Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Tuesday 01-30-13

Going to be a little slow at blogging work is interfering, lol

The hypocrites are at it again, they shut down coal plants all over but the ones they use for them.

DC Power Plant Continues to Burn Coal, Environmentalists Fume

Washington, DC local residents and environmentalists gathered at a meeting room in a Methodist Church on Capitol Hill last Thursday to discuss their dissatisfaction with the Capitol Hill cogeneration plant.
The plant, which was completely coal fired for almost one hundred years, exclusively heats the capitol. However, since 2007, according to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the plant began to move from burning primarily coal to burning mostly natural gas--but not entirely. Coal is still burned at the plant, but the rate of its reduction is not fast enough for local environmentalists and lawmakers.
In March of 2009, anti-coal protesters blocked the gates of the nearly century old Capitol Power Plant for nearly four hours. No one was arrested. By May of that year, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – NV) announced that the plant would switch over to natural gas as its sole energy source. The promise was made in large part as an effort from Democrats to limit carbon emissions in the nation’s capitol.
However, despite the Democratic leaders agreeing in 2009 that the AOC could still use coal in three particular circumstances, green advocates claim the the AOC is not doing enough to completely eradicate coal from the capitol plant.
In an e-mail statement to Breitbart News, the AOC wrote:
In 2009, the Architect of the Capitol worked with Leader Pelosi and Senator Reid to address the request that the Capitol Power Plant move away from using coal. With Congress’s support, the Architect of the Capitol has made significant investments and improvements at the Plant over the past several years. However, the Architect must maintain the capability to potentially use some coal to ensure that it can provide uninterrupted service to Congress, and outlined 3 instances when coal would need to be used:
  • If there is an emergency and natural gas supplies are interrupted;
  • Abnormally cold conditions place higher than normal demands on the Plant;
  • Equipment outages or maintenance on the gas boilers require use of backup fuel.
The Leaders agreed to these terms, and since 2009, the Capitol Power Plant has worked within these terms, and has relied on natural gas as its primary fuel source. In addition, the AOC continues to provide information to the Leaders about annual fuel use at the Plant.
In Fiscal Year 2012, the Plant relied on natural gas for 92% of its energy needs. By comparison, in 2005, the Plant relied on natural gas 42% of the time.
The AOC has identified the construction of a cogeneration plant as the most environmentally and economically beneficial way to meet its goal to use natural gas 100% of the time, and Congress has been supportive of this project.
After more than 100 years in operation, significant investment is needed to replace aging infrastructure and to install new, energy-efficient equipment in the Plant, and implementing cogeneration will allow the Plant to discontinue the use of its 60-year-old, less energy efficient coal boilers.
Washington DC Councilman Tommy Wells sent a letter to Stephen Ours, Chief of the Permitting Branch of DC Air and Quality Division, to oppose "any permits that would allow the Capitol Power Plant to continue, and potentially expand pollution emissions." Wells references the Pelosi and Reid push to rid the plant of coal four years ago saying, "In 2009, positive steps were taken to reduce coal use at the plant. However, it appears many of those advances were undermined and coal use is as prominent as ever."
The DC Chapter’s Sierra Club stated late last week that “recently, the Defense Logistics Agency solicited bids for 20,000 tons of coal for delivery to the Plant in 2013. This comes to more than 220,000 pounds of coal burned per day during heating season.”
The Sierra Club and Washington DC Councilman Tommy Wells claim the emissions from the portion of the plant will cause “significant health hazards to children in the area,” Wells said in his opposition letter to Ours.
Advocates for coal energy disagree, saying that governmental entities like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "exaggerate" coal energy's "health risks," and that the EPA "relies on dubious co-benefits to make the utility MACT rule look reasonable." The MACT standard is, according to the EPA, "a level of control that was introduced by Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments."
In a letter, the AOC responded to complaints from environmentalists:
While the AOC has reduced coal use at the CPP over the past several years, it cannot cease using coal until the new cogeneration plant is constructed. As a result, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) secures a certain quantity of coal for the AOC should any of the three circumstances listed above occur.

