Surveys Reveals Americans May Be Torn Between Taxes And Health

Surveys reveals Americans may be torn between taxes and healthA pair of recent polls has shown that there may be a growing tension between people’s desire to pay fewer taxes and their aspirations to live healthier lives.

Earlier this month, an Adweek/Harris Poll, conducted by Harris Interactive, found that 56 percent of Americans oppose a tax on soft drinks, and interpreted the result as suggesting that it reflects Americans’ weariness of new taxes. It also appeared to illustrate people’s displeasure at the idea that the government can use taxes to dictate what they eat or drink.

"They see the tax for what it is—a money grab to pay for more government. It’s time for lawmakers to bury this ill-conceived tax once and for all," said Kevin Keane, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Beverage Association.

However, a different poll, recently conducted in Philadelphia, found that 55 percent of likely voters in that city would support a tax of 2 cents per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages, if funding was dedicated to support programs to combat childhood obesity.

"Childhood obesity is an epidemic in Philadelphia and across the country," said Andrew Hysell, project director for the Campaign for Healthy Kids, which commissioned the survey.

He added that "today’s children could be the first generation in United States history to live sicker and die younger than their parents’ generation," and that "the majority of Philadelphia voters support the sugar-sweetened beverage tax as part of a public health policy to combat the childhood obesity epidemic." ADNFCR-1961-ID-19823078-ADNFCR

It’s The Greens That Sowed The Seeds Of The Gulf Oil Disaster

To the Greens I have six words regarding the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico: Your President, your policies, your fault.

After all Barack Obama was the progressive Green candidate, a thinker who could steer the course in the 21st Century. Oprah anointed then-Senator Obama as "The Chosen One". To Oprah and a great majority of Liberals, Obama was the anti-Dubya; a larger than life leader with savior qualities that would lead us to peace and overcome all obstacles.

So far, so bad. America’s endgame for Iraq is in question because of increasing levels of Shiite-Sunni violence. Afghanistan looks more untenable all the time. The recovery is sluggish and healthcare has been rammed down the throats of the American people. Now we face an enormous crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s been almost two months since an explosion sent crude pumping into the Gulf and the Obama administration has shown an astonishing lack of leadership.

David Gergen, a centrist political commentator and advisor to four Presidents, has pointed out a basic lack of leadership from the Obama administration: “Ultimately it is not the responsibility of BP or any other company to protect American interests but the responsibility of the Federal government.”

While on Anderson Cooper 360° on CNN, Gergen added: “If our government had fought World War II like the way we’re fighting the oil spill, there’s a good chance many of us would be speaking German today.”

Gergen is hardly alone in the criticism. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the general who endorsed Obama in 2008, says the President has been far too slow in asserting leadership over the Gulf spill and the time has come for a "comprehensive and total attack" on the problem.

So here it is, a news flash to Oprah and the Liberals: When it comes to leadership, Barack Obama is a lot more Herbert Hoover than he is Harry Truman, regardless of how many “the buck stops here” speeches Obama chooses to give. Little wonder that a recent USA Today/Gallup survey showed that six out of 10 Americans believe the Federal government is doing a “poor” or “very poor” job handling the spill.

The President bristles at criticism that the Gulf crisis is his Katrina. Even in the face of the failure of BP to stem the spill with its top-kill option, Obama was defending the Federal government’s record and promised aggressive action to ensure future drilling is done safely. He has extended a moratorium on new exploration drilling in the Gulf and announced that 33 current projects in the deep water will be suspended along with two permits for exploration wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.

“As we continue our response effort, we’re also moving quickly on steps to ensure that a catastrophe like this never happens again,” he said. “I’ve said before that producing oil here in America is an essential part of our overall energy strategy. But all drilling must be safe.”

Respectfully Mr. President, can we not worry about future leaks until we fix this one? After all, the BP gusher has well surpassed the 1989 Exxon spill in Alaska as the largest ever in the United States. Crude has continued to spew for 52 days after it began with a rig explosion that killed 11 people. Every effort to stop the spill has so far proved unsuccessful.

When I was a boy on the farm we didn’t worry about the horses that might get out; we scurried about to catch the horse that had gotten out. And right now there is a big and nasty animal rolling about the Gulf presenting a clear and present danger to the United States. Meanwhile we are getting the Green lecture—how to stop future oil spills. Which brings me to my second news flash—it is Green policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

The Greens Made Us Drill So Deep
Last January I wrote about the problems and costs of drilling for oil at such extraordinary depths as those being worked off the coast of Louisiana. It was called The Deep Truth About Oil and the Gulf of Mexico.

In that column I said: “Chevron has spent 10 years and a whopping $2.7 billion for this project. This is the cost of running a drill and casing more than 30,000 feet through earth and ocean, the same distance that an airliner flies above the earth. Chevron will spend billions more and in the end, even with all the high-tech in the world, there are no guarantees that its deep-water experiment will hit pay-dirt. In fact there is less than a 50/50 chance that Chevron’s latest deep-sea adventure will yield anything. Still Chevron and their brethren don’t have a choice.

“The Wall Street Journal sums up the situation: ‘Big easily tapped oil fields close to shore have become off-limits.’”

