Vitamin B6, Methionine May Help Protect Against Lung Cancer

Vitamin B6, methionine may help protect against lung cancer People with high blood levels of vitamin B6 and an amino acid known as methionine may have a lower risk of developing lung cancer than individuals who have insufficient levels of the nutrients, a new study has found.

For the trial, a research team from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, recruited 899 lung cancer patients and 1,770 control participants of a similar age, date of birth and date of blood collection.

After adjusting for several risk factors, lead author Paul Brennan and his colleagues found that those with the highest blood levels of vitamin B6 had a lower incidence rate of lung cancer than those with the least adequate levels. The risk of being diagnosed with the disease fell even lower if a participant also had elevated serum levels of methionine, an amino acid found in most protein.

"Our results suggest that above-median serum measures of both B6 and methionine, assessed on average five years prior to disease onset, are associated with a reduction of at least 50 percent on the risk of developing lung cancer," wrote the authors.

"An additional association for serum levels of folate was present, that when combined with B6 and methionine, was associated with a two-thirds lower risk of lung cancer," they added.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19842449-ADNFCR

No Light On Our Deepwater Horizon

Welcome to the Summer of Schadenfreude for Earth Firsters everywhere. And what a celebration they’ve been enjoying. Fronted by Dear Leader Obama and Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emanuel, the libs have been breaking their arms in paroxysms of self-congratulation since BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig began spewing 10W30 into the Gulf.

You wouldn’t think an oil spill would bring tears of joy to anyone; but for the flat-earthers, the Deepwater Disaster means validation—if not votes. There haven’t been this many “I-told-you-so’s” since Elin Nordgren called her mother the day after Thanksgiving.

The President just gave us another glimpse of his plans, announcing an investigative commission with the petroleum-specific expertise of the pump jockey at the Gas’n’Go. The only real scientist of the group is an expert in optics. The John Hinckley jury would have been just as qualified.

The kangaroo court of a commission comes on the heels of a $20 billion shakedown of BP during which Obama acted like a loanshark chasing some schlub who’s late with the vig. Of course, when the President puts the knuckles to someone, instead of no-neck types with names like Duke and Rocco, he has the 82nd Airborne.

As for “plugging the damn hole”—Despite Dutch and Belgian expertise in dealing with precisely the situation Obama and his cronies are mishandling, Presidential obligations to Big Labor preclude any consideration of suspending the Jones Act and bringing speedy relief to Charlie the Tuna. In the Obama/Emanuel/Democrat crisis management handbook, people from other countries are fine if they’re crawling through a tunnel toward Tucson, but not so much when they’re petrochemical engineers offering to put a stop to a terrible waste of the good stuff.

Nor will there be any reconsideration of the Federal ban on offshore drilling in productive waters. In fact, there’s still a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling in water deeper than 500 feet—the equivalent of holding the Olympic diving events in the downstairs bathtub.

With the left’s petroleum pity party in full swing, let’s look at their viable alternatives. Any wingnut can decry America’s tendency to lean on Castrol. According to newly appointed Spill Panelist Frances Beinecke, this whole situation is a result of “America’s addiction to oil.” Well thank you Madam Obvious. So, what are you offering?

Wind power sounds nice. It’s clean, “Green,” and doesn’t make Flipper icky. But wind power means windmills—and windmills ruin the view from the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport.

Solar power is another Woodstock-approved energy source. You’ve never seen a Sierra Club ad featuring a baby seal flopping around helplessly in a puddle of photovoltaic cells. Unfortunately, solar power’s start-up costs are so prohibitively high, Moonbeam Mary and Patchouli Pete wouldn’t have enough left over to fix the Microbus. Plus, you’d have to pave Montana in solar panels just to power Al Gore’s mega-mansion; with maybe enough left over to run John Edwards’s hair dryer.

Ethanol gets a few column inches every time the prices at pump inch up, but that’s hype, not help. Even if every acre of corn in the country was earmarked for fuel production, it would only cover 12 percent to 15 percent of the nation’s fuel needs. And you’d have a hard time telling the kids why Tony the Tiger can’t join them for breakfast anymore.

Nuclear power is a near-perfect solution—except that Hollywood hates it. They can’t run their Priuses on plutonium. And do we really want movie stars riding around on small thermonuclear devices? Hmm..nah.

