Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")
Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
Dismiss the charges as "old news."
Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
http://www.dcdave.com/article3/990810.html
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
CDC admits flu vaccines don't work (which is why you need a new one every year)
(NaturalNews) I'm always amused by the purchasing process of electronics or appliances at big box stores. On one hand, as their sales associate calmly explains to you, whatever product you're buying is such high quality that you'll be extremely satisfied with your purchase. But on the other hand, it's also such a complete piece of junk that you'd be smart to add on a two-year extended warranty so that when the gizmo breaks five seconds after you open the box, you can get a replacement for free.
The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. "Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu," they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they "wear off" after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.
This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.
But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need the same shot year after year?
Well, according to the CDC, "Vaccines wear off."
Vaccines wear off, they say
Yep, that's their cover story. The vaccines "wear off."
But hold on a minute. There's something fishy about this. Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That's why you don't get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies and those antibodies last a lifetime.
Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from the chicken pox.
The vaccine industry false tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there's something you're not being told about vaccines: They don't really produce the same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a natural infection and recovery. That's why the vaccines "wear off" and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate you against.
In other words, vaccines don't work as advertised. And that's why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now openly admits vaccines don't offer that at all:
"This year's flu shot will be a duplicate of last year's because the same flu strains are still circulating," reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC. "Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall's flu shot. They say a vaccine's protection can fade significantly after several months." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527...)
Vaccine protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because those antibodies, we're told, offer lifetime immunity.
Another way you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died of smallpox, why didn't the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines in the 1600's and 1700's.) The answer is because the Europeans had already been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.
Thus, the reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn't because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of infection. They were effectively "immune" to smallpox, in exactly the same way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.
But don't expect the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies really work. They're too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific facts.
The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output
"Five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season," says the same article mentioned above. That's the highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of vaccines.
With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by the time the winter rolls around, the CDC is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral strains!
So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million people that last year's vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the exact same vaccines this year -- and somehow this year's vaccine will work better even though it's exactly the same as last year's vaccine. How will they accomplish this?
It's simple: They won't talk much about the fact that this year's flu vaccine is identical to last year's flu vaccine. They'll just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent protection against the flu -- an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false advertising.
And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine preservatives that didn't work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!
Yep, it's the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims each year are precisely the same people who took the flu shots. And now you know why that is so -- because the flu vaccine shots simply don't work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC openly admits -- on the record -- that "flu vaccines stop working after several months."
They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And that right there is proof that flu vaccines don't produce a true antibody response.
The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots
The CDC is now engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population. That's the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to stay healthy. It's a complete marketing con, of course, but it's necessary to keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.
In doing this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don't work. For every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the industry's own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...) -- and that's only during the first few months before they "fade out."
One of the CDC's own vaccine scientists -- a man who received millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC -- was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T...). Check out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen's Alleged Web of Fraud to see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We...
The truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment. This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of the vaccine giants.
As part of that total prostitution of itself to the vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!
You can immunize yourself against the winter flu
But here's the other dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.
Got that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing yourself to the flu. You'll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that's the vitamin that "activates" your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its own antibodies, and you won't even know it! You will have what's called a "symptomless infection" and won't even know your body successfully fought off the viral invader.
Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn't that the goal of immunization in the first place?
Immunizing yourself, you see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out, simply doesn't work reliably. And that's why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.
And the same ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year after year... then they wonder why they still get sick year after year.
Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.
Learn more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html#ixzz1NqjG5Fuk
The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. "Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu," they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they "wear off" after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.
This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.
But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need the same shot year after year?
Well, according to the CDC, "Vaccines wear off."
Vaccines wear off, they say
Yep, that's their cover story. The vaccines "wear off."
But hold on a minute. There's something fishy about this. Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That's why you don't get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies and those antibodies last a lifetime.
Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from the chicken pox.
The vaccine industry false tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there's something you're not being told about vaccines: They don't really produce the same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a natural infection and recovery. That's why the vaccines "wear off" and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate you against.
In other words, vaccines don't work as advertised. And that's why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now openly admits vaccines don't offer that at all:
"This year's flu shot will be a duplicate of last year's because the same flu strains are still circulating," reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC. "Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall's flu shot. They say a vaccine's protection can fade significantly after several months." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527...)
Vaccine protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because those antibodies, we're told, offer lifetime immunity.
Another way you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died of smallpox, why didn't the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines in the 1600's and 1700's.) The answer is because the Europeans had already been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.
Thus, the reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn't because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of infection. They were effectively "immune" to smallpox, in exactly the same way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.
But don't expect the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies really work. They're too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific facts.
The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output
"Five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season," says the same article mentioned above. That's the highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of vaccines.
With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by the time the winter rolls around, the CDC is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral strains!
So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million people that last year's vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the exact same vaccines this year -- and somehow this year's vaccine will work better even though it's exactly the same as last year's vaccine. How will they accomplish this?
It's simple: They won't talk much about the fact that this year's flu vaccine is identical to last year's flu vaccine. They'll just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent protection against the flu -- an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false advertising.
And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine preservatives that didn't work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!
Yep, it's the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims each year are precisely the same people who took the flu shots. And now you know why that is so -- because the flu vaccine shots simply don't work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC openly admits -- on the record -- that "flu vaccines stop working after several months."
They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And that right there is proof that flu vaccines don't produce a true antibody response.
The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots
The CDC is now engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population. That's the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to stay healthy. It's a complete marketing con, of course, but it's necessary to keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.
In doing this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don't work. For every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the industry's own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...) -- and that's only during the first few months before they "fade out."
One of the CDC's own vaccine scientists -- a man who received millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC -- was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T...). Check out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen's Alleged Web of Fraud to see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We...
The truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment. This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of the vaccine giants.
As part of that total prostitution of itself to the vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!
You can immunize yourself against the winter flu
But here's the other dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.
Got that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing yourself to the flu. You'll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that's the vitamin that "activates" your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its own antibodies, and you won't even know it! You will have what's called a "symptomless infection" and won't even know your body successfully fought off the viral invader.
Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn't that the goal of immunization in the first place?
Immunizing yourself, you see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out, simply doesn't work reliably. And that's why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.
And the same ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year after year... then they wonder why they still get sick year after year.
Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.
Learn more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html#ixzz1NqjG5Fuk
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Manipulating reality
Images control your perception and reasoning processes, known as critical thinking. The doctoring of images doctors your mind, controlling it in a way that creates fictional realities that then control decision making and life choices.
http://www.cracktwo.com/2011/05/famous-doctored-photographs.html
http://www.cracktwo.com/2011/05/famous-doctored-photographs.html
Thursday, May 26, 2011
20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over
If you listen to Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama and the mainstream media long enough, and if you didn't know any better, you might be tempted to think that the economic crisis is long gone and that we are in the midst of a burgeoning economic recovery. Unfortunately, the truth is that the economic crisis is far from over.
In 2010, more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before. The reality is that the United States is an economic basket case and all of these natural disasters certainly are not helping things. The Federal Reserve has been printing gigantic piles of money and the U.S. government has been borrowing and spending cash at a dizzying pace in an all-out effort to stabilize things. They have succeeded for the moment, but our long-term economic problems are worse then ever. We are still in the middle of a full-blown economic crisis and things are about to get even worse.
If you know someone that is foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis is over and that our economic problems are behind us, just ask that person the following questions....
#1 During the 23 months of the "Obama recovery", an average of about 23,000 jobs a month have been created. It takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So shouldn't we hold off a bit before we declare the economic crisis to be over?
#2 During the "recession", somewhere between 6.3 million and 7.5 million jobs were lost. During the "Obama recovery", approximately 535,000 jobs have been added. When will the rest of the jobs finally come back?
