Obama Responds Harshly To Boehner's Critique Of Proposed Financial Reform Bill

Obama responds harshly to Boehner's critique of proposed financial reform bill An incensed President Obama attacked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) last week, blasting the Republican lawmaker for his recent critique of the financial reform bill currently being debated in Congress.

In a recent interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Boehner compared the pending financial regulatory bill to "killing an ant with a nuclear weapon."

While speaking at a town hall meeting in Racine, Wis., Obama called out the Ohio Representative for trivializing the impact that the recent financial crisis has had on the country.

"That’s what he said—he compared the financial crisis to an ant," Obama said. "This is the same financial crisis that led to the loss of nearly 8 million jobs."

"He can’t be that out of touch with the struggles facing the American people, he should come here to Racine and ask people if they think the financial crisis was an ant," he added.

Boehner later said his metaphor was not an assessment of the financial crisis, but rather a critique of the proposed legislation, which he believes will hand over too much control to the Federal government.

Dark Chocolate Consumption May Help Moderately Lower Blood Pressure

Dark chocolate consumption may help moderately lower blood pressure Results of a comprehensive new meta-analysis confirm the results of earlier studies that suggest the moderate consumption of dark chocolate may help hypertensive patients naturally lower their blood pressure.

The research, conducted by a team of investigators from the University of Adelaide in Australia, pooled together the findings of 15 separate studies that looked into the health benefits associated with flavanols, the main compounds found in dark chocolate and other cocoa products.

After combining the results of the respective trials, lead author Karin Ried and her colleagues found that hypertensive individuals who consumed small amounts of dark chocolate—while maintaining a healthy caloric intake—were able to lower their blood pressure by as much as 5 percent.

"Flavanols have been shown to increase the formation of endothelial nitric oxide, which promotes vasodilation and consequently may lower blood pressure," said Ried.

"We’ve found that consumption can significantly, albeit modestly, reduce blood pressure for people with high blood pressure but not for people with normal blood pressure," she added.

In terms of blood pressure reduction, eating small amounts of dark chocolate is comparable to 30 minutes of physical activity, according to the researchers.

However, Ried warns that effectiveness of dark chocolate as a long-term treatment option for high blood pressure has still yet to be confirmed.

Declaration Of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

John Hancock

Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire
Matthew Thornton
(Source: archives.gov)

40 Miles Deep

In the past we have sought to demonstrate how inflation (devaluation) of the currency is the perfect crime.

We said that your paper money can be inflated (devalued) to zero even if it is locked in a concrete vault 40 miles deep and no one knows where it is. You may think it is safe and secure and that it is your stored currency paper money, but little by little its value declines.

The money creators (those who print paper money) can steal the purchasing power of your paper money no matter where it is. All they have to do is pour more water in the milk—dilute the value of all paper money by printing more.

What if you have gold and silver in a vault buried 40 miles deep? Well, as the money creators destroy the value of your paper money as we described, the value of your gold and silver increases in value, as related to the depreciating paper money.

Your gold and silver appreciates and gains in value even buried deep in your vault with no risk and no interest. It is safe from manipulation.

Bankers say gold (which they hate) is a very poor investment because it pays no interest. They don’t say that it gains in value as paper money is depreciated. So holding gold and silver is the ultimate asset/investment during times like now when governments all debauch their own currencies.

Cash pays no interest and it depreciates. There is no risk to holding gold. There is great risk in holding paper money (cash). You own your gold. The money creators own your paper money.

How long will the Keynesian central planners last? No matter what these people do or how much they destroy or steal, they still believe that they can create an eternal boom.

At the present time there is a deflationary process going on in the private economy. In trying to prevent liquidation Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Company are forcing more “money” into circulation on a massive scale.

“The people’s real debts are heavier than 1929, heavier than 1932, heavier than ever before in history but their real income and real wealth are less,” according to economist Heinz Blasnik.

But nothing has changed. The same mistakes are compounding which caused the last crash. Money printing and credit expansion is the only thing Keynesians know.

At the same time the power elite are aggressively moving toward destroying private business with controls, taxes and bureaucratic harassment. Government is doing what it always does. It destroys value and production.

I do not believe that things just happen. If we back off and look at the whole picture we see organized chaos that will end with all substantial wealth transferred to the power structure. Only a few will preserve their assets.

The political order has the appearance of insanity which is the perfect cover for a hidden agenda. The next crash will be much greater than previous crashes and will probably be fatal.

Has anyone stopped to think that all modern booms are inflationary illusions? Even though the economic undertow at this time is deflation, massive quantitative easing—money printing—plus unprecedented spending by the political administration has so far kept monetary inflation going.

Bernanke knows more than anyone that the Fed by itself can create inflation. The fox is in charge of the henhouse.

We should not look to future for default, for it is happening now. We should prepare for the worst outcome.