Fast forward a few months and we saw the real danger in not drilling in shallow waters and places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). We see what happens when Big Oil is forced to drill in 5,000 feet or more of seawater; depths at which accidents can’t be easily repaired.

I’ve been talking to my friends in the Alberta oil patch about this for weeks. But the problem didn’t see the light of day until the May 29 episode of Meet the Press. There Host David Gregory asked White House Energy Adviser Carol Browner if in response to the Gulf Coast oil spill, America should start drilling in ANWR.

Gregory asked: "Is the problem that we’re drilling in water that’s just too deep?" 

Gregory continued: "Should you (the White House) even rethink your own approach to the environment to say… maybe in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve; we ought to be drilling there… we ought to be going into shallower waters so that this can be done more safely?"

Incredibly Gregory wasn’t given an answer. But even I know this simple truth—that we need to be drilling in shallow water and places like ANWR. Places where accidents can be corrected.

Don’t expect any leadership on this from the President even though his decision to suspend deepwater drilling off the U.S. coast will have consequences.

“An extended moratorium on safely producing our oil and natural gas resources from the Gulf of Mexico would create a moratorium on economic growth and job creation,” said Jack Gerard, chief executive of the American petroleum Institute.

It’s worth noting that the Gulf of Mexico currently produces about 1.6 million barrels of oil per day—an amount larger than the output of Canada’s oil sands. It was expected to grow to 1.9 million barrels by 2025. But the jury is out on this until Obama—"The Chosen One"—chooses leadership over politics and stops this catastrophe.

Yours for real wealth and good health,

John Myers
Myers’ Energy and Gold Report

“Tear Down This Wall!”

It was 23 years ago this week that President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in the divided city of Berlin and urged Mikhail Gorbachev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to "tear down this wall!"

At the time, several members of the President’s staff opposed the remark. Chief of Staff Howard Baker said it sounded "extreme." National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed, declaring it was "unpresidential." Reagan ended the debate by saying, "I think we’ll leave it in."

About 45,000 people attending the speech heard the American leader declare: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

While many commentators in the East and the West derided our "cowboy" President for his anti-communist rhetoric, just 29 months later the wall began to fall. And the rest, as they say, is history.

—Chip Wood

Can Fluorescent Lighting Improve A Vegetable’s Nutrient Capacity?

Can fluorescent lighting improve a vegetable's nutrient capacity? Results of a new study suggest that shoppers may want to consider where a vegetable is located in the food store before making a purchase. According to the research, the fluorescent lighting commonly found in supermarkets can enhance the nutritional value of leafy vegetables, especially spinach.

Lead authors Gene Lester, Donald Makus and Mark Hodges tested this theory by exposing fresh spinach leaves to continuous fluorescent lighting for varying periods of time.

After three days, spinach that was stored in clear plastic containers close to retail-style lighting contained significantly higher levels of vitamins C, K, E and folate, compared to "control" vegetables that were not situated directly under artificial lighting.

When kept under continuous light exposure for nine days, the levels of folate and vitamin K in the spinach increased by as much as 100 percent. In contrast, the nutrient levels of vegetables that were not stored under fluorescent lighting fixtures either diminished or remained unchanged.

The authors of the study believe the findings may open doors to improving the way that vegetables are stored.

S.C. State Senator Refers To Obama, Haley As ‘Ragheads’

S.C. State Senator refers to Obama, Haley as 'ragheads'Republican South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts apologized last week for using a racial slur to disparage both President Obama and Republican State Representative Nikki Haley, who was born in the United States and is of Indian decent.

During an interview on the Internet talk show Pub Politics, Knotts allegedly said, "We’ve already got a raghead in the White House, we don’t need another raghead in the governor’s mansion," according to the show’s co-host Phil Bailey. Due to technical problems, the audio of the conversation was not recorded.

While Knotts admitted that he did use the slur, the state senator said that his comments were intended in jest, and compared the talk show to a radio version of Saturday Night Live.

Haley, who was recently endorsed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, is one of four Republicans and three Democrats in the running to replace Mark Sanford as the governor of South Carolina.

Meanwhile, Haley, a 38-year-old married mother of two, has been accused twice in the last 10 days of having an extramarital affair. Haley vehemently denied both accusations, casting them aside as examples of unethical politics.

"As Nikki Haley rises in the polls, the good old boys in Columbia see their taxpayer-funded fraternity party coming crumbling down," said campaign spokesman Tim Pearson. "They will say or do anything to hold on to their power."

Haley said earlier in the week that she would resign immediately if any proof of an affair comes to light.

Managing Allergies: An Herbal Approach

Spring and summer present many with a certain nagging problem: allergies. No matter what you do, if you’re prone to allergies you will get them. And each year seems to be worse than the previous one.

Allergic reactions are caused when the immune system reacts to allergens in the environment. Actually, the immune system over-reacts, or works too hard, to battle the symptoms common to allergies. Such symptoms include red, itchy, swollen and/or watery eyes, stuffy or runny nose, post nasal drip, headache, fatigue, itchy throat, dry mouth, coughing and wheezing.

Allergies are generally caused by wind-born pollen from trees, grass, plants or weeds entering the nasal passages. When these allergens collide with the body’s defense systems the nasal mucosa swells, blocks the passageway and can cause sinus infections.