#3 Of the 535,000 jobs that have been created during the "Obama recovery", only about 35,000 of them are permanent full-time jobs. Today, "low income jobs" account for 41 percent of all jobs in the United States. If our economy is recovering, then why can't it produce large numbers of good jobs that will enable people to provide for their families?
#4 Agricultural commodities have been absolutely soaring this decade. The combined price of cotton, wheat, gasoline and hogs is now more than 3 times higher than it was back in 2002. So how in the world can the Federal Reserve claim that inflation has been at minimal levels all this time? (Because they have changed the way the measure inflation not to include food and energy prices.... ed.)
#5 Back in 2008, banks had a total of 27 billion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. Today, banks have a total of approximately 1.5 trillion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. So what is going to happen when all of this money eventually hits the economy?....
#6 If the U.S. economy is recovering, then why are shipments by U.S. factories still substantially below 2008 levels?
#7 Why are imports of goods from overseas growing much more rapidly than shipments of goods from U.S. factories?
#8 According to Zillow, the average price of a home in the U.S. is about 8 percent lower than it was a year ago and that it continues to fall about 1 percent a month. During the first quarter of 2011, home values declined at the fastest rate since late 2008. So can we really talk about a "recovery" when the real estate crisis continues to get worse?
#9 According to a shocking new survey, 54 percent of Americans believe that a housing recovery is "unlikely" until at least 2014. So how is the housing industry supposed to improve if so many people are convinced that it will not?
#10 The latest GDP numbers out of Japan are a complete and total disaster. During the first quarter GDP declined by a stunning 3.7 percent. Of course I have been saying for months that the Japanese economy is collapsing, but most mainstream economists were absolutely stunned by the latest figures. So will the rest of the world be able to avoid slipping into a recession as well?
#11 Next week, Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling. Everyone knows that this is an opportunity for Republican lawmakers to "look tough" to their constituents (the vast majority of which do not want the debt ceiling raised). Everyone also knows that eventually the Republicans are almost certainly going to cave on the debt ceiling after minimal concessions by the Democrats. The truth is that neither "establishment Republicans" nor "establishment Democrats" are actually serious about significantly cutting government debt. So why do we need all of this political theater? (Distraction?)
#12 Why are so many of our once great manufacturing cities being transformed into hellholes? In the city of Detroit today, there are over 33,000 abandoned houses, 70 schools are being permanently closed down, the mayor wants to bulldoze one-fourth of the city and you can literally buy a house for one dollar in the worst areas.
#13 According to one new survey, about half of all Baby Boomers fear that when they retire they are going to end up living in poverty. So who is going to take care of them all when the money runs out?
#14 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of about 5 million Americans were being hired every single month during 2006. Today, an average of about 3.5 million Americans are being hired every single month. So why are our politicians talking about "economic recovery" instead of "the collapse of the economy" when hiring remains about 50 percent below normal?
#15 Since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force. But the entire period from August to today was supposed to have been a time of economic growth and recovery. So why are so many Americans giving up on looking for a job?
#16 According to Gallup, 41 percent of Americans believed that the economy was "getting better" at this time last year. Today, that number is at just 27 percent. Are Americans losing faith in the U.S. economy?
#17 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years, and one out of every four American children is currently on food stamps. During this same time period, Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke have told us over and over that the U.S. economy has been getting better. So what is the truth?
#18 America has become absolutely addicted to government money. 59 percent of all Americans now receive money from the federal government in one form or another. U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes. Americans hate having their taxes raised and they hate having their government benefits cut. So is there any hope that this will ever be turned around before disaster strikes? (59% - that is insane. Is there any hope - I don't think so. ed.)
#19 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. How in the world is the U.S. government going to be able to afford to guarantee all of that debt on top of everything else?
#20 If the U.S. national debt (more than 14 trillion dollars) was reduced to a stack of 5 dollar bills, it would reach three quarters of the way to the moon. The U.S. government borrows about 168 million dollars every single hour. If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days. So how in the world can our politicians tell us that everything is going to be okay?
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/20-questions-ask-anyone-foolish-enough-believe-economic-crisis-over?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyon
In 2010, more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before. The reality is that the United States is an economic basket case and all of these natural disasters certainly are not helping things. The Federal Reserve has been printing gigantic piles of money and the U.S. government has been borrowing and spending cash at a dizzying pace in an all-out effort to stabilize things. They have succeeded for the moment, but our long-term economic problems are worse then ever. We are still in the middle of a full-blown economic crisis and things are about to get even worse.
If you know someone that is foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis is over and that our economic problems are behind us, just ask that person the following questions....
#1 During the 23 months of the "Obama recovery", an average of about 23,000 jobs a month have been created. It takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So shouldn't we hold off a bit before we declare the economic crisis to be over?
#2 During the "recession", somewhere between 6.3 million and 7.5 million jobs were lost. During the "Obama recovery", approximately 535,000 jobs have been added. When will the rest of the jobs finally come back?
#3 Of the 535,000 jobs that have been created during the "Obama recovery", only about 35,000 of them are permanent full-time jobs. Today, "low income jobs" account for 41 percent of all jobs in the United States. If our economy is recovering, then why can't it produce large numbers of good jobs that will enable people to provide for their families?
#4 Agricultural commodities have been absolutely soaring this decade. The combined price of cotton, wheat, gasoline and hogs is now more than 3 times higher than it was back in 2002. So how in the world can the Federal Reserve claim that inflation has been at minimal levels all this time? (Because they have changed the way the measure inflation not to include food and energy prices.... ed.)
#5 Back in 2008, banks had a total of 27 billion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. Today, banks have a total of approximately 1.5 trillion dollars in excess reserves at the Fed. So what is going to happen when all of this money eventually hits the economy?....
#6 If the U.S. economy is recovering, then why are shipments by U.S. factories still substantially below 2008 levels?
#7 Why are imports of goods from overseas growing much more rapidly than shipments of goods from U.S. factories?
#8 According to Zillow, the average price of a home in the U.S. is about 8 percent lower than it was a year ago and that it continues to fall about 1 percent a month. During the first quarter of 2011, home values declined at the fastest rate since late 2008. So can we really talk about a "recovery" when the real estate crisis continues to get worse?
#9 According to a shocking new survey, 54 percent of Americans believe that a housing recovery is "unlikely" until at least 2014. So how is the housing industry supposed to improve if so many people are convinced that it will not?
#10 The latest GDP numbers out of Japan are a complete and total disaster. During the first quarter GDP declined by a stunning 3.7 percent. Of course I have been saying for months that the Japanese economy is collapsing, but most mainstream economists were absolutely stunned by the latest figures. So will the rest of the world be able to avoid slipping into a recession as well?
#11 Next week, Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling. Everyone knows that this is an opportunity for Republican lawmakers to "look tough" to their constituents (the vast majority of which do not want the debt ceiling raised). Everyone also knows that eventually the Republicans are almost certainly going to cave on the debt ceiling after minimal concessions by the Democrats. The truth is that neither "establishment Republicans" nor "establishment Democrats" are actually serious about significantly cutting government debt. So why do we need all of this political theater? (Distraction?)
#12 Why are so many of our once great manufacturing cities being transformed into hellholes? In the city of Detroit today, there are over 33,000 abandoned houses, 70 schools are being permanently closed down, the mayor wants to bulldoze one-fourth of the city and you can literally buy a house for one dollar in the worst areas.
#13 According to one new survey, about half of all Baby Boomers fear that when they retire they are going to end up living in poverty. So who is going to take care of them all when the money runs out?
#14 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of about 5 million Americans were being hired every single month during 2006. Today, an average of about 3.5 million Americans are being hired every single month. So why are our politicians talking about "economic recovery" instead of "the collapse of the economy" when hiring remains about 50 percent below normal?