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire created a lot of concern Monday afternoon in one Houston neighborhood.
  We received a lot of phones calls, Tweets and Facebook posts from worried neighbors, wondering what was going on.
SkyEye 13 HD was over the south side where at first look, it appeared there was a massive SWAT scene happening.
With military helicopters flying above her southeast Houston neighborhood, Frances Jerrals didn't know what to think.
"When you see this, you think the worst. When you hear this, you think the worst," Jerrals said.
And so, she passed along her concern.
"She told me 'don't come home it sounds like we're in a war zone. Guns, shooting, helicopters flying around the house,'" Isaac Robertson Jr. said.
The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the old Carnegie Vanguard High School near Scott and Airport. There were armed men in fatigues, plenty of weapons and what many thought were real live rounds
"I felt like I was in a warzone." Jerrals said. "It was nonstop. I was terrified."
Turns out, it was a multi-agency training drill that Jerrals wished would have come with warning.
"They could have done a better job in notifying the neighborhood," Jerrals said.
The Army did not give any details of what the training is for. Some people we spoke to needed no explanation.
"If it's to protect our kids, I'm all for it," neighbor Glenn DeWitt said.

And an email from a friend asked a good question, if it is ok for them to have personal defense, but it is not for us?

Homeland Security Wants 7,000 AR-15s For “Personal Defense”
While the feds are busy trying to find ways to ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use, they’ve been buying them for themselves. New York State Senator Greg Hall, a Republican, issued a press release last week bringing this issue to light
General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP) on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and member components such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking over 7,000 AR-15’s and matching 30 round clips.”
So, what’s the feds’ excuse? Well, these AR-15s are for “personal defense,” particularly for “use in close quarters.” Apparently, they’re really good for that. So, why can’t American “civilians” have them for personal defense use in close quarters as well? Because although all people are equal, some are more equal than others
Homeland Security continues to buy up all the ammo and guns while demonizing gun owners. They’ve already declared protests to be forms of low-level terrorism. So all those people marching in protest against gun control measures were committing low-level acts of terrorism according to DHS. But what about all those people protesting in favor of gun control? Those are just people exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Monday 01-29-13

No big surpise here, because you do what you want when you believe you are better than everyone else,

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a far-reaching decision that could severely limit a chief executive's powers to make recess appointments.
The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit marked a victory for Republicans and business groups critical of the labor board. If it stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions over the past year, including some that make it easier for unions to organize.
When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions - some lasting less than a minute - were a sham.
The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.
"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.
The Justice Department hinted that the administration would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which was rendered by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.
The court acknowledged that the ruling conflicts with what some other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.
"I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers," said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond. "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."
The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate case.
Carney insisted the court's ruling affects only a single case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.
The case challenging the recess appointments was brought by Noel Canning, a Washington state bottling company that claimed an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were not properly appointed. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed.
Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.
But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic - as Democrats had done in the past - specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.
The three-judge panel flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed that the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.
"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, 2012, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."
If the ruling stands, it would invalidate more than 600 board decisions issued over the past year. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
All three vacancies on the labor board had been open for months before Obama acted to fill them.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa called the ruling "a radical departure from precedent" and argued that Obama had no choice but to act.
"Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board's legal authority to act," Harkin said.
If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruled invalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.

90 percent of whooping cough outbreak victims are already vaccinated against whooping cough

The utter failure of the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine to provide any real protection against disease is once again on display for the world to see, as yet another major outbreak of the condition has spread primarily throughout the vaccinated community. As it turns out, 90 percent of those affected by an ongoing whooping cough epidemic that was officially declared in the state of Vermont on December 13, 2012, were vaccinated against the condition -- and some of these were vaccinated two or more times in accordance with official government recommendations.

As reported by the Burlington Free Press, at least 522 cases of whooping cough were confirmed by Vermont authorities last month, which was about 10 times the normal amount from previous years. Since that time, nearly 100 more cases have been confirmed, bringing the official total as of January 15, 2013, to 612 cases. The majority of those affected, according to Vermont state epidemiologist Patsy Kelso, are in the 10-14-year-old age group, and 90 percent of those confirmed have already been vaccinated one or more times for pertussis.

Even so, Kelso and others are still urging both adults and children to get a free pertussis shot at one of the free clinics set up throughout the state, insisting that both the vaccine and the Tdap booster for adults "are 80 to 90 percent effective." Clearly this is not the case, as evidenced by the fact that those most affected in the outbreak have already been vaccinated, but officials are apparently hoping that the public is too naive or disengaged to notice this glaring disparity between what is being said and what is actually occurring.

Vast majority of those affected by all recent whooping cough outbreaks were already vaccinated
A study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) tells a similar story, showing that among the various whooping cough outbreaks that have occurred across the country throughout the past few years, as many as 80 percent of those affected had already received multiple Tdap vaccinations, some up to six doses. What this implies, of course, is that not only is the Tdap vaccine medically useless, but it may also be the driving force behind the outbreaks themselves.