In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), we say that allergic rhinitis is caused by a deficiency of lung and kidney wei qi (or “defensive energy”; you could call it the immune system). This allows what is termed “wind-cold” (clear mucus) or “wind-heat” (yellow mucus) to retain in the nasal passages and/or lung system. The term “wind” is used to mean an airborne cause.

Luckily, TCM has several natural herbal approaches to remedy these symptoms by balancing the body’s defensive energy. These herbal formulae are Bi Yan Pian, Pe Min Kan Wan and Xin Yi San. Before taking them, you should consult a TCM practitioner to determine your “pattern” of allergic reaction so the correct formula is used. Reading more about them in a simple online search is another way to decide if they are right for you. In any event, these formulas are natural and harmless, meaning they will cause no side effect if an incorrect formula is taken.

Pe Min Kan Wan (Nasal Clear Pills) treats allergies, common colds and nasal or sinus congestion. It does this by dispersing wind, clearing heat, expelling toxins, transforming phlegm and unblocking the nose.

Pe Min Kan Wan is a formula comprised of different herbs including: jin yin hua (honeysuckle), cang er zi (xanthium), ye ju hua (wild chrysanthemum), bai zhi (angelica), e bu shi cao (centipeda) and bo he (mint).

This herbal formula is indicated for wind or wind-heat obstructing the nasal passages. If this formula is for you, you would be experiencing nasal obstruction, copious amounts of clear or white watery nasal discharge, or thick yellow or green nasal discharge, sinus pain, headache, dizziness, sneezing, itchy nose and eyes, heat and redness around the sinus cavities, earache, cough and wheezing. Also, your tongue would be redder in color than usual. This formula is especially effective for nasal or lung problems with an allergic component.

In terms of specific ‘allopathic’ designations, Pe Min Kan Wan possesses anti-inflammatory and mucolutic properties. As such, it effectively treats allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinitis, perennial rhinitis, acute and chronic sinusitis, sinus headaches, frontal headaches, otitis media, allergic asthma, common cold and influenza.

Note: Do not use this formula unless you are experiencing chronic congestion with colored mucus. As this is a drying formula, continued use after congestion and mucus are resolved can dry out the mucus membranes.

Bi Yan Ning (Calm the Nose and Throat) treats allergies, common cold and nasal or sinus congestion. It does this by dispersing wind from the nasal passages, clearing heat, expelling toxins, transforming phlegm and unblocking the nose.

Bi Yan Ning (also spelled Bi Ye Ning), is a formula comprised of different herbs including: cang er zi (xanthium), xin yi hua (magnolia flower), zhu dan zhi (pig bile), e bu shi cao (centipeda), chan tui (cicada shell), huo xiang (agastache), bing pian (borneol), huang qin (scute), dang gui (Chinese angelica), and huang qi (estragalus).

This herbal formula is indicated for wind-heat obstructing the nasal passages with congealing of the nasal fluids. If this formula is for you, you would be experiencing nasal congestion, swollen and inflamed mucus membranes, thick yellow nasal mucus, purulent malodorous mucus, watery mucus, sneezing, reduction or loss of sense of smell, nasal voice, sinus congestion and pain, frontal or sinus headache, dizziness, red itchy eyes, excessive tearing. Your tongue color would be the normal pink to red with a yellow coating.

In terms of specific ‘allopathic’ designations, Bi Yan Pian posses anti-inflammatory, mucolytic and antibacterial properties. As such, it effectively treats allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinitis, perennial rhinitis, acute and chronic sinusitis, sinus headaches, frontal headaches, upper respiratory tract infection, common cold and influenza.

Note: While this formula is similar to Pe Min Kan Wan it is cooler to the body and slightly stronger. Do not use this formula unless you are experiencing chronic congestion with colored mucus. As this is a drying formula, continued use after congestion and mucus are resolved can dry out the mucus membranes.

Xin Yi San (Magnolia Flower Teapills) treats allergies, common cold and nasal or sinus congestion. It does this by dispelling wind-cold, eliminating dampness, unblocking the nose and alleviating pain.

Xin Yi San is a formula comprised of different herbs, including: xin yi hua (magnolia flower), bai zhu (atractylodes), fang feng (siler), sheng ma (cimicifuga), mu tong (akebia), chuan xiong (cnidium), xi xin (asarum), gao ben (ligusticum), gan cao (licorice), and qiang huo (notopterygium).

This herbal formula is indicated for wind-cold invasion attacking the head. If this formula is for you, you would be experiencing nasal and sinus congestion, nasal or sinus pain, copious clear nasal discharge, post-nasal drip, sneezing, sinus or frontal headache, stiff and achy neck and upper back, fatigue, mental cloudiness and loss of sense of smell. Your tongue color would be the normal pink color with a thin white coating.

In terms of specific ‘allopathic’ designations, Xin Yi San posses diaphoretic, anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. As such, it effectively treats acute and chronic sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinitis, sinus headaches, frontal headaches, upper respiratory tract infection, common cold and influenza.

Note: There are no reported contraindications with use of this formula.

I hope this brief article on Chinese herbals for allergies helps you to 1) find the correct formula for your issues, and 2) understand that taking a pattern-specific approach is better than the “shotgun” approach of the generic pharma allergy medications or herbal products advertised for “allergies” in general.