#15 Since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force. But the entire period from August to today was supposed to have been a time of economic growth and recovery. So why are so many Americans giving up on looking for a job?
#16 According to Gallup, 41 percent of Americans believed that the economy was "getting better" at this time last year. Today, that number is at just 27 percent. Are Americans losing faith in the U.S. economy?
#17 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years, and one out of every four American children is currently on food stamps. During this same time period, Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke have told us over and over that the U.S. economy has been getting better. So what is the truth?
#18 America has become absolutely addicted to government money. 59 percent of all Americans now receive money from the federal government in one form or another. U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes. Americans hate having their taxes raised and they hate having their government benefits cut. So is there any hope that this will ever be turned around before disaster strikes? (59% - that is insane. Is there any hope - I don't think so. ed.)
#19 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011. How in the world is the U.S. government going to be able to afford to guarantee all of that debt on top of everything else?
#20 If the U.S. national debt (more than 14 trillion dollars) was reduced to a stack of 5 dollar bills, it would reach three quarters of the way to the moon. The U.S. government borrows about 168 million dollars every single hour. If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days. So how in the world can our politicians tell us that everything is going to be okay?
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/20-questions-ask-anyone-foolish-enough-believe-economic-crisis-over?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyon
TSA: Expressing annoyance makes you a suspect
The TSA wants you know that should you express any kind of dissatisfaction at having to be prodded, groped or forced through a radiation firing naked body scanner, you will be treated as suspicious.
Even if you merely frown or display any other negative facial expression at the prospect of having your private areas frisked by a uniformed government employee, you will be considered irregular.
The agency has now deployed dozens of “behavioral indicator officers” at 161 airports across the nation, trained to “SPOT” (Screening Passengers by Observation Technique) dissenters.
The TSA states:
“Behavior detection officers are screening passengers for involuntary physical and physiological reactions that people exhibit in response to a fear of being discovered. TSA recognizes that an individual exhibiting some of these behaviors does not automatically mean a person has terrorist or criminal intent. Individuals exhibiting specific observable behaviors may be referred for additional screening at the checkpoint to include a handwanding, limited pat down and physical inspection of one’s carry-on baggage.”
So next time you’re fondled by a hairy 400 pond stranger, remember to smile and look pleased. Do not grimace or display any form of discomfort or you may be prevented from flying altogether. You could even be placed on the TSA’s domestic extremist watch list, and rightly so.
Remember this is ” yet one more challenge the terrorists need to overcome in attempt to defeat our security system.” It is not aimed at everyday Americans in any way.
Gadling’s Mike Barish notes: ‘”You know who exhibits involuntary physical and physiological reactions in response to TSA screenings? A very large segment of the population. Between patting down children, radiating travelers and blatant xenophobia, the TSA hasn’t exactly installed confidence in the general public. So, it’s only natural that completely innocent travelers might exhibit signs of fear while waiting to be screened by poorly trained security agents.
My advice is to ignore the likes of Barish, these kind of people are dangerous. Irradiating and feeling up kids is normal, I saw it at Disney World
Remember, the TSA has never been about humiliating the public into subservient compliance.
When the agents pull someone out of line, screaming “WE HAVE AN OPT OUT” and proceed to grope them in full view of everyone else, they do so only to deter terrorists. Because as we all know terrorists hate being groped, where as normal people love it.
When the agents stuff people into glass boxes and leave them there weeping in a state for an hour, they do so only to make it more difficult for terrorists to blow things up. You should know that by now.
So just who are the kind of people employed to detect negative behaviour? They are, of course, people like Minnetta Walker, the TSA behavioral detection officer who was recently arrested for helping drug dealers through security at Buffalo Niagara International Airport, allowing them to fly under false identities and ensuring they were not subjected to enhanced security measures.
After all, it makes perfect sense, the role of a “behavioral detection” officer is to walk around the airport seeking out potential criminals by analyzing their behaviour. Who is better equipped to expose the criminal mind than a criminal? And it keeps them off the streets. Again, keeping us safer.
I for one, cannot wait until the TSA rolls out the mind reading scanners it has under development. Then we’ll be able to weed out the dangerous criminals who are able to keep their criminal intentions off their faces and inside their heads.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/not-enjoying-tsa-grope-down-is-a-suspicious-activity.html
Even if you merely frown or display any other negative facial expression at the prospect of having your private areas frisked by a uniformed government employee, you will be considered irregular.
The agency has now deployed dozens of “behavioral indicator officers” at 161 airports across the nation, trained to “SPOT” (Screening Passengers by Observation Technique) dissenters.
The TSA states:
“Behavior detection officers are screening passengers for involuntary physical and physiological reactions that people exhibit in response to a fear of being discovered. TSA recognizes that an individual exhibiting some of these behaviors does not automatically mean a person has terrorist or criminal intent. Individuals exhibiting specific observable behaviors may be referred for additional screening at the checkpoint to include a handwanding, limited pat down and physical inspection of one’s carry-on baggage.”
So next time you’re fondled by a hairy 400 pond stranger, remember to smile and look pleased. Do not grimace or display any form of discomfort or you may be prevented from flying altogether. You could even be placed on the TSA’s domestic extremist watch list, and rightly so.
Remember this is ” yet one more challenge the terrorists need to overcome in attempt to defeat our security system.” It is not aimed at everyday Americans in any way.
Gadling’s Mike Barish notes: ‘”You know who exhibits involuntary physical and physiological reactions in response to TSA screenings? A very large segment of the population. Between patting down children, radiating travelers and blatant xenophobia, the TSA hasn’t exactly installed confidence in the general public. So, it’s only natural that completely innocent travelers might exhibit signs of fear while waiting to be screened by poorly trained security agents.
My advice is to ignore the likes of Barish, these kind of people are dangerous. Irradiating and feeling up kids is normal, I saw it at Disney World
Remember, the TSA has never been about humiliating the public into subservient compliance.
When the agents pull someone out of line, screaming “WE HAVE AN OPT OUT” and proceed to grope them in full view of everyone else, they do so only to deter terrorists. Because as we all know terrorists hate being groped, where as normal people love it.
When the agents stuff people into glass boxes and leave them there weeping in a state for an hour, they do so only to make it more difficult for terrorists to blow things up. You should know that by now.
So just who are the kind of people employed to detect negative behaviour? They are, of course, people like Minnetta Walker, the TSA behavioral detection officer who was recently arrested for helping drug dealers through security at Buffalo Niagara International Airport, allowing them to fly under false identities and ensuring they were not subjected to enhanced security measures.
After all, it makes perfect sense, the role of a “behavioral detection” officer is to walk around the airport seeking out potential criminals by analyzing their behaviour. Who is better equipped to expose the criminal mind than a criminal? And it keeps them off the streets. Again, keeping us safer.
I for one, cannot wait until the TSA rolls out the mind reading scanners it has under development. Then we’ll be able to weed out the dangerous criminals who are able to keep their criminal intentions off their faces and inside their heads.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/not-enjoying-tsa-grope-down-is-a-suspicious-activity.html
Fukushima: suicide so that others may live
A group of elderly Japanese engineers are prepared to come out of retirement to fix the Fukushima nuclear power plant for their final mission.
By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo 7:00AM BST 25 May 2011
More than 160 nuclear and civil engineers over the age of 60 are planning to set up a Skilled Veterans Corps to assist restoring control over crucial cooling functions at the tsunami-hit nuclear power plant.
Decades of professional engineering expertise combined with a desire to protect younger workers from radiation exposure have united the elderly workers in a desire to help fix the plant.
The idea was masterminded by Yasuteru Yamada, 72, a retired engineer formerly working in plant construction, who was alarmed by reports of young subcontractors, some unskilled in this field, undertaking the high-risk work.