Besides potentially helping to spread the disease itself, the whooping cough vaccine is also implicated in causing serious side effects such as encephalitis, convulsions, and brain inflammation, according to an extensive report compiled by Heidi Stevenson over at Gaia Health. Dating back as far as 1933, the whooping cough vaccine has even been tied to causing sudden infant death syndrome, also known as crib or cot death, a condition in which a child suddenly dies for no apparent reason.
In a similar display of vaccine uselessness, another recent study, also published in NEJM, found that 97 percent of children affected by a 2009 mumps outbreak in New York had already been vaccinated for the condition. Embarrassingly, roughly 90 percent of those who contracted mumps in this particular outbreak had also received a mumps booster shot, further highlighting the fraud of this particular vaccine.

Sources for this article include:

New Credit Card 'Checkout Fee' Arrives This Weekend

This Sunday marks the first day that consumers could start paying an extra fee just for using their credit card to make purchases. But don't panic: It's unlikely to kick in right away, especially at the biggest retailers.

The fee in question is widely described as a "checkout fee," and starting on Jan. 27, retailers will have the option of charging it on any purchase made with a credit card. The fee came about as a result of a settlement reached in July 2012 between merchants and credit card networks, and is intended to help defray the costs of the swipe fees charged by those networks. As such, it can't be higher than what the merchant actually pays as a swipe fee -- usually between 1.5% and 3% of the transaction.
Retailers, she says, are more likely to introduce the fee gradually. "It might creep into costs of shopping over time."
f you don't live in one of those 10 states, though, you could potentially see signs alerting you about checkout fees as early as this Sunday. If you do, you can avoid them by paying with cash or a debit card -- or by taking your business elsewhere.

List of Sheriffs Standing Up Against Obama’s Gun Control (Updated)

up to 176 now and counting, more everyday.  none from my home state, alot of Utah and New Mexico.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Sunday 01-27-13

Owe No Man
By Pastor David F. Reagan
  Romans 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

I hate debt. I have been in personal debt two times in my life (the first time was for medical bills and the second time for taxes). In both cases, the problems went far beyond their original causes and it took several years to get out. The last time we cut back many things (sold our house and rented an old one, went to one older car, got a new job, etc.) in order to get out of debt. To this day I fight like crazy to stay out of new debt. Even the church where I pastor has no debt–not on equipment, land or buildings. My only personal debt is the house mortgage we have and current bills.
However, I also hate the blatant misapplication of scripture. Some men are using Romans 13:8 as proof that any debt under any circumstances is a sin. When the Bible says, "Owe no man any thing," it must mean anything! Right? Well, not necessarily. I am even prepared to prove that these men do not mean anything in a universal sense. They are correct in opposing the evils of excessive debt and easy credit. They are correct in fighting the lack of faith that is usually the hallmark of debt-ridden believers. However, this does not justify the harm done by the serious misinterpretation of this text. Let me explain.
First, look at the text and the context. Paul says, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." What has Paul been dealing with in this passage? He has been dealing with the error of some believers who feel no need to pay their taxes because they are not of this world. Paul’s answer is, "Render therefore to all their dues." Whether tribute, custom, fear or honor; if you owe it to them, then give it as they require.
In other words, if anyone has a proper expectation of us; if we owe them–then we should pay it. This matches the teaching of Proverbs 3:27-28: "Withhold not good from them to who it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy neighbor, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee." Do not put someone off when it is their right and they claim it. Give them what you owe them to the best of your ability.
But, does this passage also teach that it is a sin to borrow for any reason? Well, just consider. If it is wrong to borrow money, then it is also wrong to borrow a ladder or a saw because as long as it is in my hand, I owe it to the man who really owns it. The verse does not say, "Owe no man any money"; it says, "Owe no man any thing." If it means, "Do not under any circumstances borrow," as some have interpreted it, then it would include things as well as money.
Another thing that bothers me about this interpretation is that it makes Romans 13:8 the only verse in the Bible that makes borrowing a sin. Yes, I know, "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender" (Pr.22:7). Yet, notice the parallelism. If it is not a sin to be poor, then it must not be a sin to be a borrower. The negative nature of borrowing is akin to the negative nature of being sick. It is not desirable but neither is it a sin. I suppose the person who readily goes into debt when it is not necessary would be like a person who readily exposes himself to various diseases and becomes sick. Both of these men are foolish though not necessarily wicked.
So, as I said, there are no other verses in the Bible that teach the sinfulness of debt. Certainly, any debt entered into out of God’s will is a sin. But this is not the same as calling all debt sin. On several occasions, Jesus used debt in His parables (Mt.18:23-35; Lk.7:41-43;16:1-9). In none of these parables is the debtor evil because of his debt–unless you consider the debtor who was condemned because he would not show mercy on those who owed him. Also, why did Elisha not condemn the widow woman of 2 Kings 4 for not having enough faith? Why did he not tell her to repent and seek forgiveness? Rather, he fixed the problem as an answer to her request for help.

