Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States of America? It was signed in 1787, and ratified by the required 9 states the following year. If you haven't read it, I suggest you go HERE and do so. At least read the Constitution itself, and the Bill of Rights (the original 10 amendments added in 1791 that guarantee our rights as American citizens).
September 17, 2009 was "Constitution Day" -- the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. What did you do to celebrate? Because, you must realize, there is much for us as Americans to celebrate. And much is at stake.
Of the written national constitutions, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest and shortest. This is one of the "Ten Fast Facts" about the Constitution listed at the Web site of the Constitution Center. Why do you think that ours is the shortest?
Our Constitution does not list or restrict our rights as citizens...it lists and restricts the rights of our government. And those are FEW. The 10th Amendment declares: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that any time the federal government takes duties or powers unto itself not specifically given to it by the Constitution, it has overstepped its bounds.
Has the federal government of the United States ever done this? It would be impossible to enumerate all the times it has. Why has it done this? Because We The People have let them!
If you value your freedom, stand up now. Tomorrow may be too late. Read the Constitution! Digest it thoroughly. It's a fairly straightforward document, but if some of it seems difficult to understand, get online and find some information, some explanations of what it means --- maybe even conflicting opinions --- and come to a personal conclusion of what you believe about it.
Then contact your congressmen and -women and demand that they uphold the Constitution that they have ALL taken an oath to "support and defend . . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic." If all they do is send you a form letter, then call them. If you only get a staff member, then go see them when they come to town and hold town hall meetings. If they refuse to recognize you at the meeting, or give you the "brush off," then remove them from office and elect someone else who REPRESENTS you! Or run for office yourself!
Don't put up with the degradation of our mighty nation any longer. And, by the way, it's not a "homeland"-- it's a NATION. The United States of America is our nation.
It is the freest and strongest nation on the face of the earth. But if her people refuse to stand up and fight for her, she will -- before much longer -- be no more.
Does this country matter to you? Then take a stand!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Hard evidence of D3 fighting H1N1
I've said on here that I recommended taking large doses of Vitamin D3 as a preventative for swine flu (H1N1 type-A influenza virus). I saw the following 2 letters posted on a forum today. As there is no link with them, I can not confirm that these are genuine, although Dr. Cannell is a well-known proponent of using Vitamin D3 against swine flu. -- Mom
September 17, 2009
I’m writing to alert readers to a crucial email from a physician who has evidence vitamin D is protective against H1N1 and to ask you, the reader, to contact your representatives in Washington to help protect Americans, especially children, from H1N1 before winter comes.
Dear Dr. Cannell:
Your recent newsletters and video about Swine flu (H1N1) prompted me to convey our recent experience with an H1N1 outbreak at Central Wisconsin Center (CWC). Unfortunately, the state epidemiologist was not interested in studying it further so I pass it on to you since I think it is noteworthy.
CWC is a long-term care facility for people with developmental disabilities, home for approx. 275 people with approx. 800 staff. Serum 25-OHD has been monitored in virtually all residents for several years and patients supplemented with vitamin D.
In June, 2009, at the time of the well-publicized Wisconsin spike in H1N1 cases, two residents developed influenza-like illness (ILI) and had positive tests for H1N1: one was a long-term resident; the other, a child, was transferred to us with what was later proven to be H1N1.
On the other hand, 60 staff members developed ILI or were documented to have H1N1: of 17 tested for ILI, eight were positive. An additional 43 staff members called in sick with ILI. (Approx. 11-12 staff developed ILI after working on the unit where the child was given care, several of whom had positive H1N1 tests.)
So, it is rather remarkable that only two residents of 275 developed ILI, one of which did not develop it here, while 103 of 800 staff members had ILI. It appears that the spread of H1N1 was not from staff-to-resident but from resident-to-staff (most obvious in the imported case) and between staff, implying that staff were susceptible and our residents protected.
Sincerely,
Norris Glick, MD
Central Wisconsin Center
Madison, WI
Dear Dr. Glick:
This is the first hard data that I am aware of concerning H1N1 and vitamin D. It appears vitamin D is incredibly protective against H1N1. Dr. Carlos Carmago at Mass General ran the numbers in an email to me. Even if one excludes 43 staff members who called in sick with influenza, 0.73% of residents were affected, as compared to 7.5% of staff. This 10-fold difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).>
Second, if you read my last newsletter, you will see that children with neurological impairments, like the patients at your hospital, have accounted for 2/3 of the childhood deaths for H1N1 so far in the USA. That is, the CDC knows, because they reported it, that patients with neurological impairments are more likely to die from H1N1.
The problem is that I cannot get anyone in authority at the CDC or the NIH to listen. I need readers to email or call their senators and congresspersons in Washington.