"We shouldn't leave the work only to young engineers," he said. "Young people, especially those who have children in future, should not be exposed to radiation." More than 1,000 people, including young subcontractors, are currently working in sensitive conditions at Fukushima in an on-going bid to restore control at the damaged six-reactor plant.
Under the new proposal, an independent body of skilled engineers over the age of 60 would be authorised by the government to take over ground work restoring cooling systems alongside Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which operates the plant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8534808/Japan-elderly-engineers-want-final-mission-to-Fukushima.html
By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo 7:00AM BST 25 May 2011
More than 160 nuclear and civil engineers over the age of 60 are planning to set up a Skilled Veterans Corps to assist restoring control over crucial cooling functions at the tsunami-hit nuclear power plant.
Decades of professional engineering expertise combined with a desire to protect younger workers from radiation exposure have united the elderly workers in a desire to help fix the plant.
The idea was masterminded by Yasuteru Yamada, 72, a retired engineer formerly working in plant construction, who was alarmed by reports of young subcontractors, some unskilled in this field, undertaking the high-risk work.
"We shouldn't leave the work only to young engineers," he said. "Young people, especially those who have children in future, should not be exposed to radiation." More than 1,000 people, including young subcontractors, are currently working in sensitive conditions at Fukushima in an on-going bid to restore control at the damaged six-reactor plant.
Under the new proposal, an independent body of skilled engineers over the age of 60 would be authorised by the government to take over ground work restoring cooling systems alongside Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which operates the plant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8534808/Japan-elderly-engineers-want-final-mission-to-Fukushima.html
Friday, May 20, 2011
Texas politicians knew agency hid the amount of radiation in drinking water
HOUSTON— Newly-released e-mails from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality show the agency’s top commissioners directed staff to continue lowering radiation test results, in defiance of federal EPA rules.
The e-mails and documents, released under order from the Texas Attorney General to KHOU-TV, also show the agency was attempting to help water systems get out of formally violating federal limits for radiation in drinking water. Without a formal violation, the water systems did not have to inform their residents of the increased health risk.
“It’s a conspiracy at the TCEQ of the highest order,” said Tom Smith, of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. “The documents have indicted the management of this commission in a massive cover-up to convince people that our water is safe to drink when it’s not.”
http://www.khou.com/home/-Texas-politicians-knew-agency-hid-the-amount-of-radiation-in-drinking-water-122205439.html
The e-mails and documents, released under order from the Texas Attorney General to KHOU-TV, also show the agency was attempting to help water systems get out of formally violating federal limits for radiation in drinking water. Without a formal violation, the water systems did not have to inform their residents of the increased health risk.
“It’s a conspiracy at the TCEQ of the highest order,” said Tom Smith, of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. “The documents have indicted the management of this commission in a massive cover-up to convince people that our water is safe to drink when it’s not.”
http://www.khou.com/home/-Texas-politicians-knew-agency-hid-the-amount-of-radiation-in-drinking-water-122205439.html
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
TEPCO: Fukushima nuclear meltdown actually occurred just 16 hours after earthquake, more meltdowns on the way
TEPCO: Fukushima nuclear meltdown actually occurred just 16 hours after earthquake, more meltdowns on the way
(NaturalNews) The truth has finally come out, as officials from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) now admit that fuel in Reactor 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex melted just 16 hours after the devastating earthquake and tsunami hit the area on March 11, 2011. When asked why it took more than two months to reveal this critical information, TEPCO officials claim that a lack of data left the company unaware of the core's true condition until only recently -- and new reports indicate that other meltdowns could soon follow.
According to a recent report from The Mainichi Daily News (MDN) in Japan, TEPCO officials recently announced that, based on new data, water levels in the pressure vessel at Reactor 1 began to drop rapidly within just a few hours after losing power at 3:30 pm on March 11. By 7:30 pm, fuel was fully exposed, and by 9 pm, reactor core temperatures reached an astounding 2,800 degrees Celsius, or 5,072 degrees Fahrenheit. And by 6:50 am the next morning, a full meltdown occurred (http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news...).
So for all the time that electric power was out in multiple reactors, causing the cooling systems to fail, and during the months after it was widely known that water levels were consistently dropping in Reactor 4 due to leaks, TEPCO played the ignorance card, acting as though it had no idea how serious the situation at the plant actually was. Surely the company must know, even without access to a detailed analysis, that when cooling systems fail and fuel rods become fully exposed, a meltdown is sure to follow -- even regular folks with no background in nuclear technology can put two-and-two together to figure that one out.
But apparently TEPCO thinks it can keep playing dumb, and that the world will simply believe whatever it says. This new revelation, however, proves that the company is greatly underestimating the fallout from the situation at best, and deliberately hiding the truth at worst. Either way, the situation is far more dire than we have all been led to believe.
"[TEPCO] could have assumed that when the loss of power made it impossible to cool down the reactor, it would soon lead to a meltdown of the core," said Hiroaki Koide, professor of nuclear safety engineering at Kyoto University, to MDN. "TEPCO's persistent explanation that the damage to the fuel had been limited turned out to be wrong."
And shortly after the announcement about Reactor 1, The Telegraph reported that two more Fukushima reactors may soon suffer a meltdown as well. Efforts to cool fuel in Reactors 2 and 3 have failed, and experts say that if the reactors cores have not already melted, they soon will
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032437_Fukushima_nuclear_meltdown.html#ixzz1MivnaSS2
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032437_Fukushima_nuclear_meltdown.html#ixzz1MivTErjL
(NaturalNews) The truth has finally come out, as officials from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) now admit that fuel in Reactor 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex melted just 16 hours after the devastating earthquake and tsunami hit the area on March 11, 2011. When asked why it took more than two months to reveal this critical information, TEPCO officials claim that a lack of data left the company unaware of the core's true condition until only recently -- and new reports indicate that other meltdowns could soon follow.
According to a recent report from The Mainichi Daily News (MDN) in Japan, TEPCO officials recently announced that, based on new data, water levels in the pressure vessel at Reactor 1 began to drop rapidly within just a few hours after losing power at 3:30 pm on March 11. By 7:30 pm, fuel was fully exposed, and by 9 pm, reactor core temperatures reached an astounding 2,800 degrees Celsius, or 5,072 degrees Fahrenheit. And by 6:50 am the next morning, a full meltdown occurred (http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news...).
So for all the time that electric power was out in multiple reactors, causing the cooling systems to fail, and during the months after it was widely known that water levels were consistently dropping in Reactor 4 due to leaks, TEPCO played the ignorance card, acting as though it had no idea how serious the situation at the plant actually was. Surely the company must know, even without access to a detailed analysis, that when cooling systems fail and fuel rods become fully exposed, a meltdown is sure to follow -- even regular folks with no background in nuclear technology can put two-and-two together to figure that one out.
But apparently TEPCO thinks it can keep playing dumb, and that the world will simply believe whatever it says. This new revelation, however, proves that the company is greatly underestimating the fallout from the situation at best, and deliberately hiding the truth at worst. Either way, the situation is far more dire than we have all been led to believe.
"[TEPCO] could have assumed that when the loss of power made it impossible to cool down the reactor, it would soon lead to a meltdown of the core," said Hiroaki Koide, professor of nuclear safety engineering at Kyoto University, to MDN. "TEPCO's persistent explanation that the damage to the fuel had been limited turned out to be wrong."