Consider the fact that under the law protection was given to those in debt. "If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down" (Ex.22:26). The pledge was the poor man’s collateral. Yet, the loaner was not even allowed to keep the man’s pledge over night–even if the debt had not been paid. Now tell me, if going into debt is a sin, why did God protect the sinner in his sin? Did God give this kind of protection to those who lie or murder or worship false gods? Of course not! Would God be a righteous God if He protected sinners in their sin? No! Yet there is more. God commanded those who have money to freely lend to those who are in need. Consider these verses:
Deuteronomy 15:7 - "If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within thy of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth."
Now if borrowing is a sin, God is commanding His people to help those wanting to commit this sin in their sin. This is like saying that if a man wants to commit murder, give him a gun and show him how to use it; if a man wants to commit adultery, drive him to the red light district and give him the money he needs for the deed. This is terribly inconsistent. My God is not inconsistent.
In conclusion, let me say this. The Bible clearly teaches that financial debt is a negative to be avoided if at all possible. We are to walk by faith and the majority of borrowing done by Christians today is a neon sign revealing their lack of faith and their inability to control their desires. Wisdom leads away from debt and toward debt-free living. In today’s society, many are led into debt by foolishness. Yet, there are also debts incurred for proper causes.

Let me close with one personal example. Early in our marriage, my wife and I stayed pretty much debt-free. (I remember that we bought one small item on credit just to establish some credit.) After two years of marriage, we had our first child on the way. We pulled together the $500 fee for the doctor (it was cheaper back then). We also had insurance. As the time for delivery came close, my wife started having some complications. As it turned out, she had a toxemia pregnancy and labor had to be induced early.
Our insurance only covered a maximum of $500 for the hospital visit. Believer it or not, this would have covered a major portion of a normal delivery. Yet, this was not a normal delivery. In fact, the hospital and doctor bills came to around $5,000. So, did I struggle over this debt I was incurring? Was it a lapse of faith that made me allow the doctors to do whatever they thought necessary to save mother and child? Should I have pulled her out of the hospital and told her that we were going to have faith?
Do not tell me that this is different. I went into debt that week. In fact, I incurred debt to about ten different medical services. It took us several years to get out of this debt. If going into debt is a sin, then I sinned that week. But I do not believe that it was. You can judge me if you want, but I would do it again in a heartbeat and never look back. Please, let us not get into extremes that take us where God would not have us go.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Saturday 01-26-13

This is the typical mindset of a life long liberal and or life long politican

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.

The Huffington Post confirms these exemptions, and adds that guns owned prior to the legislation becoming law will be permissible, too. "[T]he bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill's enactment."

The bill's measures include stopping "the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named military-style firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It would also ban an additional group of assault weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have at least one military characteristic," according to the Huffington Post.

The left-leaning website adds: "Other new provisions include requiring background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered under the bill and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original ban to expire."

This picture remind you of any agency?


Friday, January 25, 2013

Friday 01-25-13

Proposed Mo. bill: Make parents tell school if they own guns

ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - Ever since the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, gun control has been a hot topic. Now comes word of a Missouri lawmaker who wants any parent who owns guns to notify their child's school.
The lawmaker says she hopes the already filed bill will bring awareness to schools and to parents about keeping their guns locked up.
It's the next idea in a long list of proposed ideas for gun control, making it mandatory for parents to notify their child's school about their gun supply.
"I am not trying to take away the gun rights of any parents or any other citizens I believe in the second amendment," says State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal.
She says she wants the violence in schools to stop and this is just one different idea that no one has brought up.
"It encourages parents to make sure they store their guns safely in their home, it also gives the school districts the opportunity to help encourage gun safety in the community and in the household," says the Senator.
"I agree with it, we need to know because a lot of parents aren't governing their homes properly," says parent Danaelle Stidum.
Some parents say the bill doesn't focus the attention on the parents that need to be focused on.
"It concerns me a bit because I think the parents that would have no problem registering the guns aren't the ones you have to worry about, I think it's the ones who don't or who are obtained by the students without their parents knowledge that's the concern," says parent Bill Koster.
The principal of Brentwood High School says the information may help the police more than the school district and what about blaming a parent for guns in their house they don't even know about?
"Maybe a student obtaining a weapon without the parent even knowing about it," says Principal Don Rugraff.
"I understand what they are trying to do, but making us notify them if we have guns is not going to deter the behavior what makes people do what they do with guns," says parent Kris Mills.
This proposal is one of only a handful in Missouri's house and senate. NewsChannel 5's political analyst Dave Robertson told me he's surprised that there aren't more bills being proposed about gun control, but the chances of any bills about the issue being passed is slim to none because of the political atmosphere between the lawmakers and the governor.     When to Treat a Cough With Antibiotics   by James Hubbard, MD, MPH
In case you haven’t noticed, it’s the cold and flu season. In fact my last few posts have dealt with “Flu Shots: The Good and the Bad,” things you can to do if you get the flu, and “How NOT to Die From the Flu.”