There is no certainty as to when. But this regime could go on for months or even years should an intervening bull market occur, though it would be another false one based on the massive inflow of newly-printed money. It should be obvious, however, that risks are at an all-time high.

This is why we have for several years recommended the accumulation of precious metals, stored food and Swiss annuities… and continue to do so.

Sessions Questions Kagan's Stance On The Military

Sessions questions Kagan's stance on the military Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) challenged Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan last week after she justified her decision to limit military recruiters’ access to Harvard Law School students during her tenure as dean.

Kagan has been heavily criticized over the last month for her decision to ban military recruitment personnel from the law school’s career office due to her condemnation of the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, which bans openly gay individuals from serving in the military.

During their somewhat heated exchange, Kagan told Sessions that military recruiters had access to students "every single day [she] was dean," adding that she "reveres" those that serve in the armed forces.

In response to her denial of creating an anti-military climate on Harvard’s campus, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee openly questioned Kagan’s assessment of the situation.

"I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it is unconnected to reality," he said. "I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military people access to campus until you were threatened by the U.S. government [with] loss of Federal funds."

Sessions added that Kagan took steps as dean to treat former and current members of the military in a "second class way."

Kagan Calls Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Ban 'Binding Precedent,' Offers Few Insights On Own Views

Kagan calls Supreme Court ruling on gun ban 'binding precedent,' offers few insights on own views Under questioning from her Senate confirmation panel, United States Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan expressed her acceptance of the highest court’s recent decision to overturn the long-standing Chicago gun ban.

Pressed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Monday’s 5-4 decision, Kagan replied that she considered it to be "a binding precedent," according to media reports.

"Once the court has decided a case, it is binding precedent," the Solicitor General explained. She later specified that Supreme Court rulings become "settled law, entitled to all the weight precedent usually gets," quoted by The New York Times.

Despite this statement, many conservatives have said they do not trust Kagan’s commitment to the Second Amendment rights, and have called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to veto her nomination.

In fact, several Republicans on the committee, such as Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.), have expressed their concern that she would become an activist judge—prone to legislating from the bench—citing the fact that she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was instrumental in the major civil-rights era Supreme Court decisions. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19866550-ADNFCR

SAF Files Gun Rights Lawsuit In North Carolina

SAF files gun rights lawsuit in North CarolinaCritics of the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down Chicago’s handgun ban as unconstitutional have expressed concerns that the decision may open floodgates to lawsuits across the country. In fact, there are early signs that this may already be happening.

On the same day that the highest court’s opinion was announced, The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a Federal lawsuit in North Carolina, which is asking for a permanent injunction against Governor Beverly Perdue as well as local officials and governments from declaring states of emergency that might lead to private citizens’ being denied their right to bear arms.

According to the filing, state statutes that ban individuals from carrying weapons and ammunition during states of emergency violate the Constitution.

"We intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights are unconstitutional and should be nullified," said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb.

He added that "citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster."

The SAF was joined in the suit by Grass Roots North Carolina, a local gun rights organization, and three private citizens. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19866557-ADNFCR

Vitamin D Linked To Improved 'Mental Agility' Among Seniors

Vitamin D linked to improved 'mental agility' among seniors The body of scientific evidence supporting vitamin D supplementation expanded last week with the release of a new study linking the nutrient to improved cognitive function among the elderly.

Home dwelling seniors often suffer from vitamin D deficiencies because of limited sun exposure, low-nutrient diets and poor renal function.

For the study, lead author Katherine Tucker, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, and her colleagues recruited more than 1,000 participants between the ages of 65 and 99 who were receiving home care.

The investigators did blood work to determine each respondent’s vitamin D levels, and then classified them as sufficient, deficient of insufficient.

The 35 percent of participants who had adequate nutrient levels performed remarkably better on cognitive performance tests than those in the other two groups. These examinations assessed a patient’s perceptual complexity, cognitive flexibility and reasoning.

After taking into account risk factors for cognitive decline, such as age and other mental health conditions, the link between sufficient vitamin D levels and superior neurological function remained.

They Signed For Us

Happy Anniversary To Us

Tomorrow will mark a full year of Straight Talk columns for Personal Liberty Digest™. How time flies when you’re having fun! As many of you know, I also write two other, shorter features for Personal Liberty Digest™ every week—Chip Shots, which appears at the bottom of Friday’s columns, and This Week in History, which appears at the bottom of Wednesday’s.

As it happens, my very first piece for Personal Liberty Digest™ was about the incredible men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure liberty for us. So it seems only appropriate to repeat that message again today, as we prepare to celebrate our 234th Independence Day. Happy July 4!

Every schoolchild in America knows why we celebrate the Fourth of July. Flags and fireworks commemorate the day we declared our independence from Britain.

On July 4, 1776, after months of heated debate, representatives of the Continental Congress voted unanimously that, “These United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and Independent States.”