And shortly after the announcement about Reactor 1, The Telegraph reported that two more Fukushima reactors may soon suffer a meltdown as well. Efforts to cool fuel in Reactors 2 and 3 have failed, and experts say that if the reactors cores have not already melted, they soon will
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032437_Fukushima_nuclear_meltdown.html#ixzz1MivnaSS2
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032437_Fukushima_nuclear_meltdown.html#ixzz1MivTErjL
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Aaron Bros installs spyware on rentals
PITTSBURGH — A major furniture rental chain provides its customers with computers that allow it to track keystrokes, take screenshots and even snap webcam pictures of renters using the devices at home, a Wyoming couple said in a lawsuit Tuesday.
Computer privacy experts said the firm has the right to equip its computers with software it can use to shut off the devices remotely if customers stop paying their bills, but they must be told if they're being monitored.
"If I'm renting a computer ... then I have a right to know what the limitations are and I have a right to know if they're going to be collecting data from my computer," said Annie Anton, a professor and computer privacy expert with North Carolina State University.
But the couple who sued Atlanta-based Aaron's Inc. said they had no clue the computer they rented last year was equipped with a device that could spy on them. Brian Byrd, 26, and his wife, Crystal, 24, said they didn't even realize that was possible until a store manager in Casper came to their home on Dec. 22.
The manager tried to repossess the computer because he mistakenly believed the Byrds hadn't paid off their rent-to-own agreement. When Brian Byrd showed the manager a signed receipt, the manager showed Byrd a picture of Byrd using the computer — taken by the computer's webcam.
Byrd demanded to know where the picture came from, and the manager "responded that he was not supposed to disclose that Aaron's had the photograph," the lawsuit said.
Aaron's, which bills itself as the nation's leader in the sales and lease ownership of residential furniture, consumer electronics and home appliances, said the lawsuit was meritless. It said it respects its customers' privacy and hasn't authorized any of its corporate stores to install the software described in the lawsuit.
Byrd told The Associated Press by telephone the day before the suit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Erie that he believes the store manager showed him the picture because he "was just trying to throw his weight around and get an easy repossession."
That's when the Byrds contacted police, who, their attorney said, have determined the image was shot with the help of spying software, which the lawsuit contends is made by North East, Pa.-based Designerware LLC and is installed on all Aaron's rental computers. Designerware is also being sued.
"It feels like we were pretty much invaded, like somebody else was in our house," Byrd told the AP. "It's a weird feeling, I can't really describe it. I had to sit down for a minute after he showed me that picture."
Aaron's, which also manufactures furniture and bedding, said it believes that none of its more than 1,140 company-operated stores had used Designerware's product or had done any business with it.
Aaron's, with more than 1,800 company-operated and franchised stores in the United States and Canada, said the Byrds leased their computer from an independently owned and operated franchisee.
Tim Kelly, who said he's one of the owners of Designerware, said he wasn't aware of the lawsuit and declined to comment.
Two attorneys who are experts on the relevant computer privacy laws, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said it's difficult to tell if either was broken, though both said the company went too far.
Peter Swire, an Ohio State professor, said using a software "kill switch" is legal because companies can protect themselves from fraud and other crimes.
"But this action sounds like it's stretching the self-defense exception pretty far," Swire said, because the software "was gathering lots of data that isn't needed for self-protection."
Further, Swire said the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "prohibits unauthorized access to my computer over the Internet. The renter here didn't authorize this kind of access."
Fred Cate, an information law professor at Indiana University agrees that consent is required but said the real question might be: "Whose consent?"
Courts have allowed employers to record employee phone calls because the employers own the phones. Similar questions arise as digital technology becomes more omnipresent, Cate said.
"Should Google let you know they store your search terms? Should Apple let you know they store your location? Should your employer let you know 'We store your e-mail?'" Cate said.
If the Byrds' claims are true, Cate said Aaron's made an error in not notifying customers.
"We always talk about deterrence value. Well it doesn't make sense to put (the software) on there" without telling people what it can do," Cate said. "That's why we all put alarm signs in front of our houses, even if we don't have alarms."
According to the lawsuit, the PC Rental Agent product includes components soldered into the computer's motherboard or otherwise physically attached to the PC's electronics. It therefore cannot be uninstalled and can only be deactivated using a wand, the suit said.
The couple's attorney, John Robinson, of Casper, said the computer is currently in police evidence. Prosecutors in Natrona County, Wyo., did not immediately return a call about the progress of any criminal investigation.
The Byrds want the court to declare their case a class action and are seeking unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The privacy act allows for a penalty of $10,000 or $100 per day per violation, plus punitive damages and other costs, the lawsuit said.
"Crystal gets online before she gets a shower and checks her grades," Brian Byrd said. "Who knows? They could print that stuff off there and take it home with them."
He added: "I've got a 5-year-old boy who runs around all day and sometimes he gets out of the tub running around for 20, 30 seconds while we're on the computer. What if they took a picture of that? I wouldn't want that kind of garbage floating around out there."
http://www.ajc.com/business/pa-suit-furniture-rental-933410.html
Computer privacy experts said the firm has the right to equip its computers with software it can use to shut off the devices remotely if customers stop paying their bills, but they must be told if they're being monitored.
"If I'm renting a computer ... then I have a right to know what the limitations are and I have a right to know if they're going to be collecting data from my computer," said Annie Anton, a professor and computer privacy expert with North Carolina State University.
But the couple who sued Atlanta-based Aaron's Inc. said they had no clue the computer they rented last year was equipped with a device that could spy on them. Brian Byrd, 26, and his wife, Crystal, 24, said they didn't even realize that was possible until a store manager in Casper came to their home on Dec. 22.
The manager tried to repossess the computer because he mistakenly believed the Byrds hadn't paid off their rent-to-own agreement. When Brian Byrd showed the manager a signed receipt, the manager showed Byrd a picture of Byrd using the computer — taken by the computer's webcam.
Byrd demanded to know where the picture came from, and the manager "responded that he was not supposed to disclose that Aaron's had the photograph," the lawsuit said.
Aaron's, which bills itself as the nation's leader in the sales and lease ownership of residential furniture, consumer electronics and home appliances, said the lawsuit was meritless. It said it respects its customers' privacy and hasn't authorized any of its corporate stores to install the software described in the lawsuit.
Byrd told The Associated Press by telephone the day before the suit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Erie that he believes the store manager showed him the picture because he "was just trying to throw his weight around and get an easy repossession."
That's when the Byrds contacted police, who, their attorney said, have determined the image was shot with the help of spying software, which the lawsuit contends is made by North East, Pa.-based Designerware LLC and is installed on all Aaron's rental computers. Designerware is also being sued.
"It feels like we were pretty much invaded, like somebody else was in our house," Byrd told the AP. "It's a weird feeling, I can't really describe it. I had to sit down for a minute after he showed me that picture."
Aaron's, which also manufactures furniture and bedding, said it believes that none of its more than 1,140 company-operated stores had used Designerware's product or had done any business with it.
Aaron's, with more than 1,800 company-operated and franchised stores in the United States and Canada, said the Byrds leased their computer from an independently owned and operated franchisee.
Tim Kelly, who said he's one of the owners of Designerware, said he wasn't aware of the lawsuit and declined to comment.
Two attorneys who are experts on the relevant computer privacy laws, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said it's difficult to tell if either was broken, though both said the company went too far.
Peter Swire, an Ohio State professor, said using a software "kill switch" is legal because companies can protect themselves from fraud and other crimes.
"But this action sounds like it's stretching the self-defense exception pretty far," Swire said, because the software "was gathering lots of data that isn't needed for self-protection."
Further, Swire said the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "prohibits unauthorized access to my computer over the Internet. The renter here didn't authorize this kind of access."
Fred Cate, an information law professor at Indiana University agrees that consent is required but said the real question might be: "Whose consent?"
Courts have allowed employers to record employee phone calls because the employers own the phones. Similar questions arise as digital technology becomes more omnipresent, Cate said.