Ask your senator or congressperson to contact the CDC and NIH to complain about CDC and NIH inaction on Vitamin D and H1N1. Also, ask your senators and representative to demand congressional hearings on Vitamin D and H1N1, before it is too late. Here is the link below, just click it and follow instructions to contact your own represenatives.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
John Cannell, MD
President
Vitamin D Council
585 Leff StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93422
September 17, 2009
I’m writing to alert readers to a crucial email from a physician who has evidence vitamin D is protective against H1N1 and to ask you, the reader, to contact your representatives in Washington to help protect Americans, especially children, from H1N1 before winter comes.
Dear Dr. Cannell:
Your recent newsletters and video about Swine flu (H1N1) prompted me to convey our recent experience with an H1N1 outbreak at Central Wisconsin Center (CWC). Unfortunately, the state epidemiologist was not interested in studying it further so I pass it on to you since I think it is noteworthy.
CWC is a long-term care facility for people with developmental disabilities, home for approx. 275 people with approx. 800 staff. Serum 25-OHD has been monitored in virtually all residents for several years and patients supplemented with vitamin D.
In June, 2009, at the time of the well-publicized Wisconsin spike in H1N1 cases, two residents developed influenza-like illness (ILI) and had positive tests for H1N1: one was a long-term resident; the other, a child, was transferred to us with what was later proven to be H1N1.
On the other hand, 60 staff members developed ILI or were documented to have H1N1: of 17 tested for ILI, eight were positive. An additional 43 staff members called in sick with ILI. (Approx. 11-12 staff developed ILI after working on the unit where the child was given care, several of whom had positive H1N1 tests.)
So, it is rather remarkable that only two residents of 275 developed ILI, one of which did not develop it here, while 103 of 800 staff members had ILI. It appears that the spread of H1N1 was not from staff-to-resident but from resident-to-staff (most obvious in the imported case) and between staff, implying that staff were susceptible and our residents protected.
Sincerely,
Norris Glick, MD
Central Wisconsin Center
Madison, WI
Dear Dr. Glick:
This is the first hard data that I am aware of concerning H1N1 and vitamin D. It appears vitamin D is incredibly protective against H1N1. Dr. Carlos Carmago at Mass General ran the numbers in an email to me. Even if one excludes 43 staff members who called in sick with influenza, 0.73% of residents were affected, as compared to 7.5% of staff. This 10-fold difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).>
Second, if you read my last newsletter, you will see that children with neurological impairments, like the patients at your hospital, have accounted for 2/3 of the childhood deaths for H1N1 so far in the USA. That is, the CDC knows, because they reported it, that patients with neurological impairments are more likely to die from H1N1.
The problem is that I cannot get anyone in authority at the CDC or the NIH to listen. I need readers to email or call their senators and congresspersons in Washington.
Ask your senator or congressperson to contact the CDC and NIH to complain about CDC and NIH inaction on Vitamin D and H1N1. Also, ask your senators and representative to demand congressional hearings on Vitamin D and H1N1, before it is too late. Here is the link below, just click it and follow instructions to contact your own represenatives.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
John Cannell, MD
President
Vitamin D Council
585 Leff StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93422
Thursday, September 3, 2009
America
Jake is not his true name. Jake works where I do. We spend 8 hours a day in close proximity to one another. I think we are about the same age -- in our fifties. We talk about work. We talk about old movies and game shows like Hollywood Squares. We talk about how it used to be, to never lock your car or even your front door at night, back when we were kids. We talk about how much has been lost.
But yesterday something happened. Yesterday I found out that "Jake" has never registered to vote. Not once in his entire life as a middle class American man has he ever registered to vote.
It stunned me.
He said, "Well, have you been happy with the elected officials we've had over the past few years?"
I honestly couldn't say that I have been, but at least I participate in the process.
I understood what he was saying...that it doesn't make any difference. The people that "the powers that be" want in office will get in office, and it doesn't matter what We the People do.
I pointed out that I had voted in every presidential election since before Reagan. (I think my first election was Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford.) And Jake nodded in fond remembrance. "I think I had more money to spend under Reagan."
Is that all people care about? Their pocketbook?
Is it all in vain?
Is all the blood, sweat and tears that went into forming and building this nation in vain? Have Americans forgotten their heritage? Have we forgotten who we are?
When my children were young, I took each and every one of them in the voting booth with me, to show them how it works. Since then, the three that are old enough to vote have registered, and I know at least two have voted in presidential elections. But maybe I am in the minority. Maybe most Americans only care about something when it affects them personally.
Like in their wallet.
I remember when Bill Clinton won his 2nd term in office. NPR did a "man-on-the-street" interview near a rally, and asked such people as hot dog vendors and office workers if the knowledge of Clinton's indiscretions and possible lying would invalidate him as a candidate in their eyes. They said no. Most just said, "Well, the economy is good!"