It is not necessary for you to experience ALL of the above symptoms within a grouping, but the group that most completely describes the overall pattern of what you are experiencing with your allergies, indicates the formula that is best applied.

It is commonly observed within TCM clinics and hospitals that the long-term result for treating allergies is strengthened with the addition of acupuncture sessions. Additionally, it is highly advised to refrain from consuming any animal milk product during allergy season, especially when infection is present.

These formulas are among the 400 common “Chinese patent herbal formulas” sold all over the world and used for centuries in Asia. They are currently manufactured in pharmaceutical or nutraceutical laboratories that are inspected buy the World Health Organization. As such, the products sold in the United States are GMP Certified and safe A simple online search of these names will bring up a number of sites selling these products. Or you could visit a Chinatown near you.

—Dr. Mark Wiley

Do-It-Yourself Alzheimer’s Treatment

A simple vitamin, niacinamide B3 has been shown by researchers to improve cognitive function in Alzheimer’s patients.

In fact, niacinamide has been used for years to revive and enhance impaired memory in general. It is a safe vitamin and has been used by the public since the 1950s. Its effectiveness undoubtedly has to do with improved brain circulation.

I once sat in on a lecture by Abram Hoffer, M.D., PhD., who famously used niacinamide to successfully treat schizophrenia.

Years ago I took niacinamide B3 during bouts of depression. It is very safe in 500 milligram (mg) to 1,000 mg doses.

Any of you with a history of Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia in your family should try this simple and very safe vitamin. Let me hear how it works for you.

(Reference: Nutrition and Healing by Dr. Jonathan V. Wright, March 2009 issue by Healthier News LLC, 702 Cathedral St., Baltimore, MD 21201.)

EBRI Report Details Americans’ Retirement Income Sources

EBRI report details Americans' retirement income sourcesIn the current economic climate many Americans are increasingly concerned about their income when they retire. Unfortunately, recent studies do not paint an optimistic picture and show once again the importance of investment in safe assets.

According to a new report released by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), in 2008 Social Security was the largest source of income for those aged 65 and older, accounting for nearly 40 percent of their income on average.

However, given the decades-long mismanagement of Social Security and the lack of reforms that would prevent its bankruptcy, there is no guarantee that future generations of retirees will be able to benefit from it, something which may affect lower-income individuals most.

Hence, some financial experts suggest investing in tangible assets with intrinsic value such as real estate or precious metals. The latter, in particular, can shield people’s life savings from the ravages of inflation, which many believe will result from the growing national debt.

The importance of making a wise retirement savings decision is further stressed by the report’s findings that show that only 13 percent of Americans derive their retirement income from assets, while 19.7 percent rely on pension and annuities.

Obama, Brewer Meet, But Fail To Agree, On Arizona Immigration Bill

Obama, Brewer meet, but fail to agree, on Arizona immigration billAmid a harsh domestic dispute over Arizona’s new immigration law, the state’s governor traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with President Obama to discuss the issue. However, it appears that the two sides did not come to any substantive agreements.

Although the White House said in a statement that the meeting "went well," Obama still stressed the importance of states working together on a comprehensive immigration reform, and complained that a patchwork of individual laws will complicate enforcement, according to The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, Brewer stressed the need to secure the border first, and stated that Obama declined to discuss whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) will file a lawsuit to block the law before it takes effect next month, the news provider further reported.

When the law was passed in April, Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that the DOJ was "considering all possibilities, including the possibility of a court challenge."

He also spoke of the bill’s unconstitutionality, but later admitted that he had not read it, which organizations such as Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) called "absolutely outrageous."

"Our nation’s highest law-enforcement officer is issuing threats and intimidation over a law he has not bothered to read," said Marilyn DeYoung, chairwoman of CAPS.

"Obviously, political considerations are trumping his duty to enforce immigration and labor laws," she added. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19819753-ADNFCR

Reports Show Why It Is Hard To Create Satisfactory Tax Policy

Reports show why it is hard to create satisfactory tax policy A pair of recently released reports shows why politicians are often in a quandary when it comes to fashioning taxation policies—the first suggests that lower taxes increase national debt, while the other blames poverty on state income taxes.

According to a new report by the Pew Economic Policy Group, a think tank, extending the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts would sharply increase the national debt, even if extensions are limited to individuals earning below $200,000.

These cuts have been proposed in the administration’s budget, but "in light of the escalating national debt, policymakers need to understand the long-term costs of any extension of the tax cuts," said Ingrid Schroeder, director of the Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative.

Meanwhile, another economic policy institute estimated that 13 states had fiscal policies that pushed working families deeper into poverty last year.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that in some of those states low-earning families faced several hundred dollars in state income taxes, a significant amount for anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck.

"States’ budget challenges are real, but so are the challenges that hard-working families are facing in today’s tough economy," said Nicholas Johnson, director of the Center’s State Fiscal Project.

He added that "states have better ways to balance their budgets than to make their tax codes tougher on low-income workers."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19817679-ADNFCR

Second Amendment Supporters Say England Shooting Spree Offers Cautionary Tale

Second Amendment supporters say England shooting spree offers cautionary taleAmerican supporters of gun rights have been electrified by last week’s mass shooting in England and are seeing it as proof that restrictive gun laws, common in Europe, do more harm than good.