But now, your cold or flu symptoms are over, except for that lingering cough. Do you need antibiotics? How long can a cough linger and just be related to getting over your virus?

Two new studies investigate these questions and give some surprising (at least to me) findings—findings that I think might help you decide for yourself, especially if you can’t get medical help and antibiotics are in short supply.

First you should know that the majority of bronchial (lung) infections are caused by viruses. Antibiotics don’t kill viruses. And yet we doctors continue to prescribe them for most of those types of infections. Why?

Well, for one reason we’re trying to please you patients. I know that’s a kind of wimpy excuse but it’s true. Many patients get upset if they’ve gone to the trouble to come in for an office visit for a lingering cough, and all they hear is that it’s probably viral; take some over-the-counter somethings and it’ll run its course. Many see it as wasted time and money.
So, prescribing antibiotics is easier than asking you to wait, give your body a chance to fight it off, and come back if you’re not better in a week or two.
Don’t like that excuse? Okay, how about this? We’re afraid we’re going miss the few episodes of bronchitis (inflammation in the lungs that causes coughing) that are bacterial. Even from a detailed history and exam, it can be hard to tell for sure. We’re worried we might miss one, and then you have to come back in worse than ever, or even end up in the hospital—or that we might be missing an early bacterial pneumonia. You can die from that you know.
So what’s the big deal? Why not just antibiotics for all?

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Thursday 01-24-13

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?
by Thomas Sowell
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.
If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.
But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.
The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven.
Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting – even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.
Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.
These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.
We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don't know – and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don't have the facts.
The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one – certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.
Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.
How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.
But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither – especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.
When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.
One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.
Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to "make a statement" – but all at the cost of other people's lives.
Good for them, smart guys
Missouri Sheriffs Pledge To Not Enforce Obama’s Gun Control Laws
Collin County Sheriff Won't Enforce Gun Laws That He Says Violate Constitution

And why should this suprise anyone?  Evolution as defined by the present day scientists is a farce, now all they have to do is get the dating correct.

DNA links early human to present peoples

LEIPZIG, Germany, Jan. 22 (UPI) --
Researchers say ancient DNA suggests humans living 40,000 years in China were likely related to many present-day Asians and American Indians.

 Scientists sequencing nuclear and mitochondrial DNA extracted from the leg of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave near Beijing say the Tianyuan human shared a common origin with the ancestors of many present-day Asians and indigenous American peoples, a release from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said Tuesday.

 Humans with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago, but the genetic relationships between these early modern humans and present-day human populations had not yet been established, researchers said.

 The genetic profile of the Tianhuan remains reveals this early modern human was related to the ancestors of many present-day Asians and Native Americans but had already diverged genetically from the ancestors of present-day Europeans, they said.

 "This individual lived during an important evolutionary transition when early modern humans, who shared certain features with earlier forms such as Neanderthals, were replacing Neanderthals and Denisovans, who later became extinct," researcher Svante Paabo said.

 "More analyses of additional early modern humans across Eurasia will further refine our understanding of when and how modern humans spread across Europe and Asia," Paabo said.

For any of you that are priviacy minded, For anyone interested, i came across these link on another site.

PGP ver 8 (with install instructions)
Installing PGP 8.0 Freeware

How It Works
Professional Privacy Protection is our Cause

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Wednesday 01-23-13

Will history repeat it self?  Better to take steps now

When Citizen Vigilantes Busted Food Hoarders

This 1918 letter, from a member of a citizens’ vigilante group calling itself the American Protective League to an official of the wartime U.S. Food Administration, reported on a food stash found in a Berkeley, Calif. home.
The Foran family, “reported to be hoarding food,” had “25 or 30 cases of foodstuffs” in their basement, including cans of such staples as corn, peaches, pork and beans, as well as a supply of plum pudding, pimientos, and beer. Mrs. Foran protested that she had carefully followed rationing rules in her purchase of flour and sugar, and explained that the family possessed so many canned goods because the father bought food wholesale every year.