The U.S. IS the Kuwait of coal. But the eco-shriekers say it’s gross. You have to dig massive holes to get to the stuff. Fine if you’re mining diamonds for Barbra Streisand’s cleavage bling, but not cool if you’re trying to turn the lights on in a neighborhood where Babs wouldn’t be caught dead. Also, Al Gore says coal causes global warming. We should trust Al Gore—he invented the internet.

So it’s back to the deepwater drilling board for the time being. Fortunately, the world has plenty of the black stuff left. We’ll be kicking the Enterprise into warp drive long before we run out of oil. The solutions are right in front of us, if we can shoehorn some common sense into energy policy.

In the meantime, Obama was back on the golf course this weekend. Hey, Mr. President, when Malia asked “Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?” I don’t think she meant the 5th at Congressional.

Ceding Arizona To Mexico

America is losing the battle along the border with Mexico—apparently without a fight. As proof, a swatch of Arizona 80 miles wide that runs from the Mexican border about three counties deep into the state (encompassing about 3,500 acres) has been ceded to Mexicans.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that armed paramilitary elements control a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Arizona. But rather than try and reclaim it, signs have been posted marking the area as off limits to Americans.

It was closed in October 2006, due to human safety concerns, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The signs read: “Danger—Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended.” To see a clip of Babeu’s interview click here.

The squad-sized (in American military parlance a squad refers to two teams of four or five soldiers each) armed paramilitary elements Babeu referred to are drug smugglers and human traffickers out of Mexico. And violence there has increased the last fourth months.

He conceded that neither he nor other local sheriff’s departments and city police forces had the manpower to take the area back. It’s going to take the U.S. military, he said, and that’s why Babeu, his fellow law enforcement heads and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently asked Obama for 3,000 National Guard troops.

Obama responded by promising Arizona Governor Jan Brewer he’d get back to her. He hasn’t.

As I wrote last week in Breaking Their Oath, this is not the only place armed elements have crossed the Mexican border in the U.S. There have been many sightings reported—and several videos made to back them up—of either elements of the Mexican military or police forces crossing the border in force. There have also been shootouts with U.S. Border agents.

Just recently a young smuggler was killed by U.S. Border agents and armed agents from Mexico fired on them as they investigated the scene of the shooting.

Breaking Their Oath demonstrated how Obama and the current Congress, as well as Presidents and Congresses past, have failed to live up to their oath of office and protect America from invasion.

The situation in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates that the fascist elected elites are either feckless and weak or they have an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of our nation. It also demonstrates why Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was necessary.

(Article continued below…)

 

There were a lot of interesting comments to last week’s article. The vast majority agreed with Arizona’s soon-to-be-enacted immigration law which will make it a crime to be an illegal alien in the state.

Many were like this one from a person calling himself American Citizen who said,

“The only pertinent word about all of this is ‘illegal.’ They are criminals as soon as they step foot on our territory. Nationality means nothing here.”

Al Seiber is very familiar with what’s going on in Arizona. He has friends near the border. He posted,

“My friends live 1200′ from the border, out of Sierra Vista, Ariz. they told me they find more prayer mats then anything. I find lot’s of back packs, with tortillas and water bottles in them.”

Some commenters think the answer is a fence along the border: a fence that Washington obviously has no interest in completing. Typical of that line of thinking comes from someone calling himself bp who wrote,

“People are WALKING over the border with their backpacks long before they stand on the street corner for a day job! Fences, we need SERIOUS fences (like the ones we build around our prisons) and the kind of armored vehicles that the Mexican Polizia showed us last week (when one of their smugglers was killed on U.S. soil)! Who knew they had these?!”

Not all agree. A regular liberal commenter who calls himself Denniso had this to say:

“Bob Livingston says ‘we are being invaded and the gov’t is doing nothing to stop it’. Is that supposed to be a joke? I just drove along a part of the border and the highway was full of border patrol vehicles, driving back and forth. We have thousands more border patrol agents than we’ve ever had all along the border, at a cost of billions of dollars per year…what is that? doing nothing?