Representatives of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—an organization that fights to preserve Second Amendment rights—have said that gun prohibitionists often cite UK’s restrictive gun laws as a model. In fact, these laws were further tightened after the Dunblane, Scotland, massacre of 16 school children in 1996.

However, instead of ensuring safety, such measures only "created a risk-free environment for the gunman to carry out his despicable act," CCRKBA said.

"When armed Americans fight back shooting sprees are stopped," said the organization’s chairman Alan Gottlieb.

He added that "the architects of British gun laws, and those who would force such laws on the United States, should take a lesson from that."

On June 2, 52-year-old Derrick Bird went on a shooting rampage in northwest England, killing 12 people and wounding another 25 before killing himself. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19816911-ADNFCR

Rand Paul—Libertarian Whacko!

Rand Paul is a kook. He’s a whacko. He’s a racist. He’s so far right he’s gone to the left.

Those are just a few of the pejoratives thrown at Paul, the Republican nominee for Senator in Kentucky. Expect more to come.

Paul took his liberty-loving message to the voters in Kentucky and beat back the Republican establishment. Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney; say hello to Rand and the face of the new conservatism and the Tea Party. Say goodbye to party hacks and insiders like Trey Grayson.

That’s Paul’s message. “I have a message from the Tea Party,” he said on election night. “We’ve come to take our country back.”

And for that he’s greeted with some of the same slurs directed at Tea Party members: whacky, kooky, racist. The establishment elites have little else in their arsenal.

On Fox News’ Special Report, contributor and National Public Radio correspondent Mara Liason could scarcely hide her disdain for Paul the day after his primary victory.

He’s “too far to the right. Too whacky. He’s so far to the right that Mitch McConnell couldn’t,” Liason said, before the neocon Tucker Carlson interrupted with a “Come on…”

But Liason wasn’t finished. “He’s against the patriot act, against the war in Iraq and wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve. He’s so far right he’s coming around to the left. Okay, he’s a Libertarian whacko, not a right wing whacko.” she continued.

Heaven forfend. Oppose the USA PATRIOT Act? Oppose the war in Iraq? Want to end the Federal Reserve? Whacky!

The media also tried to smear him with the tried and true “he’s a racist” charge, both before and after the election. It started with a Kentucky newspaper’s editorial board hitting him with what it thought was a “gotcha” question about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Do you support the Civil Rights Act?” the board asked. Certainly they asked the same question of the other candidates, since civil rights is such a hot topic these days.

Paul gave a very reasoned response, especially considering the act was passed when Paul was still learning to walk and, as far as I can remember, has not been under threat of repeal in the 46 years since.

He’s against institutional racism, he said. He’s against the Federal government discriminating on the basis of race—or for any other reason—and he’s against entities that are public (take Federal funds) discriminating. He wouldn’t belong to a club or organization that discriminated. He wouldn’t patronize a business that discriminated. But he did not think the Federal government should tell a private business how to operate. That’s an option best left to the individual running the business… or to local or state government to deal with.

Kooky! So the paper branded him a racist.

On MSNBC Rachel Maddow continued to hammer Paul on the racism charge. Again, in a reasoned and calm voice he said that he opposed institutional racism but didn’t believe the Federal government should intrude on private business. So, there was one provision out of the 10 in the Act that he would have liked to have had a discussion on—if he was capable of having a discussion on the act in 1964… when he was 1 year old.


Of course, it’s all a red herring, as Paul told Maddow during her interview.

Maddow couldn’t care one whit whether Paul supported the Civil Rights Act, and if he had done back flips in saying he was for it before he was against it, Maddow wouldn’t have cared. That’s because she thought she had her hooks in Paul and that she could land him and gut him like a fish.

Because that’s what the establishment elites want to do with anyone who threatens the status quo. That’s Rand Paul, his father Ron and all of you who consider yourself Tea Party members. If you rock the boat they’re going to try and gut you. That’s why, Tea Party members and Paul—Rand and Ron—supporters, they’re going to do everything they can to demean and dispirit you and try to make you feel like you’re a nut for cherishing liberty.

And the more you rock the more determined they are to get out the gutting knife. And the attacks don’t just come from the left. Michael Steele, the clown running the Republican’s dysfunctional circus, said he’s “not comfortable” with Paul’s position which is “misplaced in these times.”

Steele cautioned that Paul would have to “temper his views” to be accepted by the party. Several establishment Republicans—fascists all—echoed Steele’s remarks. I doubt Paul cares whether the party establishment invites him to their social events or even “accepts” him. Obviously his father doesn’t.

Of course it was Steele’s underlings who were caught spending Republican Party money—that is donated money from party supporters—on strip joints and fetish clubs. And it was Steele and his ilk that got behind losers like Grayson, Utah Senator Robert Bennett (knocked off in a primary) and Florida Governor Charlie Crist (left Republican Party after trailing Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio). And it was Steele who has been slammed for his lavish spending practices since being elected chairman of the Republican National Committee.

And it’s the majority of that same party that helped pass the USA PATRIOT Act and economy-wrecking “stimulus bills” and has only reluctantly—under pressure from Tea Party activists—offered even nominal support to Representative Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) bill to audit the Fed.