"Should Google let you know they store your search terms? Should Apple let you know they store your location? Should your employer let you know 'We store your e-mail?'" Cate said.
If the Byrds' claims are true, Cate said Aaron's made an error in not notifying customers.
"We always talk about deterrence value. Well it doesn't make sense to put (the software) on there" without telling people what it can do," Cate said. "That's why we all put alarm signs in front of our houses, even if we don't have alarms."
According to the lawsuit, the PC Rental Agent product includes components soldered into the computer's motherboard or otherwise physically attached to the PC's electronics. It therefore cannot be uninstalled and can only be deactivated using a wand, the suit said.
The couple's attorney, John Robinson, of Casper, said the computer is currently in police evidence. Prosecutors in Natrona County, Wyo., did not immediately return a call about the progress of any criminal investigation.
The Byrds want the court to declare their case a class action and are seeking unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The privacy act allows for a penalty of $10,000 or $100 per day per violation, plus punitive damages and other costs, the lawsuit said.
"Crystal gets online before she gets a shower and checks her grades," Brian Byrd said. "Who knows? They could print that stuff off there and take it home with them."
He added: "I've got a 5-year-old boy who runs around all day and sometimes he gets out of the tub running around for 20, 30 seconds while we're on the computer. What if they took a picture of that? I wouldn't want that kind of garbage floating around out there."
http://www.ajc.com/business/pa-suit-furniture-rental-933410.html
Narconon Horror Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnr1G2nEQh8&feature=BFa&list=ULe1dohWUWVbU&index=5
radiation fallout maps on Fukushima
http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=DMANC1
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama bin fakery
photoshopped stunt for the witches sabbat of Beltaine, so their "Al Queda" can attack us for revenge. That's why they are doing it, so they can have a justifiable false-flag attack on the USA for killing a guy that's been dead since 2001 from renal failure.
The world is being conned right now and setup. Watch closely.
Princess Willamina gets married on a witches sabbat and then this in the same zone. The King rises up and prepares the stage for his world takeover. His marriage provided him with the last of his necessary royal titles to take power in England, then EU, then UN, then world. In that order. In order to achieve this feat, he must defeat the fake anti-Christ, which will be elected in the US next year. Then he will be seen as a kind of messiah, saving the world from the new Germany and evil empire, the current USA.
That's why the US has been on an 11 year rampage of world domination - as Hitler had done - to set it up for fail. This is also why our economy and dollar is being purposely tanked, so we will end up in ruins, a defeated empire, the world made safe again from emperialists.
Pay close attention.
Watch the Olympic games next year that take place on Willie's birthday. Especially the opening ceremony. It will all be laid out for you then.
Osama bin dead awhile
An image apparently showing a dead Osama bin Laden broadcast on Pakistani television and picked up by British newspaper websites is a fake.
The bloodied image of a man with matted hair and a blank, half-opened eye has been circulating on the internet for the past two years. It was used on the front pages of the Mail, Times, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror websites, though swiftly removed after the fake was exposed on Twitter.
It appears the fake picture was initially published by the Middle East online newspaper themedialine.org on 29 April 2009, with a warning from the editor that it was "unable to ascertain whether the photo is genuine or not".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake?CMP=twt_fd
The bloodied image of a man with matted hair and a blank, half-opened eye has been circulating on the internet for the past two years. It was used on the front pages of the Mail, Times, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror websites, though swiftly removed after the fake was exposed on Twitter.
It appears the fake picture was initially published by the Middle East online newspaper themedialine.org on 29 April 2009, with a warning from the editor that it was "unable to ascertain whether the photo is genuine or not".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-photo-fake?CMP=twt_fd
Sunday, May 1, 2011
A Threat to our Sovereignty and Security: A Gun Control Proposal to Keep Guns
Nthan Bradley
English 10 B
March 28 2011.
A Threat to our Sovereignty and Security: A Gun Control Proposal to Keep Guns
Guns are hand-held, projectile-launching devices that fire potentially lethal, metal objects with the intent of killing someone or something. They are tools used for: self-defense, enforcing the law, committing crimes varying from bank robbery to murder to the suppression of entire peoples or races (i.e. Hitler in World War Two). Like any weapon, firearms have been used for great good and grave evil. However, good people need the firearms to protect themselves from evil criminals or governments.
After national tragedies like 9-11, school shootings, and terrorist attacks, our government, equipped with its handy mass-media, has been pushing to ban the right of United States citizens to own guns of any kind; or, at least, severely restrict that right to the point where one might as well as not have them. The problem is any law that restricts the ownership of weapons in any way shape or form beyond that of what is allowed in the United States Constitution and Amendments. Whether it is the forbidding of owning a weapon, or the requirement of having it completely dismantled, banning the public’s right to own and carry firearms provides a large variety of problems to common civilians; in more ways than one.
While the banning of firearms brings the appearance of safety to the general public, it actually proposes major issues which far outweigh anything positive affects that it could bring. Citizens are coaxed into thinking that they are safer from some immediate threats when they are actually opened up to many larger, deadlier threats.
One of the first threats can be perceived through simple common sense. When a government places a prohibition on something, it creates a look-but-don’t-touch reverse psychology that will encourage people (especially adolescents) to do that much tabooed thing.
Gun-restricting laws also “make it virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to have a gun ready for immediate self-defense” (Viera 10). As a result, “any kind of rule limiting guns only limits honest people from getting weapons” and leaves guns up for grabs illegally by criminals (qtd. in Drogin 1). Furthermore, “most . . . guns [come] from governments, arms dealers, or crime syndicates” which readily supply the real criminals (Burnett). It could not be more simply put then the master himself (who, I might add, wrote the second amendment): "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one” (Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria).
This issue leads to laws such as a widely debated gun restriction law in Washington D.C. where a firearm must be unloaded and dismantled if owned. In the popular Supreme Court battle of District of Columbia vs. Heller, a death was speculated at the hands of a knife-murderer. Viera, a Supreme Court judge, wonders “how, except as a club, is an individual supposed to use a handgun that is unloaded . . . to protect himself from immediate harm?” (10). He speculates further to whether the hypothetical death is at the hands of the murderer or the laws that prevented the victim from protecting himself (Viera 10).
The three-pronged problem concludes in this third step: increased crime rates. In modern day Tombstone, Arizona (where the famous 1881 shoot-out occurred), crime rates are “low by big-city standards” (Drogin 1). The fact that a large part of the populace there carries a weapon is known to discourage crime as a result of the fear of being gunned down by fellow citizens. Ben Traywick simply puts it, “If you wanted to commit a crime, would you go to a town where everyone carries a gun?” (qtd. in Drogin 1). Furthermore, (when comparing gun restrictiveness to crime rates) “Mexico has among the strictest gun control policies in the world . . . and violent crime rates are many times higher than the United States” (Burnett).
The final, most important, problem is the endangerment of the public of any government that harshly restricts gun control; because, in a magnitude far greater than any petty and/or other domestic crimes, governments are “the biggest killers of people” (Burnett n.p.). Burnett believes that the citizens of governments are most often the victims (i.e. states under Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini) and that these governments would notably disarm the targeted group before genocide, persecution, or utter extinction (Burnett n.p.). Most importantly, Burnett states in particular that “they [the governments] were aided by laws requiring firearms licensing and registration: in order to seize the guns” (Burnett n.p.). This is a very profound and undeniable truth. Again Thomas Jefferson states the obvious: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Even if the will of the government is benign in protecting its citizens, gun control policies often make matter worse; because when countries like Britain started enacting their laws, their violent crime rates statistically increased with every new restriction (Burnett).