Come on Bob, don’t twist the facts just to stir up the hotheads in the country more than they already are. If thousands of agents swarming the border is doing nothing and building a ridiculous and multi billion $$ wall is nothing, then I wonder what it is you would consider doing something?”

No Denniso. Unfortunately it is no joke. Usually you provide coherent dissenting commentary. Not this time.

There are places—like the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding territory—where agents don’t go, but armed insurgents from across the border do. And ask the residents of some of the border towns about the armed Mexican helicopters—sometimes seen hovering over houses and shining spotlights at night as if searching for someone or something—and how they feel about what is being done to protect them.

Certainly more could be done by the Federal government if the fascist elites in power wanted something done. Big John in Virginia had a good suggestion. He wrote,

“Why do we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, but we can’t put enough on our borders to protect us? Let’s all go to Arizona for vacations this year. I am. I’ve always wanted to see the Grand Canyon!! Help make up for the boycotts. See ya there!!!”

Or, we could reduce the size of Empire America and just bring those troops home and put them along our border. But visiting Arizona is always a good idea.

And refuse2lose commented, sarcastically I suppose,

“I would like to challenge any person that is against the Arizona immigration bill to call your representatives in congress, also write a letter to Obama and tell them that the federal immigration law needs to be shredded and a new one needs to be written up. Because, in case you are like Obama, Holder and Napolitano who didn’t take time to read the bill but got on tv and condemned it, I have actually read the bill and it is EXACTLY like the federal bill. So if you are accusing Arizonians of being profilers then you are in fact accusing your liberal icons of profiling.”

The grammar’s not great, but you get the drift. Actually, letting your fascist elected representative know how you feel about the illegal immigration situation is not a bad idea. So we’ve come up with a way you can do that. First, you can go here and vote in our Immigration Reform Poll.

So far 97 percent of those who’ve voted believe America should follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform. And a whopping 92 percent of respondents would like to see their state pass a similar immigration law.

After you’ve voted, send the link to your friends and family and ask them to vote as well. The results will be shared with major media outlets across the country, so the more votes cast the better.

You can also contact your Congressweasel (or Congressman if his or her name happens to be Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or one or two others) and let him or her know how you feel. If you don’t know how to contact your Senator or Representative you can find him or her by going here.

As rob posted:

“’We the People’ need to start being seen in ‘GREATER’ numbers and heard from in masses. We need to see and hear from candidates where they stand on major issues and hold them accountable. Why is it we are not asking our candidates or elected officials outright on their stance with major issues as immigration. Quit hiding….. NOW is our opportunity to be heard….NOW is our opportunity to be seen…. November is coming soon…. don’t pass it up.”

Why indeed? What better way to know where they stand than by asking them yourself? We’ve done the hard part for you. You no longer have an excuse.

GOP's Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh Blast Administration In BP Fund Case

GOP's Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh blast administration in BP fund case Following a late afternoon meeting at the White House on June 15 between President Obama and CEOs of major oil companies, the administration revealed that BP agreed to set up a fund to compensate the victims of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The escrow account will amount to $20 billion, although both the president and his staff were cafeful to stress that the amount is not a cap. They also added that the fund will be administred by an independent overseer.

While Obama supporters and many Gulf Coast residents may be satisfied with the decision, the president’s Republican opponents and conservative commentators have been critical.

Appearing on CNN‘s John King USA show, Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann expressed her concern ahout the extent of the the government’s expansion into the private sector in the last 18 months, and warned that the administration should not treat BP as "a permanent ATM card."

In a similar vain, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed on his radio show that "this is going to be used as a little miniature slush fund," and urged affected Gulf residents to "keep a sharp eye on who gets the money."

On top of that, the Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele criticized Obama for waiting 58 days to meet with BP executives, according to CNN. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19844866-ADNFCR

Tom Daschle To Chair Health Information Center

Tom Daschle to chair Health Information CenterIn order to defend and promote the recently passed healthcare reform bill, the government has set up a $125 million Health Information Center, to be co-chaired by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Victoria Kennedy, the widow of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

The initiative was launched by Democratic activist Andrew Grossman to provide a united front for the administration to defend and depoliticize the reform, according to Politico.com.

"When you treat people with respect and try to understand how they interact with businesses and politics, you can move them," Grossman explained, quoted by the news source.

