furthermore, women who reported taking higher than average doses of calcium and vitamin D experienced no ill effects.

"This study provides reassuring evidence that moderate doses of calcium and vitamin D supplements do not increase calcium deposition in the coronary arteries," said Mason. "Thus, women need not avoid these supplements and sacrifice bone health due to concern about such a risk."

Vitamin D and calcium supplements can help older adults minimize bone loss and prevent osteoporosis.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19845158-ADNFCR

Conservative Organizations Claim DISCLOSE Act Would Violate First Amendment Rights

Conservative organizations claim DISCLOSE Act would violate First Amendment rightsDespite the call by some watchdog groups for Congress to expedite the passing of the DISCLOSE Act, the legislation has come under increasing fire from conservative organizations, including gun rights advocates.

The proposed bill would impose new disclosure requirements on organizations, including grassroots campaigns, that spend money on political advocacy campaigns, compelling them to list the top donors in their TV ads.

As a result, FRC Action, the legislative advocacy arm of the Family Research Council (FRC), has urged lawmakers to reject the act, saying it would impose unconstitutional limits on free speech for organizations during election cycles.

The negotiations can also potentially drive a wedge between gun rights organizations, as lawmakers have been trying to forge an exemption from the act for the National Rifle Association, but not other similar groups. This has prompted the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) to criticize it as "morally, if not legally, repugnant."

"This proposed exemption is unconscionable," said CCRKBA chairman Alan Gottlieb, adding that it "reveals the desperation of its sponsors to pass legislation that would still silence organizations [that are] critical of how the Democrat leadership has mismanaged things on Capitol Hill."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19847629-ADNFCR