When Clinton won that election, I knew in my spirit that America had turned a corner and we would be judged. The quality of a man's heart did not matter...only the contents of our own wallet. I knew then there was no turning back. God was through with us.
Jake is thinking of moving to Canada. Because, he says, they have free health care and that's something to think about when you retire.
I think to many Americans, there is no longer anything special about being an American. Oh, sure, they tear up when they watch a commercial on TV with some country singer belting out a song about how good it is to be in the good old U. S. of A., with big old trucks romping in the background and a baby waving a little flag. But do they really think about what it means to be an American? Of the lives that were lost and the blood that was shed to make this the freest country on the face of the earth?
And we are letting it all slip away...because we don't care anymore.
I am so grieved. All the ranting and raving about the failings of our government does no good. Americans have given up on America. Just lie down. Let the vultures pick our bones.
But yesterday something happened. Yesterday I found out that "Jake" has never registered to vote. Not once in his entire life as a middle class American man has he ever registered to vote.
It stunned me.
He said, "Well, have you been happy with the elected officials we've had over the past few years?"
I honestly couldn't say that I have been, but at least I participate in the process.
I understood what he was saying...that it doesn't make any difference. The people that "the powers that be" want in office will get in office, and it doesn't matter what We the People do.
I pointed out that I had voted in every presidential election since before Reagan. (I think my first election was Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford.) And Jake nodded in fond remembrance. "I think I had more money to spend under Reagan."
Is that all people care about? Their pocketbook?
Is it all in vain?
Is all the blood, sweat and tears that went into forming and building this nation in vain? Have Americans forgotten their heritage? Have we forgotten who we are?
When my children were young, I took each and every one of them in the voting booth with me, to show them how it works. Since then, the three that are old enough to vote have registered, and I know at least two have voted in presidential elections. But maybe I am in the minority. Maybe most Americans only care about something when it affects them personally.
Like in their wallet.
I remember when Bill Clinton won his 2nd term in office. NPR did a "man-on-the-street" interview near a rally, and asked such people as hot dog vendors and office workers if the knowledge of Clinton's indiscretions and possible lying would invalidate him as a candidate in their eyes. They said no. Most just said, "Well, the economy is good!"
When Clinton won that election, I knew in my spirit that America had turned a corner and we would be judged. The quality of a man's heart did not matter...only the contents of our own wallet. I knew then there was no turning back. God was through with us.
Jake is thinking of moving to Canada. Because, he says, they have free health care and that's something to think about when you retire.
I think to many Americans, there is no longer anything special about being an American. Oh, sure, they tear up when they watch a commercial on TV with some country singer belting out a song about how good it is to be in the good old U. S. of A., with big old trucks romping in the background and a baby waving a little flag. But do they really think about what it means to be an American? Of the lives that were lost and the blood that was shed to make this the freest country on the face of the earth?
And we are letting it all slip away...because we don't care anymore.
I am so grieved. All the ranting and raving about the failings of our government does no good. Americans have given up on America. Just lie down. Let the vultures pick our bones.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Anchors
Charles Gibson has announced that he will retire as news anchor of ABC's "World News" at the end of this year. Diane Sawyer, co-host of ABC's "Good Morning America," is being promoted to replace Gibson. This development is a perfect picture of the progression of television news in the United States over recent decades...from journalism to mindless entertainment.
TV news has gone from masterful reporting by such reliable news men as Chet Huntley (NBC), Walter Cronkite (CBS), Charles Kuralt (CBS) and even sportscaster Jim McKay -- remembered for his powerful coverage of the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics -- to broadcasters more concerned with ratings than news.
Even in recent memory, some news anchors have tried to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity. Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather come to mind. Rather emphasized the fact that he considered TV news a part of the rich heritage of "the press" when he insisted that his title be "managing editor." Although he was only "editing" words others had written, to be sent out over airwaves rather than printed on a press, at least he remembered who he was, and was trying deliver to the American people what was truly newsworthy.
But TV news has slowly and surely descended into the murky existence of just one more entertainment medium. Anyone relying on TV news for their window on the world will have a terribly skewed picture of events.
Understand this: The Electronic Generation has a short attention span. They watch 1/2-hour segments of everything (less, if the remote is in the wrong hand). Broadcast news has the potential to be a gravy train for a television network. A good news program develops a loyal following. People feel as if they don't know what's going on in the world if they miss the news, and a comforting news anchor -- with a soothing voice and warm smile -- reassures his audience, when all around them seems to be in chaos.
This diamond in the rough is smoothed and polished by exciting "news" with flashy pictures.
If a really important bit of news has no pictures, or the story is too complicated to compress into a 60-second sound bite, it gets shoved to the bottom of the priority list...or never makes it on the news at all. Instead, what we get is short snippets of the exciting or titillating stories with color and lots of action ("O-o-oh, look at the shiny...")