Thirteen colonies voted to become something new in history—the United States of America. Now, all they had to do was win their independence from a government that would consider them traitors.

Fifty-six men bravely affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. What sort of men were they? And what became of them?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and nine were farmers or plantation owners. They were well-educated men of means. All of them had a great deal to lose when they voted to defy what was then the most powerful nation on earth. Yet they willingly risked everything when they pledged to each other “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

As I said, all of us can explain why we celebrate Independence Day on July 4th. But how many of us can name even a handful of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? How much do we know, really, about the men who risked their lives and everything they owned in the cause of freedom?

Because the story of the signers is so inspiring, we’ve arranged a special treat for you today—a free copy of a wonderful little book called They Signed For Us.

Half a century ago two patriotic ladies in the Midwest wanted to help others learn more about the remarkable men who signed the Declaration. Merle Sinclair and Annabel Douglas McArthur wrote a delightful book about the events of that time, including a history of each of the signers. They called it, They Signed For Us.

At the end of today’s column, you’ll find a link that will take you to a free copy of the book. You may read it online or download it and print your own copy. The file also includes a list of all of the signers and the states they represented, plus the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.

To whet your appetite a bit, here’s an excerpt from They Signed For Us.

“SUDDENLY THE BIG BELL in the State House steeple pealed joyously. The appointed signal! Cheers rose from the waiting crowds.

“‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land….’

“Cannon boomed, drums rolled. Church bells rang, sounding the death knell of British domination!

“News of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence spread like wildfire. Ready messengers leaped into their saddles to ride and spread the word. The Declaration had been ordered printed on a single large sheet, ‘45.5 x 37.5 cm.,’ or approximately 18 inches by 15 inches. These broadsides were distributed with all possible speed, to be read in the provincial assemblies, pulpits, market places, and army camps.”

The story continues:

“On July 8, the Liberty Bell summoned citizens of Philadelphia to the State House yard for a public reading of the document. Colonel John Nixon mounted a high platform and spoke the noble lines in a strong, clear voice. The crowd, now hushed, listened intently throughout.

‘…for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.'”

It was almost a month later that the Declaration was engrossed on parchment and ready for signing by the delegates to the Continental Congress. Members gathered on Aug. 2 for the ceremony.

The only person who had signed the Declaration on July 4 was John Hancock, a delegate from Boston who had been elected president of the Continental Congress. He wrote his signature in large, bold letters and as he did, in a reference to the near-sightedness of the British king, he declared, “There! John Bull can read my name without spectacles and may now double his reward of £500 for my head. That is my defiance.”

As the delegates gathered around a desk to sign the Declaration, William Emery, one of the representatives from Rhode Island, moved as close as he could. “I was determined to see how they all looked as they signed what might be their death warrants,” he later wrote. “I placed myself beside the secretary, Charles Thomson, and eyed each closely as he affixed his name to the document. Undaunted resolution was displayed on every countenance.”

Contrasting with Hancock’s confident signature was the shaky scratch of Stephen Hopkins from Rhode Island. Hopkins was the second-oldest signer and suffered from palsy. As he handed the quill to the next person, he valiantly proclaimed, “My hand trembles, but my heart does not!”

As one or two delegates hung back, seemingly reluctant to add their signatures to such a momentous declaration, John Hancock encouraged them. “We must be unanimous,” he said. “There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together.”

Legend has it that Benjamin Franklin replied, “Yes, we must all hang together. Or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

Happily, none of the signers was hanged by the British. But all of them were considered traitors to the Crown. And many of them suffered terribly for the cause they so ardently supported.

When New Jersey signer Richard Stockton returned to his home after signing the Declaration he learned that British troops were coming to arrest him. He fled to a neighbor’s house with his wife and children. But a Loyalist (as supporters of the British cause were called) betrayed the family’s hiding place. Here is how Merle Sinclair and Annabel Douglas McArthur describe what happened to him:

“The judge was dragged from bed and beaten, then thrown into prison. This distinguished jurist, who had worn the handsome robes of a colonial court, now shivered in a common jail, abused and all but starved.

“A shocked Congress arranged for his parole. Invalided by the harsh treatment he had received, he returned to [his home at] Morven to find his furniture and clothing burned, his fine horses stolen, and his library—one of the finest private collections in the country—completely destroyed. The hiding place of exquisite family silver, hastily buried, had been betrayed by a servant.

“The Stockton’s were so destitute that they had to accept charity. For the judge’s fortune was gone, too. He had pledged it and his life to his country. He lost both. He did not live to see the Revolution won.”

John Morton, a delegate from Pennsylvania, was the first of the signers to die. His last words for his family, before his death in April 1777 (just eight months after he signed the Declaration), were, “…tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it to have been the most glorious service I ever rendered to my country.”

The following month Button Gwinnett, the commander in chief of Georgia’s militia, was badly wounded in a duel with a political opponent. He died a few days later—the second signer to die.