So, oppose the USA PATRIOT Act—which effectively voids the 4th Amendment and gives Federal agents and police officers the authority to write their own search warrants and snoop on private conversations, which makes almost any crime an act of terrorism and restricts or denies Americans due process—and you’re a kook.

Oppose an undeclared war against a country that had not attacked United States interests and that was contained under United Nations sanctions and you’re whacky.

Oppose the Federal Reserve, a private entity owned by an unaccountable secret cabal that steals the wealth of Americans, creates fiat money willy-nilly, leads the nation into depression and makes wars on foreign soil possible—well that’s really whacky.

Believe the Federal government is intrusive when it sticks its nose into the operation of a private business, thereby denying freedom of association, and you’re racist.

Oppose government bailouts of private corporations and try to reign in an out-of-control Congress—well, there are just no words to describe the kooky, whacky, racism in that idea.

That’s rocking the boat and spoiling the party of the fascists in power. That’s why, Tea Party members and liberty lovers, you and Rand Paul are the establishment elite’s public enemy No. 1.

After all, to the establishment, loving freedom and the republic established by our wise Founding Fathers and outlined in the Constitution is just plain whacky!

NIA Offers Comments On Economy, Taxes And Gold

NIA offers comments on economy, taxes and goldThe National Inflation Association (NIA) recently discussed the top 10 most interesting questions it believes are on the minds of many Americans who struggle with high taxes, rising costs of living and falling asset values.

First, NIA representatives sought to dispel the myth that had it not been for the stimulus package the United States economy would have crashed. Rather, the package actually stifled the economy because it forced the nation to go deeper into debt.

Moreover, the jobs that were created were temporary, and the government will need to print money to pay the debt back, which will ultimately lead to hyperinflation.

NIA also believes that given the extent of the debt and the current level of taxation, introducing even higher taxes will not help pay the debt off. Instead, these lingering domestic and foreign obligations will only contribute to inflation.

That is why the organization reiterated its support for precious metals, and provided advice regarding a good price for silver and gold for those interested in converting their dollars into a more secure store of value.

It said that a good price for a 1 ounce silver coin like an American Eagle or Canadian Maple Leaf is 12 percent over spot, and a good price for a 1 ounce silver bar is 6 percent over spot.

For gold, a good price for a 1 ounce gold coin like an American Eagle or Canadian Maple Leaf is 4 percent over spot, while for a 1 ounce gold bar it is 2 percent over spot.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19816935-ADNFCR

Obama Pushes Energy Reform, Lashes Out At The GOP For Oil Company Tax Breaks

Obama pushes energy reform, lashes out at the GOP for oil company tax breaksWith the nation’s most devastating oil spill still making headlines, President Obama took the opportunity last week to promote an energy reform bill that would drastically scale back billions of dollars in tax breaks given to large oil companies.

"The catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf right now may prove to be the result of human error—or corporations taking dangerous short cuts that compromise safety," Obama said during his speech at Carnegie Mellon University. "But we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth."

He reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system, which would put a ceiling on carbon emissions and force companies to purchase permits to release excess greenhouse gases. The president admitted that he does not yet have the votes needed to pass a comprehensive energy bill, but "intends to find them in the coming months."

During his speech, Obama heavily criticized the Republicans for their belief that the government has "little or no role to play" in regulating the economy, Business Week reports.

Republicans "basically offer two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations," he said.

Obama’s aggressive tone concerning energy reform legislation has many political pundits questioning whether a comprehensive immigration reform bill will reach Congress by the end of the year.

Brewer To Obama: ‘We’ll Meet You In Court’

Brewer to Obama: 'We'll meet you in court'Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has said that she will fight any attempt by the Federal government to overturn her state’s controversial new immigration law.

Brewer told CNN that Arizona is willing to engage in a legal battle with the administration over the statute, which has been publicly criticized by President Obama and several members of his inner circle.

"We’ll meet you in court," she said defiantly. "I have a pretty good record of winning in court."

Meanwhile, several media outlets are reporting that Obama has finally accepted Brewer’s request for a face-to-face meeting to discuss why the law is so important to Arizona citizens. Initially, the White House indicated that the president did not have time in his schedule to fit in a meeting with Brewer, who is in Washington this week to attend a governors’ meeting on homeland security issues, Fox News reports.

"The people of Arizona are discouraged," she said during the interview. "They’re fed up. We’ve had security flaws on the border for years now. And it’s time that we do something about it immediately."

Brewer also cited the results of several new polls that indicate that the majority of Americans support the new law, which will go into effect July 29.

New Developments In The ‘Concealed Carry’ Debate

New developments in the 'concealed carry' debateIn the midst of the intense debate about Americans’ right to carry a concealed weapon, both proponents and opponents of this measure can find many resources that can inform their views and decisions., a nonpartisan public charity dedicated to promoting critical thinking, created a website dedicated to this issue. It explores many of the arguments about the concealed carry debate and includes sources, images, videos, reader comments and a section of little known facts called "Did You Know?"

Supporters of concealed carry argue that criminals are less likely to attack if they believe the potential victim could be armed. They also cite the provisions of the Second Amendment and contend that most adults who legally carry a concealed handgun are law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, critics argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and that concealed handguns boost the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and increase the number of unintended gun injuries.