When is the last time you heard a newscaster describe in detail a bill coming up before Congress (that affects us all)?
Okay, when's the last time you saw a big fire on the news (that affects 1,000 people, max)?
So, it's a given that TV news is heavily photo-dependent, and has no room for long stories. All the networks are the same on that score. Then what gives one network an edge over the others? The news anchor.
As the U.S. population has shifted inexorably to a young, heavily caffeinated, uneducated viewership, the selection of "news anchors" has followed suit: From older, wiser men in suits (Huntley, Brinkley, Kuralt) to educated -- though maybe not so wise -- middle-aged men in suits, to cheerful men with a "comforting presence" (as AP put it today, when describing outgoing Charlie Gibson), to -- at last -- a blonde.
I have nothing against a woman news anchor -- if she were a female counterpart to the journalists of times past who actually knew what they were talking about. Helen Thomas, maybe. But Diane Sawyer? Even Sawyer's co-host on Good Morning America -- Robin Roberts -- has more going for her, although she seemed a lot smarter some years back as a sportscaster, before she was "dumbed down" by her stint with Sawyer.
I remember the first time I watched Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. I was terribly offended by the way she spoke in a demeaning fashion about some Christians. I thought what she said was malicious. Some time later, however, I had the opportunity to watch her at greater length, and I had to laugh."Why, she's not malicious! She's just dumb!" She was simply ignorant...blonde! She's a good girl that grew up in the South, and doesn't understand a whole lot.
Which, apparently, is what the American people want. The United States has done in 200 years what it took the Roman Empire 2,000 years to do -- gone from a Republic with integrity to masses crying for "bread and circuses."
Are we not entertained?
TV news has gone from masterful reporting by such reliable news men as Chet Huntley (NBC), Walter Cronkite (CBS), Charles Kuralt (CBS) and even sportscaster Jim McKay -- remembered for his powerful coverage of the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics -- to broadcasters more concerned with ratings than news.
Even in recent memory, some news anchors have tried to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity. Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather come to mind. Rather emphasized the fact that he considered TV news a part of the rich heritage of "the press" when he insisted that his title be "managing editor." Although he was only "editing" words others had written, to be sent out over airwaves rather than printed on a press, at least he remembered who he was, and was trying deliver to the American people what was truly newsworthy.
But TV news has slowly and surely descended into the murky existence of just one more entertainment medium. Anyone relying on TV news for their window on the world will have a terribly skewed picture of events.
Understand this: The Electronic Generation has a short attention span. They watch 1/2-hour segments of everything (less, if the remote is in the wrong hand). Broadcast news has the potential to be a gravy train for a television network. A good news program develops a loyal following. People feel as if they don't know what's going on in the world if they miss the news, and a comforting news anchor -- with a soothing voice and warm smile -- reassures his audience, when all around them seems to be in chaos.
This diamond in the rough is smoothed and polished by exciting "news" with flashy pictures.
If a really important bit of news has no pictures, or the story is too complicated to compress into a 60-second sound bite, it gets shoved to the bottom of the priority list...or never makes it on the news at all. Instead, what we get is short snippets of the exciting or titillating stories with color and lots of action ("O-o-oh, look at the shiny...")
When is the last time you heard a newscaster describe in detail a bill coming up before Congress (that affects us all)?
Okay, when's the last time you saw a big fire on the news (that affects 1,000 people, max)?
So, it's a given that TV news is heavily photo-dependent, and has no room for long stories. All the networks are the same on that score. Then what gives one network an edge over the others? The news anchor.
As the U.S. population has shifted inexorably to a young, heavily caffeinated, uneducated viewership, the selection of "news anchors" has followed suit: From older, wiser men in suits (Huntley, Brinkley, Kuralt) to educated -- though maybe not so wise -- middle-aged men in suits, to cheerful men with a "comforting presence" (as AP put it today, when describing outgoing Charlie Gibson), to -- at last -- a blonde.
I have nothing against a woman news anchor -- if she were a female counterpart to the journalists of times past who actually knew what they were talking about. Helen Thomas, maybe. But Diane Sawyer? Even Sawyer's co-host on Good Morning America -- Robin Roberts -- has more going for her, although she seemed a lot smarter some years back as a sportscaster, before she was "dumbed down" by her stint with Sawyer.
I remember the first time I watched Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. I was terribly offended by the way she spoke in a demeaning fashion about some Christians. I thought what she said was malicious. Some time later, however, I had the opportunity to watch her at greater length, and I had to laugh."Why, she's not malicious! She's just dumb!" She was simply ignorant...blonde! She's a good girl that grew up in the South, and doesn't understand a whole lot.
Which, apparently, is what the American people want. The United States has done in 200 years what it took the Roman Empire 2,000 years to do -- gone from a Republic with integrity to masses crying for "bread and circuses."
Are we not entertained?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