However, Daschle has been challenged by former New York Governor George Pataki, chairman of the freedom organization called Revere America, to debate him on the merits of the overhaul, which he believes is against the wishes of the American people.

In a letter to the former lawmaker, Pataki stated that "every day [Americans] understand more and more that ObamaCare is a dangerous overreach of government that takes away their freedom, that it jeopardizes jobs and the economy, and that it threatens to fundamentally alter the patient-physician relationship and reduce our high standards of medical care."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19844869-ADNFCR

Poll: Bush's Response To Katrina Better Than Obama's Handling Of Oil Spill

Poll: Bush's response to Katrina better than Obama's handling of oil spill Louisiana residents believe that former President George W. Bush did a more adequate job responding to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina than President Barrack Obama has in response to the oil spill off the state’s coastline, according to a recent survey.

The new Public Policy Polling survey found that 50 percent of respondents—including 31 percent of Democrats—feel that Bush handled the 2005 crisis better than Obama is currently managing the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. A total of 35 percent of those surveyed favor the current president’s performance.

When asked to compare the impact of the two disasters, an overwhelming majority of voters (76 percent to 17 percent) said that the oil spill will do more long-term harm to the community than Katrina did.

Officials with the left-leaning polling organization note that the waters off the Louisiana coast account for 16 percent of the state’s GDP. They also report that a one-year ban on offshore drilling could result in as many as 20,000 layoffs statewide.

"People are always concerned with their economic livelihood," said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling." In Louisiana the economy and jobs are clearly tied to the oil and gas industry. Louisianans seem more concerned about the closure of oil rigs than of the beaches."
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19842439-ADNFCR

Mediterranean Diet Lowers Heart Disease Risk Among Men

Mediterranean diet lowers heart disease risk among men Men who consume a Mediterranean-style diet can enhance their heart function and reduce their risk of developing cardiovascular disease, according to a new Indiana University study.

In an effort to eliminate the genetic risk factors commonly linked to heart disease, the research team utilized dietary questionnaires and cardiac data from 276 identical or fraternal twins. The patients were graded on how strictly they followed the diet, and each underwent an assessment of their heart rate variability (HRV), which is the variation in the time interval between heart beats.

People with a reduced HRV are known to have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and sudden death, according to the researchers.

Lead author Jun Dai and his colleagues found that men who closely followed the Mediterranean-style diet had a more variable heart rate, compared with those that did not follow the diet, resulting in a 9 percent to 14 percent decreased risk of cardiovascular-related death.

"This means that the autonomic system controlling someone’s heart rate works better in people who eat a diet similar to a Mediterranean diet," concluded Dai.

A Mediterranean diet consists of fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish, nuts, cereals and olive oil.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19842442-ADNFCR

"A Republic—If You Can Keep It"

At first I couldn’t believe my eyes.

In fact, I had to look away and blink a couple of times before reading the email again. But it still said the same thing: “Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We have given you a democratic-republic… if you can keep it.”

No, he didn’t!

I had to face the fact: A Straight Talk reader had fallen victim to 100 years of liberal brainwashing. What he said was such a gross perversion of the truth—and the difference is so incredibly important to preserving what liberties we have left—I hope you’ll indulge me in a brief history lesson this week.

If you remember much from your high school history classes about the founding of this country, you know there was a great deal of controversy about what type of government the newly independent states should create.

The first effort, the Articles of Confederation, was generally regarded as a failure. But what should replace them? Each state sent a group of representatives to meet in Philadelphia and hammer out a new agreement. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended, eager to learn what had been produced behind those closed doors.

As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”

With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Over the past four decades I have recounted this story several hundred times. For many years I traveled the country giving speeches about the threats to this Republic. I always enjoyed the opportunity to talk to high school students when I could wrangle an invitation. When I did, I loved to tell them about the differences between a republic and a democracy.

“A lynch mob is democracy in action,” I would say. “While if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they deserve their day in court and that a jury of their peers should decide their fate, then you believe in a nation of laws, not just the whims of a mob.”

Another line I used a lot was, “Democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If you were the sheep, which would you rather live in—a republic or a democracy?”