While no action probably resulted from this raid, as the Forans were able to prove that they’d followed rationing guidelines, it’s astonishing to a modern reader to see that it was legal for a citizen group to enter another citizen’s home on the strength of a tip. Historian Joan Jensen writes that the Protective League flourished because the Attorney General, Thomas Watt Gregory, wanted to expand the authority of his Bureau of Investigation (which would later become the FBI). Desperate to make spectacular busts of German spies living inside the United States borders, Gregory authorized a Chicago advertising executive to bring together a group of volunteers—mostly businessmen—to help investigate suspects. The organization issued its own badges and awarded its members ranks and medals.
In practice, rather than bring in German spies, the APL ended up carrying out more prosaic missions: ferreting out food hoarders, hunting down draft-dodgers, and “protecting” factories with government contracts (which often meant union-busting).
In 1919, with the war safely over, Attorney General Gregory—who had begun to worry about the APL’s authority in the lives of everyday citizens—dismissed its members from service.

I have mixed feeling on this one, on the one had i agree with capital punishment, it is a deterrent, if for no one other then those that committed the crime, they will never do a criminal act again.  It only works when you have honest leadership.  On the other hand they are giving death sentences for non death events.  But think about the Mullahs and rich in that country, they could take better care for their people and make them productive members, creating a way for them to work and make a living give them something to hope for then they would cut there crime rate. 
We here in the US believe we are making it better for the poor man, but we are only making it worse for him, we dont make them earn anything, hence they have nothing to urge them to be productive members of society.  We only keep them in bondage and the paymaster our the new owners.

Iran Resorts to Hangings in Public to Cut Crime

TEHRAN — An eerie silence filled the air as a crowd of around 300 gathered Sunday just before sunrise in a Tehran park. They awaited the arrival of two young men who were about to die.