But by and large, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were a hardy bunch. Three of them lived until their 90s—a remarkable accomplishment in a time when most men did not see their 50th birthday.

Only two of the signers were bachelors. Sixteen of them married twice. Records indicate that at least two, and perhaps as many as six, were childless. But the other 50 signers were a prolific lot, having a total of 325 children between them! William Ellerey of Rhode Island had 17 children; Roger Sherman of Connecticut had 15.

Fifty years after the united colonies declared their independence from Britain, plans were made for jubilant celebrations on July 4, 1826. Only three of the original signers were still alive—Charles Carroll, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Here is how Sinclair and McArthur describe what occurred that day:

“In a dramatic climax that even their agile minds would not have contemplated, these two principals in the struggle for Independence left the nation awestricken and touched, by dying hours apart on the Fourth of July. Jefferson died at one o’clock in the afternoon, Adams toward evening.”

Ten days earlier Jefferson had written the mayor of Washington, expressing his regret that ill health prevented him from coming to the nation’s new Capitol to join the festivities.

“I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met… with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between the submission or the sword.”

And he concluded by writing, “Let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollection of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

As part of that “undiminished devotion,” we are delighted to provide you with a free copy of They Signed For Us. Please click here for it.

And please share this copy of Straight Talk with others you know so they may enjoy it as well. Just forward this column with a short note urging them to read about the incredibly brave patriots who won our freedom for us when They Signed For Us.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

Funny Money, An App For That, Two Fathers And Woody Allen

*The first “funny money” in the U.S. Do you remember the phrase, “not worth a continental”? If you don’t, I’m sure your parents do. It refers to the paper money that the Continental Congress authorized back in 1776. It became so worthless George Washington said, “a wagonload of currency will hardly purchase a wagonload of provisions.” For the rest of the story, click here to see my Wednesday column, This Week in History.

*Please prove it really works. Last week I mentioned the iPhone app so you, too, could mimic the blast of vuvuzelas. Now comes news of a noise-cancellation MP3 download that will allegedly eliminate that annoying buzz when you play it next to your television. Check it out at antivuvuzelafilter.com before the next World Cup match.

*Families come in many forms, the president says. In his Father’s Day proclamation two weeks ago, President Obama declared that “nurturing families come in many forms… [including] two fathers.” This isn’t the first time that he has used such a platform to honor homosexuality. In May, Obama also cited “two mothers” in his Mother’s Day proclamation.

*Woody Allen wants Obama to become dictator. The formerly funny filmmaker (try saying that fast four or five times) told a Spanish newspaper, “The Republican Party should get out of [Obama’s] way and stop trying to hurt him… It would be good if he could be a dictator for a few years, because he could do a lot of good things quickly.” Apparently Woody thinks that would be an improvement over the present system, where Obama gets to do a lot of bad things slowly.

—Chip Wood

Brewer, Perry Blast Administration's Border Security Plan

Brewer, Perry blast administration's border security plan Texas Governor Rick Perry and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer denounced the White House’s border security plan on Monday after attending a long-awaited meeting with Federal officials sent by President Obama.

During the 90-minute briefing the five-member delegation laid out the administration’s National Guard deployment strategy, which includes sending 524 troops to Arizona and 250 to Texas—numbers that both governors believe to be insufficient, according to the Associated Press (AP).

"It’s somewhat disappointing, to say the least," said Brewer, adding that the president told her during their June 3 meeting that the majority of the 1,200 troops would be sent to Arizona.

Perry reiterated Brewer’s thoughts concerning his own state, noting that the proposed deployment of troops is "insufficient to meet the needs of securing the Texas-Mexico border."

Brewer and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) each said earlier this year that 6,000 troops are needed to secure the border, including at least 3,000 in Arizona alone.

Following the meeting officials with the White House said that the plan will "complement the unprecedented resources and additional efforts already devoted by this administration to securing the Southwest border."

Brewer’s spokesman Paul Senseman said that the governor is asking that Obama respond directly to the letter she sent last week requesting sufficient border security personnel, helicopters and surveillance drones, KGUN9.com reports.

Supreme Court Handgun Ban Ruling Stirs Up Controversy

Supreme Court handgun ban ruling stirs up controversy In the days since the Supreme Court ruled against the long-standing Chicago gun ban, the decision has filled the nation with an impassioned debate.

Representatives from the Second Amendment Foundation, for example, have called the ruling "our call to action," and promised to take on other restrictive gun laws across the nation.

This sentiment was echoed by Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, who said that the decision was in accordance with "the timeless vision" of the Founding Fathers and the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

However, others were less impressed with the ruling that overturns the nearly 30-year-old law, with some saying that "people will die because of this decision."

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, said that the only winners are the gun lobby and the firearms industry.

Proponents of stricter gun laws have also expressed their concern that a rush of lawsuits across the country will force localities to defend longstanding laws.

The Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have meanwhile expressed satisfaction with the court’s reaffirmation that "the Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19864381-ADNFCR

Antioxidant Therapy Slows Cognitive Decline Among Malaria Patients

Antioxidant therapy slows cognitive decline among malaria patients A new international study has found that antioxidant supplements may help prevent the cognitive impairment that is often associated with cerebral malaria.

While malaria rates are extremely low among Americans, the findings suggest that antioxidant therapy may also be beneficial for patients suffering from brain injuries, neurodegenerative diseases and other serious infectious conditions, according to the researchers.

Individuals who develop malaria often suffer from impaired memory, poor learning skills and inferior language capabilities.

For the study, lead author Guy Zimmerman, associate chair for research at the University of Utah School of Medicine, and his colleagues infected a group of lab mice with cerebral malaria, and found that the disease drastically increased the production of molecules indicative of high oxidative stress.

However, when the subjects were given two antioxidant agents—known as desferoxamine and N-acetylcysteine—the presence of oxidative stress diminished and the development of cognitive damage was slowed.

"Our findings are exciting because the clinical implications may not be limited to cerebral malaria," said Zimmerman. "Antioxidant treatment may be a successful therapeutic strategy for controlling long-lasting neurological consequences."

Biden Calls Local Store Manager A 'Smartass' After He Asks For Lower Taxes

Biden calls local store manager a 'smartass' after he asks for lower taxes Vice President Joe Biden may have done more harm than good while recently campaigning in Wisconsin for Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)

During a campaign stop at a local custard shop in Milwaukee, Biden was caught on tape firing back at the store’s manager after he told the vice president that his dessert would be free of charge if he convinced the administration to lower taxes, according to Fox News.

"Don’t worry, it’s on us," the manager said to Biden after he inquired about the cost of the custard. "Lower our taxes and we’ll call it even."

After initially walking away from the employee following the remark, Biden responded several minutes later.

"Why don’t you say something nice instead of being a ‘smartass’ all the time?" Biden asked the man. "Say something nice."

In an interview with WISN-TV, the manager said that the vice president later whispered to him that he was just joking, although he added that Biden did not seem pleased with his offer.

The vice president did not take questions from reporters, although he did again suggest to a group of supporters that the Bush administration is responsible for the struggling economy, both in Wisconsin and across the country.

"We inherited a godawful mess," he said. There is "no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost."

Keeping The Bogey Man Alive

Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta hit the Sunday gab fest This Week on ABC and said not since the early 2000s have United States officials had precise information on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the man purported to be behind the Sept. 11, 2001, destruction of the Twin Towers and attack on the Pentagon.

“Since then it’s been very difficult to get any intelligence on his exact location,” Panetta said. “He is, as is obvious, in very deep hiding… He’s in an area of the tribal areas of Pakistan.”

But Panetta knows, as does anyone who troubles himself enough to think of subjects beyond when the next “American Idol” airs, that bin Laden has long been dead and gone.

All the supposed video and audio recordings of bin Laden have been Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) fabrications made to keep the bogey man alive in the eyes of a gullible American public. The CIA and the military-industrial complex plan to ride that horse as long as they can.

President Barack Obama ran on the promise of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq and ending—though he never said winning—what he called the good war in Afghanistan. But after 18 months in office troops remain in Iraq, more troops than ever are dying in that worthless hell-hole of Afghanistan, and less those wars end too soon for the CIA, sabers are being rattled over Iran and North Korea.

President George W. Bush was rightly excoriated by the Left for starting unnecessary wars. But the military-industrial complex remains viable in the age of Obama.

No One Ever Dies of Cancer: The Shocking Truth

Cancer is one of the most dreaded diseases of our time. That’s because it strikes people of any age, race or social background. Cancer finds you whether you lead a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle; whether you’re physically fit or out of shape; whether you exercise regularly or are a couch potato; whether you’re rich or poor, male or female; whether you’re a vegetarian or a meat lover; and whether you’re an adult, adolescent or child.

And the thing that terrifies people the most is that the medical establishment doesn’t know exactly what causes cancer, nor do they know its cure.

In my opinion, doctors are more afraid of cancer than patients are. That’s because they know that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are NOT the answer to cancer.

Case in point: Oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini states that according to his polls and questionnaires, "75 percent of doctors say they’d refuse chemotherapy if they were struck with cancer due to its ineffectiveness and its devastating side effects." The medical journal, Clinical Oncology, published the results of a study in December 2004, wherein it was shown that chemotherapy has a success rate of just more than 2 percent for all cancers [That’s a FAILURE rate of 98 percent.]

Headlines are sprinkled with news that one celebrity or prominent figure has “died of cancer”—and there’s hardly a month that goes by when someone we know tells us that a relative of theirs or a loved one has “died of cancer.”