The solution to all these problems (which could, often due, lead into disastrous catastrophes) is simple: gun control should by no means ever be restricted by the government; not by age nor weapon type nor criminal record nor anything else the adds or takes away from what is already written in the Second Amendment of the United States of America. In fact, I encourage mandatory ownership of at least a handgun in every household.
Why? Because whence a restriction is placed on owning weapons, it is followed my more and more until the U.S. public has nothing left (almost like modern times); these continued restrictions are often “justified” by twisted logic. If an age limit is set, it encourages the raising of that bar to unreasonable rates by the government. If guns can only be sold to those with “clean” records, it encourages forgeries and other scandals which render possibly innocent fugitives (or just ordinary citizens for that matter) defenseless against a government trying to crush them. If a limit is set on the type of firearm, the government is encouraged to reduce the public citizens to mere pistols (and they just might take that away as well). To top it all off, there should not be any restrictions beyond that of what is already written in the Second Amendment because “that [pre-constitutional] era knew no prohibitions of militiamen's possession of any type of firearms the regular army used;” meaning any citizen (or colonist in that time) could use any type of weapon that existed.
Furthermore, there should be absolutely no gun restrictions, because “In pre-constitutional times, the militia [citizen soldiers] included every able-bodied, adult, free man in every colony; and today, because of the legal emancipation of women, must include them, too” (Viera 14). It is simply our (us human beings) right to protect ourselves from any threat at any time in any way.
Having no legislation against guns may seem ludicrous to the well programmed and traumatized-by-terrorist Americans, but it will actually reduce crime rates. Switzerland, for example, has “guns [that] are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept” (BBC News). They lave gun laws that are very similar to (if not exactly) the gun control solution I have proposed.
Now, whether a government is attempting to do this or not, laws that restrict the ownership and/or usage of guns are a major problem, because these laws certainly provoke corruption or the birth of any dark agenda. EVEN IF one still feels that there is no government threat, it does not erase the facts that crime rates soar when there is restrictions on guns; Switzerland is a prime example. After that, if one still feels that these laws are still not an issue, just know that one can always rationalize anything to a sick, twisted perspective if the truth can not be handled or an agenda has to be sold.
On a final note, “nothing” was wrong in Germany or Italy while their dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, brought them out of financial crisis. Jewish people did not see it coming when, BAM! Out of nowhere, Hitler began genocide on them. Where did he start? He started by making his crimes legal within his own government.
Only the citizens of a country can perform the act of revolutionizing this needed change. If the public (particularly that of the United States) fails to stand up to its oppressors, they will be crushed, indoctrinated, and utterly controlled at the whims of whoever are in power. Thomas Jefferson, one of the great architects of the United States Constitution, believes that “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Simply put, this means that you cannot hide yourself in and accept your gilded cage in exchange for your rights and freedoms! Guns are meant for the protection against two enemies: “criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first” (Jefferson). Do you love your family, friends, and nation well enough that you would stand up against a grave evil that is descending upon the United States?
Works Cited:
BBC Staff. “Switzerland and the Gun.” news.bbc.co.uk. British Broadcasting
Corporation. 17 Sept. 2001. Web. 30 March 2011.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm >.
Burnett, H. Sterling. "Unwise Gun Treaty Erodes U.S. Sovereignty." McClatchy – Tribune News Service. 21 Aug 2009: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
Drogin, Bob. "Check My Gun? No Way, Marshal." Los Angeles Times. 23 Jan 2011: .1.
SIRS Researcher. Web. 29 Mar 2011.
Paterson, Tony. "Swiss Stick to Their Guns to Reject Weapons Control." The
Independent. 14 Feb 2011: 26. SIRS Researcher. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
Thomas Jefferson Foundation. "Thomas Jefferson in Popular Culture." Thomas Jefferson
Encyclopedia. 2008. Print.
"Thomas Jefferson." Great-Quotes.com. Gledhill Enterprises, 2011.
24 December. 2011. http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/38721
Viera, Jr., Edwin. "Gun Rights on Trial." New American Vol. 24 No. 18. Sept. 1 2008:
10-15. SIRS Researcher. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
English 10 B
March 28 2011.
A Threat to our Sovereignty and Security: A Gun Control Proposal to Keep Guns
Guns are hand-held, projectile-launching devices that fire potentially lethal, metal objects with the intent of killing someone or something. They are tools used for: self-defense, enforcing the law, committing crimes varying from bank robbery to murder to the suppression of entire peoples or races (i.e. Hitler in World War Two). Like any weapon, firearms have been used for great good and grave evil. However, good people need the firearms to protect themselves from evil criminals or governments.
After national tragedies like 9-11, school shootings, and terrorist attacks, our government, equipped with its handy mass-media, has been pushing to ban the right of United States citizens to own guns of any kind; or, at least, severely restrict that right to the point where one might as well as not have them. The problem is any law that restricts the ownership of weapons in any way shape or form beyond that of what is allowed in the United States Constitution and Amendments. Whether it is the forbidding of owning a weapon, or the requirement of having it completely dismantled, banning the public’s right to own and carry firearms provides a large variety of problems to common civilians; in more ways than one.
While the banning of firearms brings the appearance of safety to the general public, it actually proposes major issues which far outweigh anything positive affects that it could bring. Citizens are coaxed into thinking that they are safer from some immediate threats when they are actually opened up to many larger, deadlier threats.
One of the first threats can be perceived through simple common sense. When a government places a prohibition on something, it creates a look-but-don’t-touch reverse psychology that will encourage people (especially adolescents) to do that much tabooed thing.
Gun-restricting laws also “make it virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to have a gun ready for immediate self-defense” (Viera 10). As a result, “any kind of rule limiting guns only limits honest people from getting weapons” and leaves guns up for grabs illegally by criminals (qtd. in Drogin 1). Furthermore, “most . . . guns [come] from governments, arms dealers, or crime syndicates” which readily supply the real criminals (Burnett). It could not be more simply put then the master himself (who, I might add, wrote the second amendment): "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one” (Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria).
This issue leads to laws such as a widely debated gun restriction law in Washington D.C. where a firearm must be unloaded and dismantled if owned. In the popular Supreme Court battle of District of Columbia vs. Heller, a death was speculated at the hands of a knife-murderer. Viera, a Supreme Court judge, wonders “how, except as a club, is an individual supposed to use a handgun that is unloaded . . . to protect himself from immediate harm?” (10). He speculates further to whether the hypothetical death is at the hands of the murderer or the laws that prevented the victim from protecting himself (Viera 10).
The three-pronged problem concludes in this third step: increased crime rates. In modern day Tombstone, Arizona (where the famous 1881 shoot-out occurred), crime rates are “low by big-city standards” (Drogin 1). The fact that a large part of the populace there carries a weapon is known to discourage crime as a result of the fear of being gunned down by fellow citizens. Ben Traywick simply puts it, “If you wanted to commit a crime, would you go to a town where everyone carries a gun?” (qtd. in Drogin 1). Furthermore, (when comparing gun restrictiveness to crime rates) “Mexico has among the strictest gun control policies in the world . . . and violent crime rates are many times higher than the United States” (Burnett).
The final, most important, problem is the endangerment of the public of any government that harshly restricts gun control; because, in a magnitude far greater than any petty and/or other domestic crimes, governments are “the biggest killers of people” (Burnett n.p.). Burnett believes that the citizens of governments are most often the victims (i.e. states under Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini) and that these governments would notably disarm the targeted group before genocide, persecution, or utter extinction (Burnett n.p.). Most importantly, Burnett states in particular that “they [the governments] were aided by laws requiring firearms licensing and registration: in order to seize the guns” (Burnett n.p.). This is a very profound and undeniable truth. Again Thomas Jefferson states the obvious: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Even if the will of the government is benign in protecting its citizens, gun control policies often make matter worse; because when countries like Britain started enacting their laws, their violent crime rates statistically increased with every new restriction (Burnett).