However, recent research conducted by David Burnett and Clayton Cramer, who track incidents of defensive gun use at, found that concealed guns may in fact save lives.

The stories they documented include senior citizens fighting off robbers and women defending themselves against attackers, proving that armed citizens may prevent violent crimes at restaurants, grocery stores, banks or coffee houses.

"We’ve documented 2,160 stories of self-defense with guns since May 2007," said Burnett. "When it comes to concealed carry permits, we have 153 documented cases across 26 states with at least 550 lives saved."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19814078-ADNFCR

The Debate Over Illegal Immigration Gets Even Crazier

Remember the expression, to swallow a camel but choke on a gnat?

That’s how I feel about the reaction of several people who commented on what I recently wrote about illegal immigration. The first column was called Arizona, Si! Obama, No! You can click here read it. The second ran a week later and was titled Anchor Babies and the Illegal 14th. If you missed it, click here to read that one.

The three most important points I made in those two successive columns were:

  1. The Federal government has refused to protect us from an illegal invasion. Because of this failure by our national government, Arizona had a responsibility to its citizens to act.
  2. Of all the crazy aspects of this situation, the most insane is our policy of granting immediate and automatic citizenship to any child born in this country—even if both parents were illegal immigrants.
  3. The justification for this absurd policy—and many others that have allowed the Federal government to expand dramatically and dangerously—is the 14th Amendment. My research has convinced me that this amendment was never legally ratified.

Now those are some pretty big issues, wouldn’t you say? We’re talking about a president who flatly refuses to enforce the law. About an absurd policy that creates instant citizens of the offspring of illegal immigrants. And about a conspiracy—there’s no other word for it—to twist and distort our most important legal document, so it can be used to enslave us.

I thought that most people who read those columns would respond to one of these truly momentous points. I anticipated receiving some interesting, intelligent and well-informed arguments—some agreeing with me, some not.

And while there were many comments that fit that description, there were a surprising number that did not. One of the most mind-numbing replies I’ve ever received to anything I’ve written for Personal Liberty Alerts came from a David Warheit, who argued:

“Has the legality of the 14th Amendment ever been ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court? Of course it has, in hundreds if not thousands of cases. Every single case decided by the Supreme Court which cites the 14th Amendment serves as a ratification of its legality.”

How do you like that for circular reasoning? Because the Supreme Court cites an illegal amendment to justify even more unconstitutional encroachments by the Federal government, why of course that means I’m wrong, doesn’t it?

In my United States history courses I was taught that our justice system was one of the most unique in history because both sides to an issue got to present their best arguments in open court. They were encouraged to cite all of the evidence they could find, with the very best witnesses they could subpoena, before an impartial jury or judge rendered a verdict.

But according to Mr. Warheit, we don’t need any of that. Forget any evidence; ignore any arguments. Why, if the Court cites the amendment in a ruling, then it must be legal, proper, and oh-so constitutional. Sounds like an argument by the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, doesn’t it?

But the absurdities surrounding this issue don’t stop here. We also have the incredible spectacle of the most powerful lawyer in the land, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, vowing to use the full resources of his department to get the Arizona law declared unconstitutional—while at the very same time admitting, in sworn testimony before Congress, that he hasn’t even read the law!

That startling admission came during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) offered to loan the AG his own copy of the Arizona law. After all, as he noted, “It’s only 10 pages long—a lot shorter than the healthcare bill.” There’s still no word on whether the country’s top lawyer has read the bill he so vociferously opposes.

Meanwhile, ABC News reported that State Department officials engaged in talks on human rights abuses apologized for Arizona’s tough new anti-illegal immigration law—to the communist Chinese! Yes, you read that right. Continuing President Obama’s policy of apologizing to every tinhorn despot and Marxist dictator anywhere for his country’s “failings,” your country has now officially apologized to the leaders of one of the least free nations on earth for the actions of a state that is only trying to enforce the law.

Adding insult to injury, the administration then arranged to have their dear friend Felipe Calderon, the left-wing president of Mexico, address a joint session of Congress. To no one’s surprise, the Mexican president—whose own country has some of the harshest anti-immigration laws in the world—condemned the actions of the governor and state legislature of Arizona for trying to curb the flood of illegal immigrants pouring into their state from… Mexico.

Insulting as Calderon’s performance was, there were two that were worse. I’m referring to the two most powerful Democrats in Congress—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)—who both leapt to their feet and applauded like mad when his diatribe was done.

I have to tell you, I can’t remember a week in which I have been more disgusted with my country’s leaders.

So in the midst of all of this, I was delighted to get a call from an old friend who asked me if I would do a telephone interview with a guy in Phoenix who had the media in a dither because of a T-shirt he wore to a basketball game. Here’s the story.

Do you remember when Robert Sarver, the owner of the Phoenix Suns, announced that the team’s uniform would be changed temporarily from the Suns to “Los Suns?” Since Sarver had previously marched with Al Sharpton and other leftist agitators in opposition to Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration legislation, he left no doubt what he meant by the change.

The media loved it. Heck, even President Obama gave a shout-out to the new jerseys during a press conference in the Rose Garden.