But here’s the shocking truth that most people don’t know: No one actually dies of cancer.

Some people die from complications caused by conventional cancer therapies… but it’s never cancer that kills them. Oftentimes, conventional cancer therapies have been shown to be more dangerous than the disease—that they cause more harm than good.

So what exactly happens when someone is reported as having “died of cancer?” It means that someone’s immune system stopped working. It’s rarely the presence of cancer cells or tumors that kill a patient. Cancer cells come and go. Every human being has cancer cells existing in the body, but those cells usually don’t multiply into the full-blown disease… unless the body’s immune system is compromised in some way.

There’s even evidence that, left unattended, some cancers just disappear on their own. Dr. Per-Henrik Zahl and his colleagues at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, Norway, compared the incidence of breast cancer rates in nearly 120,000 women between the ages of 50 and 64 who had a mammogram every two years over a six-year period, to the breast cancer rates in 110,000 women of the same age who had a mammogram just once at the end of the six-year period. They found that the cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer was significantly higher in the group that had biennial mammograms than those who only had a one-time prevalence mammogram at the end of the observation period. This has raised the possibility that cancer tumors might spontaneously regress if left undetected.

In Nov. 24, 2008, The New York Times reported that cancer researchers have known for years that it’s possible for some cancers to go away on their own. There were instances of melanomas and kidney cancers that just vanished spontaneously. Neuroblastoma, a rare childhood tumor, has also been shown to go away without treatment.

If such spontaneous remission were indeed possible this might cause a major shift in the way cancer is treated. Since most cancers that are detected are often treated, one might wonder what would happen if cancers were left alone and untreated.

Metaphysical scientists believe that whatever one focuses on grows. Therefore, when cancer is detected, diagnosed and treated, all focus is centered on the disease and the cancerous condition may well become exacerbated rather than healed.

New York Times best selling author Gregg Braden, who is internationally recognized as a pioneer in bridging science and spirituality, stated: “Everywhere we look, consciousness will put something there for us to see. If you are awake and conscious, you are creating. So, what does it mean when you are trained to look for something you don’t want? What does it mean to keep looking for a lump in a breast?”

That’s certainly food for thought.

The fact remains that the human body is designed to heal itself.

But the body heals itself automatically ONLY when it’s supplied with everything it needs to do its job—AND when there are no barriers that keep it from functioning properly. The most essential element that the body needs in order to function is oxygen. Sadly, most people living in modern societies are deficient of oxygen. As for the greatest barrier that keeps the body from functioning properly, that is… stress.

It stands to reason that when you keep your body oxygenated, and minimize stress, that could possibly be the recipe for spontaneous remission of almost any disease.

Many natural health practitioners believe that cancer treatments offered by orthodox medicine are extremely damaging to the body—especially the immune system, which is the only system in the body that can restore the body to health and optimum functioning.

Therefore, people don’t actually “die of cancer.” Rather, they die because of immune system failure. Oftentimes, their immune system is suppressed and severely compromised because of unhealthy lifestyles or treatments—and this renders the body incapable of healing itself the way it was designed to do.

Conversely, if the immune system is strengthened and optimized, there’s almost no disease that the body cannot heal.

Three Felonies A Day:How The Feds Target The Innocent by Harvey A. Silverglate

This is a timely book about the breakdown of the rule of law in the United States.

Individual freedom and the rule of law is gone in America. Oh, they haven’t come for you yet? You haven’t broken the law? Well, Harvey Silverglate proves in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent that the Feds (U.S. prosecuting attorneys) target the innocent. He says the, “federal prosecutors are abusing their power by using the criminal law to prosecute law abiding citizens…” They are seizing illegal power by twisting marginal and highly questionable interpretations of criminal law.

Silverglate believes that we are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences make it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure.

Federal judgeships are drawn largely from U.S. prosecuting attorneys simply because they enforce the system upon citizens. They ensure that all cases are decided for the government agenda.

The pattern is to intimidate all criminally charged defendants today to plead guilty to “reduced” charges rather than risk a trial with the threat of draconian sentences in the implied event of a conviction. No trial? This means that the Federal prosecuting attorney is the judge and the jury.

Unless we have missed the point here, all Americans are now subject to entrapment. Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with a judiciary gone wild.

You can commit a Federal crime in America and not even know it. People are targeted and a crime is found to fit.

Silverglate writes, “it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average busy professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, takes care of personal and family obligations and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she likely committed several Federal crimes that day.” Why?

The answer lies in the huge volume of Federal criminal laws which are broad and impossibly vague. They have become dangerously disconnected from English common law tradition.

There is a crime for all of us. Currently there are 4,450 listed criminal offenses. These listed Federal offenses have exploded well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, giving Federal prosecutors thousands of additional vague, complex and technical prohibitions removed from congressional authority or any authority but the Federal prosecutors themselves.