The solution to all these problems (which could, often due, lead into disastrous catastrophes) is simple: gun control should by no means ever be restricted by the government; not by age nor weapon type nor criminal record nor anything else the adds or takes away from what is already written in the Second Amendment of the United States of America. In fact, I encourage mandatory ownership of at least a handgun in every household.
Why? Because whence a restriction is placed on owning weapons, it is followed my more and more until the U.S. public has nothing left (almost like modern times); these continued restrictions are often “justified” by twisted logic. If an age limit is set, it encourages the raising of that bar to unreasonable rates by the government. If guns can only be sold to those with “clean” records, it encourages forgeries and other scandals which render possibly innocent fugitives (or just ordinary citizens for that matter) defenseless against a government trying to crush them. If a limit is set on the type of firearm, the government is encouraged to reduce the public citizens to mere pistols (and they just might take that away as well). To top it all off, there should not be any restrictions beyond that of what is already written in the Second Amendment because “that [pre-constitutional] era knew no prohibitions of militiamen's possession of any type of firearms the regular army used;” meaning any citizen (or colonist in that time) could use any type of weapon that existed.
Furthermore, there should be absolutely no gun restrictions, because “In pre-constitutional times, the militia [citizen soldiers] included every able-bodied, adult, free man in every colony; and today, because of the legal emancipation of women, must include them, too” (Viera 14). It is simply our (us human beings) right to protect ourselves from any threat at any time in any way.
Having no legislation against guns may seem ludicrous to the well programmed and traumatized-by-terrorist Americans, but it will actually reduce crime rates. Switzerland, for example, has “guns [that] are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept” (BBC News). They lave gun laws that are very similar to (if not exactly) the gun control solution I have proposed.
Now, whether a government is attempting to do this or not, laws that restrict the ownership and/or usage of guns are a major problem, because these laws certainly provoke corruption or the birth of any dark agenda. EVEN IF one still feels that there is no government threat, it does not erase the facts that crime rates soar when there is restrictions on guns; Switzerland is a prime example. After that, if one still feels that these laws are still not an issue, just know that one can always rationalize anything to a sick, twisted perspective if the truth can not be handled or an agenda has to be sold.
On a final note, “nothing” was wrong in Germany or Italy while their dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, brought them out of financial crisis. Jewish people did not see it coming when, BAM! Out of nowhere, Hitler began genocide on them. Where did he start? He started by making his crimes legal within his own government.
Only the citizens of a country can perform the act of revolutionizing this needed change. If the public (particularly that of the United States) fails to stand up to its oppressors, they will be crushed, indoctrinated, and utterly controlled at the whims of whoever are in power. Thomas Jefferson, one of the great architects of the United States Constitution, believes that “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Simply put, this means that you cannot hide yourself in and accept your gilded cage in exchange for your rights and freedoms! Guns are meant for the protection against two enemies: “criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first” (Jefferson). Do you love your family, friends, and nation well enough that you would stand up against a grave evil that is descending upon the United States?
Works Cited:
BBC Staff. “Switzerland and the Gun.” news.bbc.co.uk. British Broadcasting
Corporation. 17 Sept. 2001. Web. 30 March 2011.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm >.
Burnett, H. Sterling. "Unwise Gun Treaty Erodes U.S. Sovereignty." McClatchy – Tribune News Service. 21 Aug 2009: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
Drogin, Bob. "Check My Gun? No Way, Marshal." Los Angeles Times. 23 Jan 2011: .1.
SIRS Researcher. Web. 29 Mar 2011.
Paterson, Tony. "Swiss Stick to Their Guns to Reject Weapons Control." The
Independent. 14 Feb 2011: 26. SIRS Researcher. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
Thomas Jefferson Foundation. "Thomas Jefferson in Popular Culture." Thomas Jefferson
Encyclopedia. 2008. Print.
"Thomas Jefferson." Great-Quotes.com. Gledhill Enterprises, 2011.
24 December. 2011. http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/38721
Viera, Jr., Edwin. "Gun Rights on Trial." New American Vol. 24 No. 18. Sept. 1 2008:
10-15. SIRS Researcher. Web. 21 Feb 2011.
Codex Alimintarius is here
Patients have lost access to hundreds of herbal medicines today, after European regulations came into force.
Sales of all herbal remedies, except for a small number of popular products for 'mild' illness such as echinacea for colds and St John's Wort for depression have been banned.
For the first time traditional products must be licensed or prescribed by a registered herbal practitioner.
Both herbal remedy practitioners and manufacturers fear they could be forced out of business as a result.
Some of the most commonly used products were saved after the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley approved a plan for the Health Professions Council to establish a register of practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal medicines.
However, many remedies were lost as it was only open to those who could afford the licensing process which costs between £80,000 to £120,000.
At least 50 herbs, including horny goat weed (so-called natural Viagra), hawthorn berry, used for angina pain, and wild yam will no longer be stocked in health food shops, says the British Herbal Medicine Association
The 2004 EU directive demands that a traditional herbal medicinal product must be shown to have been in use for 30 years in the EU – or at 15 years in the EU and 15 years elsewhere – for it to be licensed.
The UK drug safety watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency, has issued more than a dozen alerts in the past two years, including a warning last month over a contaminated weight loss pill called Herbal Flos Lonicerae (Herbal Xenicol) due to concerns over possible side-effects.
Mr Lansley, in a written statement, said the Government wanted to ensure continuing access to unlicensed herbal medicines via a statutory register for practitioners ‘to meet individual patient needs’.
Acupuncture falls outside the EU directive and so remains unaffected.
Prince Charles, a long-standing supporter of complementary therapies, has voiced his support for formal regulation of herbal practitioners.
Up til now the industry has been covered by the 1968 Medicines Act. This was drawn up when only a small number of herbal remedies were available.
But recent studies show that at least six million Britons have used a herbal medicine in the past two years
read full article here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382135/Herbal-medicines-banned-EU-directive-comes-force.html
Sales of all herbal remedies, except for a small number of popular products for 'mild' illness such as echinacea for colds and St John's Wort for depression have been banned.
For the first time traditional products must be licensed or prescribed by a registered herbal practitioner.
Both herbal remedy practitioners and manufacturers fear they could be forced out of business as a result.
Some of the most commonly used products were saved after the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley approved a plan for the Health Professions Council to establish a register of practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal medicines.
However, many remedies were lost as it was only open to those who could afford the licensing process which costs between £80,000 to £120,000.
At least 50 herbs, including horny goat weed (so-called natural Viagra), hawthorn berry, used for angina pain, and wild yam will no longer be stocked in health food shops, says the British Herbal Medicine Association
The 2004 EU directive demands that a traditional herbal medicinal product must be shown to have been in use for 30 years in the EU – or at 15 years in the EU and 15 years elsewhere – for it to be licensed.
The UK drug safety watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency, has issued more than a dozen alerts in the past two years, including a warning last month over a contaminated weight loss pill called Herbal Flos Lonicerae (Herbal Xenicol) due to concerns over possible side-effects.
Mr Lansley, in a written statement, said the Government wanted to ensure continuing access to unlicensed herbal medicines via a statutory register for practitioners ‘to meet individual patient needs’.
Acupuncture falls outside the EU directive and so remains unaffected.
Prince Charles, a long-standing supporter of complementary therapies, has voiced his support for formal regulation of herbal practitioners.
Up til now the industry has been covered by the 1968 Medicines Act. This was drawn up when only a small number of herbal remedies were available.
But recent studies show that at least six million Britons have used a herbal medicine in the past two years
read full article here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1382135/Herbal-medicines-banned-EU-directive-comes-force.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)