The condemned stood shoulder to shoulder, motionless, in front of two police trucks with two nooses hanging from extendable cranes, about 15 feet high. Black-clad executioners were inspecting the remote controls they would use to hang the men, both in their early 20s, who were convicted of stabbing a man in November and stealing his bag and the equivalent of $20. '
From behind a makeshift barrier of scaffolding, the crowd jostled for position. “Let’s move to the other side,” one spectator whispered to his wife, pointing to the spot where Iranian state television cameras had been set up. “I think we will have a better view from there.”
Although every year hundreds of convicts are hanged in Iran, a public hanging in a central park in Tehran is a rare event. Most hangings take place inside prisons, according to Iranian judicial officials and international human rights organizations.
Sunday’s execution in Park-e Honarmandan (Artists Park), near the crime scene, was part of a heavy-handed offensive by Iranian authorities, who say they are trying to prevent rising crime rates from getting out of hand by setting harsh examples. In recent weeks, public executions have been stepped up, and in several large cities the police have been rounding up what they call thugs and hooligans.
Police commanders and other officials blame government mismanagement of the economy — which they say has caused a rise in unemployment and inflation — for the increase in crime. International economic sanctions have aggravated problems, many here say, leading to a record gap between rich and poor in Iran.
While no official statistics are publicly available, officials report a rise in violent crimes, mostly perpetrated by young men attacking their victims with knives to get money and other valuables. Local news media report only a fraction of the episodes, but at social gatherings of middle-class Iranians — the usual targets — horrific stories of theft, kidnapping, rape and home burglaries abound.
“Two young men entered my house two weeks ago and beat me senseless,” said Manijeh, 54, a homemaker from north Tehran, a more affluent section of the city. The intruders bound her arms and legs and beat her, asking for the location of the safe, she said. “But we don’t have a safe,” said Manijeh, who declined to reveal her surname out of fear that the burglars would return. They stole her car, ransacked her home and took nearly everything inside, she said.
“Our city has become completely unsafe,” said Manijeh, speaking after her recent release from a hospital. “These things would never happen until some years ago. We need the harshest measures to stop these criminals.”
Armin, 30, an engineer, said his father was recently robbed and beaten by a gang of thieves on motorcycles. “They hit him hard, but afterwards he received an anonymous call telling him where to find his bag,” he said. “They took all his money but returned his documents.”
On Sunday, the two condemned men, Alireza Mafiha, 23, and Mohammad Ali Sarvari, 20, stood before the onlookers, many of whom said they were family members and friends.
“They have shaved his hair,” said one young man pointing at Mr. Mafiha who said he knew both men. Mr. Sarvari, baby-faced, stared wide-eyed into the crowd.
The two men, both unemployed and from poor families, had been caught two months ago on a security camera robbing a man and stabbing him, helped by two accomplices. Video from the crime spread on the Internet and caused a widespread uproar, prompting politicians and clerics to call for harsh measures.
Two weeks later, all four men were arrested. The head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, made it clear in comments on the crime that even though their victim had not died, a death sentence for the two main defendants, Mr. Mafiha and Mr. Sarvari, was likely. “We need to act assertively and increase the costs for those committing street crimes,” he said, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.
During their trial, Mr. Mafiha said he needed money to pay for an operation for his mother. He and Mr. Sarvari had both lost their fathers at an early age, their lawyer explained. “We needed the money because of poverty; I am sorry,” said Mr. Mafiha, the semiofficial Iranian Students’ News Agency reported in December.
Judge Abdolghassem Salavati, notorious for his harsh treatment of those arrested during intense street protests in 2009, convicted both men of being “mohareb,” a Shiite legal term that translates as “waging war against God”; the crime carries the death sentence in Iran. Judge Salavati said the two men had threatened public security and caused fear and intimidation. He sentenced each of their two accomplices to 10 years in prison, followed by five years in exile in a provincial town, and also to 74 lashes. '
Many in Tehran applauded the harsh sentence for Mr. Mafiha and Mr. Sarvari, saying they hoped that it would make criminals think twice about attacking people. But others doubted that would happen.
“The number of quarrels, suicide, murder and crime are all up,” Amanollah Qaraei Moghadam, a sociologist, recently wrote on Mellat Online, an Internet news site. “It is 100 percent clear the situation will not change unless the economy improves.”
Other critics said the punishment was far too severe. “Why were these men executed? They didn’t kill anybody,” said Saleh Nikbakht, a lawyer who regularly defends dissidents and political activists. “More severe punishments will not mean there will be less crimes. We have deeper problems.”
On Sunday, as the sun slowly started rising in the east of Tehran, the executioners led Mr. Mafiha and Mr. Sarvari to the cranes. Three young women in the crowd begged for forgiveness, but a representative of Iran’s judiciary described the crime and read out the verdict.
Mr. Mafiha, in tears, laid his head on the shoulder of one of the executioners, who placed his arm around him. After the nooses were placed around their necks, both men were pulled up by the two cranes. They died silently as many in the crowd shouted in protest, while others used smartphone cameras to record the scene.
“This is not fair,” said one young man, crying loudly while being dragged away by another friend. “If they hadn’t been caught on camera this would have never happened to them.”

Just think of all the children that will and never saw their first birthday becasue of