Will citizens ever understand the danger posed to civil liberties when our normal daily activities expose us to potential prosecution at the whim of a government official?

Silverglate writes, “No field of work, all corporate officers, all social classes are not safe from this illegal and unconstitutional executive and judicial overreach and social control.

“When every citizen is vulnerable to prosecution and prison, then there is no effective counterweight to reign in government overreaching in every sphere. The hallowed notion of a government of laws becomes a cruel and cynical joke.”

What we write about here is the exact Soviet system and evil empire that Americans have been taught to hate.

All we have to do now is remove the mask of “democracy” to view our modern American Soviet system.

It is also the exact same old English Star Chamber system that early Americans fought to escape in the Revolutionary War with England. The English Star Chamber was abolished in 1641. It was Royal oppression with corporal punishment using torture, mutilation and life imprisonment. It met in secret whereas today the Federal judiciary uses esoteric language to subvert the intent of the law. It is more “benevolent” but just as wicked.

We have come full circle and sadly not one American in a million even suspects it. Here is the great danger, as Silverglate states:

“Today the Justice Department encourages Federal prosecutors to do exactly what the Garber Court condemned. In particular, Federal prosecutors’ novel use of long standing, but utterly formless ‘anti-fraud’ laws, which cover increasingly vast areas of American life, threaten honest (and apparently law abiding) business executives and other professionals, as well as other ordinary citizens. In 2003, Michael Chertoff, then second in command of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, even went so far as to boldly declare that federal prosecutors should exploit anti-fraud provisions to indict business executives because ‘criminal prosecution is a spur for institutional reform.'”

The thrust of the Federal government and its untouchable Justice Department is to expand the reach of the law. My friends, this is characteristic of all governments. But the U.S. today is our concern. Even commonly used statutes of conspiracy, bribery, extortion, etc. are all designed forms of entrapment by a rogue system.

“Even the most intelligent and informed citizen (including lawyers and judges) cannot predict with any reasonable assurance whether a wide range of seemingly ordinary activities might be regarded by federal prosecutors as felonies.”

Any sober and alert person should read this book. The shock of his revelations should evoke max alert with all deliberate preparations to defend our lives, our families and our assets. To view the contents as anything other than modern tyranny under the color of law is naiveté in the extreme.

In my 45 years of writing I have never come close to recommending a book with such high and timely revelations for every American citizen. Get this book immediately. I am surprised to see it in circulation.

Court Rules State May Seize Private Land For Columbia Campus Development

Court rules state may seize private land for Columbia campus development A New York court has ruled in a controversial case to allow the state to take over private land for the purpose of allowing Columbia University to expand its campus into the Harlem neighborhood, according to media reports.

The ruling overturned a decision by the Appellate Division from December 2009, and will allow the state to take advantage of eminent domain so Columbia can build 16 new buildings in West Harlem that will house classrooms, research facilities and student and faculty. Eminent domain allows authorities to seize land when its use can be justified as serving public good.

However, since 2005 some 43 states have tightened the requirements for eminent domain use, although New York has not, according to The New York Times.

The news source cited Norman Siegel, who represented the affected property owners, as saying he was "extremely disappointed" and promising to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Columbia claims the neighborhood was "blighted" and that its $6.3 billion construction project will create at least 14,000 temporary and 6,000 permanent jobs, Reuters reports.

Brewer: Most Illegal Immigrants Smuggle Drugs Into The United States

Brewer: Most illegal immigrants smuggle drugs into the U.S. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has said that the majority of illegal immigrants smuggle drugs when they cross the border into the United States.

While admitting that most undocumented immigrants come to America looking for work, Brewer said that many are forced by underground cartels to act as "drug mules," the Associated Press (AP) reports.

"I believe today, under the circumstances that we’re facing, that the majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in," she said.

Brewer’s comments come one week after she made similar remarks during a June 15 primary election debate, when she told Republican gubernatorial candidate Matt Jette that the majority of illegal immigrants are delivering narcotics, "extorting people and terrorizing families."

Meanwhile, Brewer has written a letter to President Obama asking him for details on how the administration plans on utilizing the National Guard troops that it had previously promised to Arizona and the surrounding area.

"I want to assure you that I am looking to develop a solution, not a standoff with you and the Federal government," she wrote.

Obama promised to send Brewer and her staff an update on the deployment of the troops within two weeks of their June 3 meeting, but has yet to follow through, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Highest Court Hands Victory To Gun Rights Advocates

Highest court hands victory to gun rights advocates In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court has struck down a long-standing handgun ban in the controversial McDonald v Chicago case.

Ruling 5-4, the justices affirmed an earlier decision which stated that the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment trump the power of the states on the issue of firearm possession for self-defense.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that "self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day." However, Justice Stephen Breyer countered in the dissenting opinion that one person’s interest in keeping arms may diminish another person’s interest in feeling safe from armed violence.