I told them about the importance of “binding men down with the chains of a Constitution.” That this was the only sure way to protect their freedom. And that anyone who wanted to change this republic into a democracy was an enemy of liberty.

A century or two earlier there would have been no need to give such a talk—and no interest if one did. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, every American who could read and write (and probably most of those who couldn’t), knew we were a republic. The campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy didn’t begin until 100 years ago. Today, if you take a poll of high school or college students, the overwhelming majority will tell you that we are a democracy.

Please don’t dismiss this as a mere quarrel over semantics. Understanding the difference between the two systems of government is absolutely vital. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that our very liberties depend on getting more Americans to realize the importance of this seemingly arcane dispute.

Our Founding Fathers Feared And Hated Democracy
Most high school students who heard me say such a thing were surprised and shocked. They had been taught that the United States was, and had always been, a democracy. That “majority rule” was the fairest of all possible forms of government.
Who was this guy to tell them they’d been lied to?

So I quoted what some of our founding fathers had to say. I asked if they had heard of The Federalist Papers—the collection of articles written during the debate over ratifying the new constitution.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” had this to say:

“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”

Alexander Hamilton concurred. In a speech he gave in June 1788, urging ratification of the Constitution, he thundered:

“The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Fisher Ames, a member of Congress during the eight years that George Washington was president, wrote an essay called “the Mire of Democracy.” In it, he said that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from despotism.”

Yes, our founding fathers were well aware of the differences between a republic and a democracy. They revered the former; but as I said above, they hated and feared the latter.

In view of the founders’ ardent convictions, it is no surprise that you cannot find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our Federal government should be a republic; it went further and mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

These principles used to be widely understood and commonly accepted. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 until 1835, said that, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.”

Nor was it only Americans who feared and despised democracy. Lord Acton, the famous Englishman who coined the aphorism that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” had this to say:

“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

It was only during the last century that the falsehood about this country being a democracy became widely accepted. Woodrow Wilson declared that we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy.” Franklin Roosevelt said that the U.S. “must be the great arsenal of democracy.”

So today, almost every schoolchild in America believes that the U.S. is a democracy. Why did the liberal intelligentsia in this country, supported by their slavish followers in the media and their docile puppets in politics, pull this “bait and switch” on us?

For the answer, let’s turn to another Englishman, Alexander Fraser Tytler, also known as Lord Woodhouselee, who wrote:

“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, always followed by a dictatorship.”

The only part of Mr. Tytler’s warning I’ll dispute is his use of the word “always.” You and I have been given the power to prevent our country’s descent into a democracy. It’s called the ballot box. Let’s hope enough of us use it this coming Nov. 2 to begin the process of taking our country back.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

Democrat Doozie, A Bad Investment, Green Policies And Pension Fund Raids

*The Dems pick a doozie in S.C. With all the news pouring in from various state primaries you might have missed one of the weirdest. It seems that an unemployed veteran, with no visible means of support, somehow came up with the $10,400 filing fee in South Carolina and won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate there. Alvin Greene, who did zero campaigning, was recently booked on felony obscenity charges. It doesn’t look as though Republican incumbent Jim DeMint need worry very much.

*Big Labor’s bad investment. Meanwhile, down in Arkansas, Big Labor spent more than $10 million in a failed effort to defeat incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic run-off there. Seems the unions are mad at the lady because she refuses to support “card check,” which would eliminate secret ballots in a vote for unionization. Happily, that’s $10 million the unions won’t have to spend on elections this November that might really matter.

*That’s telling them, John. John Myers, one of my favorite Personal Liberty columnists, had a great article last week explaining how environmental extremists are responsible for the Gulf oil disaster. “To the Greens I have six words regarding the catastrophe,” he wrote. “Your President, your policies, your fault.” In case you missed his very compelling piece, click here.

*Only politicians could get away with this deal. You probably already know that public pension funds are facing all sorts of problems around the country. In California the unfunded liabilities have passed $500 billion. Things aren’t quite as desperate in New York where Gov. David Paterson and legislative leaders came up with an incredible deal to patch over the problems. Seems they are going to raise the $6 billion they owe the state pension fund by borrowing the money from… are you ready for this?… the state pension fund. You see, unlike the Administration, they can’t just print the money they need.

–Chip Wood