This was too much for one fan. Jim Clark promptly had some T-shirts made (in the same bright orange of the Suns’ jerseys) that said “Viva los 1070”—the number of the legislation that was causing all the uproar. He and a buddy wore them to that night’s game.

Turns out Jim’s seats were in the front row, right behind the bench of the San Antonio Spurs. So every time TNT, which was broadcasting the game nationally, scanned the bench, Jim and his buddy (and their T-shirts) were on national TV. Same thing when the jumbotron in the stadium showed the Spur’s bench.

This was too much for some wuss in the Suns’ organization. Before too long a couple of burly security agents showed up. First they asked Jim and his friend to remove their shirts. They refused. Then they asked them to turn them inside out. Again, they said no.

It turns out their third choice was to be tossed out of the game. When ordered to leave, they complied. But once outside the stadium, they asked to speak with someone with more authority. After much back and forth and some private phone calls, Jim and his friends were allowed to re-enter the stadium. The crowd around them applauded enthusiastically when they took their seats—proudly wearing their “Viva los 1070” shirts.

So there the story ends, right? Not on your life. Jim and his shirt became a cause célèbre in the local media. He was interviewed on several local talk shows and TV programs. Then Fox News picked up the story nationally. Glenn Beck talked about it on his program. Jim was asked to be a guest (by phone) on radio shows as far away as Portland, Ore., and Minneapolis.

And this being America, orders for that T-shirt started pouring into Phoenix. Jim responded as would any good entrepreneur—he created a website. Now you too can go to and support Arizona by wearing your own personal “Viva los 1070” T-shirt.

So here’s to one patriot who isn’t afraid to stand up proudly for his beliefs. Or, in this case, to sit quietly behind the bench of his favorite basketball team and let his T-shirt do the talking.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

The Census, PC Police, Another Lying Politician And Pseudonyms

*How many does it take to count us? Here’s an interesting tidbit from another column I write for Personal Liberty Alerts. "This Week in History”" is the last item every Wednesday. The one this week related that during the 1890 census, it took 45,000 census workers to count the 62,622,249 people then in the United States. Now, 120 years later, our population is five times larger—but it will take 30 times as many census workers to count us all.

*The PC police strike again. Last month, five students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., were sent home for wearing T-shirts that school officials said were “incendiary.” What racist, hate-mongering message were they wearing? The U.S. flag! School administrators said they feared the shirts could cause “an outbreak of violence” by Hispanic students because the event took place on Cinco de Mayo, a national holiday in Mexico.

*Surprise! Another politician breaks his word. The current governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, faced some tough sledding in his campaign for the U.S. Senate. When it became obvious that he would lose in the Republican primary he decided to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent. But here’s the kicker: Although he promised donors to his campaign that he’d return their money if he left the GOP, now his campaign says Crist is keeping every penny.

*Patriotic singer fears reprisals. One of the most popular performers at Tea Party rallies is a troubadour who goes by the name of Jon David. He’s written songs with lyrics like, “I got American parts, got American faith in America’s heart.” It turns out the singer’s real name is Jonathan Kahn. He used a pseudonym because his day job was as a screenwriter in Hollywood. “It’s for protective reasons,” he explained. “In Hollywood being a conservative is the kiss of death.” John Wayne, we need you!

—Chip Wood

Public Interest Group Blasts Chamber Of Commerce Lobbyists

Public interest group blasts Chamber of Commerce lobbyistsGiven many Americans’ disappointment with big businesses such as Wall Street banks and oil companies, a watchdog group has called on Congress to stop meeting with all lobbyists employed by the United States Chamber of Commerce.

According to, an organization dedicated to corporate accountability, these lobbyists are trying to influence both legislation and congressional elections.

It cited the chamber’s statement issued last month in which the latter strongly opposes the recently introduced DISCLOSE Act because the act would restrict the ability of corporations to secretly fund election ads.

Spokesman and attorney for, Kevin Zeese, said that the chamber plans to spend at least $50 million to help elect candidates in November who support business interests.

"This constitutes a gross abuse of our democratic system, and we have called for a wide ranging criminal investigation into the chamber’s money laundering activities to expose the extent of its secret funding and determine whether its payouts constitute bribery," he added.

A recent CBS News report cited lobbying records as showing that in the two years leading up to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, British Petroleum hired 12 lobbying firms and paid them $32 million to press its agenda in Congress, at the White House and at some 14 Federal agencies. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19814114-ADNFCR

Obama Threatens Legal Action Against BP

Obama threatens legal action against BPPresident Obama reiterated on Tuesday the administration’s commitment to determine the cause of last month’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, referring to the crisis as "the greatest environmental disaster of its kind in our [nation’s] history." Obama also vowed to bring to justice anyone who may have committed a crime by contributing to the spill.

"If our laws were broken leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is that we will bring those responsible to justice on behalf of the victims of this catastrophe and the people of the Gulf region," he said.

Meanwhile, Obama suggested that insufficient regulation may have been partially responsible for the disaster, and that stronger government oversight may be necessary in the future, according to The New York Times.

The president has directed an independent commission to explore what caused the spill, and what role the Federal government should play in helping to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy. The news conference came just three days after BP announced that its latest efforts to stop the spill had failed.

Obama, who has been outspokenly critical of the oil giant’s response to the disaster, said the news was "as enraging as it is heartbreaking."