Breyer also wrote that "it is at least reasonable for a democratically elected legislature to take such concerns into account in considering what sorts of regulations would best serve the public welfare."

The verdict was welcomed by an array of gun rights organizations, such as the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, but roundly criticized by the Violence Policy Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Chicago law banning handguns has been on the books for 28 years. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19861999-ADNFCR

Red Wine Compound May Help Seniors Stave Off Certain Eye Diseases

Red wine compound may help seniors stave off certain eye diseases Results of a new Washington University study suggest that older individuals may be able to help prevent certain eye diseases by consuming moderate amounts of red wine.

Lead investigator Rajendra Apte and her colleagues found that resveratrol—a compound commonly found in red wine, grapes, blueberries and peanuts—is capable of inhibiting the formation of new blood vessels, a condition known as angiogenesis.

Individuals who suffer from extensive blood vessel growth often develop blinding eye diseases, such as age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Earlier studies have also found that angiogenesis may contribute to the development of certain cancers and atherosclerosis—the hardening of the arteries.

In the animal study, resveratrol successfully prevented the growth of new blood vessels in the eyes and even eradicated abnormal vessels that had already developed.

"We have identified a novel pathway that could become a new target for therapies," Apte said. "And we believe the pathway may be involved both in age-related eye disease and in other diseases where angiogenesis plays a destructive role."

The highest levels of resveratrol are found in red wine and grape skin. For more information about resveratrol, click here.

Forearmed, For Now

The vote was 5-4. It should have been 9-0, but the nation’s most powerful jurists are going to straighten themselves out the same day Rebecca DeMornay knocks on my door with a bottle of Johnny Blue and Risky Business on Blu-ray. Two years after the Court ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights in D.C. v Heller, the majority again stood up for the Republic in McDonald v Chicago.

With the nomination of Elena Kagan looming—and likely—I’m not holding my breath for a more sensible Supreme Court. Nonetheless, five of the Big Nine managed to get it right late Monday morning, wrapping up their 2009-2010 calendar with an affirmation of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, pointed out that the 2nd Amendment serves as a guarantee of individual—as opposed to community—liberty, and its authority is bolstered by the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process. Simply put: Chicago, Oak Brook, Ill. and Washington, D.C., may not pass laws which abrogate the Bill of Rights.

Before anyone Outside the Asylum starts shopping for two-gun rigs, be advised: the other side isn’t giving up this firefight just yet. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (victims of knife, bat and/or legislative violence—you’re on your own) President Paul Helmke said in the aftermath of the decision: “lawsuits are never bad.” Translation: “This means war!” (Although one presumes it would be a “progressive,” firearm-free kind.)

But the Dems have not kept their proverbial powder dry. When Justice Stevens, in what will thankfully be one of his final acts from the top bench, dissented thus: “..the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available..” he said: “the Founding Fathers were talking about flintlocks.” As if one of the most esteemed assemblages of intellect in human history wouldn’t have considered the possibility of technological advancement.

Don’t bother to ask Stevens about other progress unforeseen by the Founding Fellas. Try to imagine his honor explaining Constitutional protections for partial-birth abortion to Thomas Jefferson. When Stevens suggested “..(gun rights as envisioned by the Framers) have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today..” he was intimating: “Too bad you weren’t born in the 1760s.”

Tell that to someone who just watched the Crips unload a U-Haul across the street. Better yet, mention it to the Idahoan who just watched FBI snipers gun down his wife and child.

The fundamental flaw in the liberal argument against firearm ownership rights stems from their basic mistrust of everyone who isn’t them. Their ideology stands on the concept of governmental dominance of the people.

People who deny that ideology represent a threat. Armed people who deny their ideology represent something much worse: the indomitable citizen. But the indomitable citizen isn’t a threat; someone who’s a threat is a threat. And we already have laws to protect us from such threats.

We don’t bar Microcephalic Marvin down the street from owning a .50 cal. because the weapon might be inherently dangerous. We keep Marvin from owning the aforementioned hand cannon because he has an 850 cc cranium and wears a tinfoil hat. Perhaps if all the high-priced, self-important lawyers and politicians at the Brady Campaign helped to book Marv some quality time at a state-owned bed and breakfast, they wouldn’t have to worry as much about Marv opening fire on the space aliens in the duplex next door.

Because gun-ban proponents are guided by fear and emotion, not logic and reason, they react like teenage girls in a slasher flick—”Mr. LaPierre, is that you?” That visceral fear inevitably leads to: “Why do you NEED (big scary gun of choice)?” The question is moot. One might as well ask a woman why she needs 25 pairs of black shoes, or ask the DNC why they need Joe Biden.

When The Framers offered “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They were offering neither suggestion nor caveat. They were admonishing us all.

Tyranny is tyranny, whether it takes the form of the madness of King George or the obtuseness of President Obama. Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks to the Framers of the Constitution—and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court—we are both.