As Roe v. Wade Turns 40, Foes Focus on State Capitols

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Tuesday 01-22-13

A new Gold Standard is being born

The world is moving step by step towards a de facto Gold Standard, without any meetings of G20 leaders to announce the idea or bless the project.
Some readers will already have seen the GFMS Gold Survey for 2012 which reported that central banks around the world bought more bullion last year in terms of tonnage than at any time in almost half a century.
They added a net 536 tonnes in 2012 as they diversified fresh reserves away from the four fiat suspects: dollar, euro, sterling, and yen.
The Washington Accord, where Britain, Spain, Holland, Switzerland, and others sold a chunk of their gold each year, already seems another era – the Gordon Brown era, you might call it.
That was the illusionary period when investors thought the euro would take its place as the twin pillar of a new G2 condominium alongside the dollar. That hope has faded. Central bank holdings of euro bonds have fallen back to 26pc, where they were almost a decade ago.
Neither the euro nor the dollar can inspire full confidence, although for different reasons. EMU is a dysfunctional construct, covering two incompatible economies, prone to lurching from crisis to crisis, without a unified treasury to back it up. The dollar stands on a pyramid of debt. We all know that this debt will be inflated away over time – for better or worse. The only real disagreement is over the speed.
The central bank buyers are of course the rising powers of Asia and the commodity bloc, now holders of two thirds of the world’s $11 trillion foreign reserves, and all its incremental reserves.
It is no secret that China is buying the dips, seeking to raise the gold share of its reserves well above 2pc. Russia has openly targeted a 10pc share. Variants of this are occurring from the Pacific region to the Gulf and Latin America. And now the Bundesbank has chosen to pull part of its gold from New York and Paris.
Personally, I doubt that Buba had any secret agenda, or knows something hidden from the rest of us. It responded to massive popular pressure and prodding from lawmakers in the Bundestag to bring home Germany’s gold. Yet that is not the end of the story. The fact that this popular pressure exists – and is well-organised – reflects a breakdown in trust between the major democracies and economic powers. It is a new political fact in the global system.
Pimco’s Mohammed El Erian said this may have a knock-on effect:
“In the first instance, it could translate into pressures on other countries to also repatriate part of their gold holdings. After all, if you can safely store your gold at home — a big if for some countries — no government would wish to be seen as one of the last to outsource all of this activity to foreign central banks.
If developments are limited to this problem, there would be no material impact on the functioning and well-being of the global economy. If, however, perceptions of growing mutual mistrusts translate into larger multilateral tensions, then the world would find itself facing even greater difficulties resolving payments imbalances and resisting beggar-thy-neighbour national policies.
“The most likely outcome right now is for Germany’s decision to have minimum systemic impact. But should this be wrong and the decision fuel greater suspicion – a risk scenario rather than the baseline – the resulting hit to what remains in multilateral policy co-operation would be problematic for virtually everybody.
As I reported on Tuesday, gold veteran Jim Sinclair thinks it is an earthquake, comparing it to Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull French gold from New York in the late 1960s – the precursor to the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system three years later when Nixon suspended gold conversion.
Mr Sinclair predicts that the Bundesbank’s action will prove the death knell of dollar power. I do not really see where this argument leads. Currencies were fixed in de Gaulle’s time. They float today. It is within the EMU fixed-exchange system – ie between Germany and Spain – that we see an (old) Gold Standard dynamic at work with all its destructive power, and the risk of sudden ruptures always present. The global system is supple. It bends to pressures.
My guess is that any new Gold Standard will be sui generis, and better for it. Let gold will take its place as a third reserve currency, one that cannot be devalued, and one that holds the others to account, but not so dominant that it hitches our collective destinies to the inflationary ups (yes, gold was highly inflationary after the Conquista) and the deflationary downs of global mine supply. That would indeed be a return to a barbarous relic.
Hopefully, it will be nothing like the interwar system. That was a dollar peg that transmitted US deflation to the whole world when the Fed tightened too hard in 1928 and went berserk in 1930.
A third reserve currency is just what America needs. As Prof Micheal Pettis from Beijing University has argued, holding the world’s reserve currency is an “exorbitant burden” that the US could do without.
The Triffin Dilemma – advanced by the Belgian economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s – suggests that the holder of the paramount currency faces an inherent contradiction.

It must run a structural trade deficit over time to keep the system afloat, but this will undermine its own economy. The system self-destructs.
A partial Gold Standard – created by the global market, and beholden to nobody – is the best of all worlds. It offers a store of value (though no yield). It acts a balancing force. It is not dominant enough to smother the system.
Let us have three world currencies, a tripod with a golden leg. It might even be stable.

Some (stuff they call) news i purposeful skip one of the recent articles was about how the NRA in an advertisement used an example of the putting guards in schools, saying  something like, well if it is good enough for the presidents kids it ought to be good enough for everyone's kids.  Well then some of the MSM get on the advertisement and say it is unfair (which was one of the more mild responses) well what hypocrites, they want to do as they have for so long, use the news and then shape it for you so you dont have to decide they do it for you.  You need to think for yourself.

Speaking of ignorant and not thinking just parroting what someone told we have the opinion of Danny Glover good actor but pretty stupid. imo. 

Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”
“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.
Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and “Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’ talking points prior to his speech.
“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think that’s where some of that came from.”
Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

(excerpt from article)

Easier Flashlight Mod Increases Run Time 3.6X    

We are going to take a long run time flashlight (65 hours) and turn it into a longer run time flashlight (Update: The title of this Instructable says 3.6x run time but actual run time ended up being over 360 hours).

 Yes it is another long run time flashlight hack. This one is easier than my other one. All you need a resistor, a soldering iron and this flashlight.

This Eveready flashlight (model number 5109LSH7 or 5109LS) costs $4.97 at Lowes:
(This is a great long run time flashlight to have even if you don’t do the modification.)
Where to buy:|0

I just picked up another one at my local Lowes. I like this flashlight because as is it has a long run time before the battery needs to be replaced (65 hours). It is bright. It is cheap and it is easy to hack. You can do this hack in 10 or 15 minutes and most of that time will be waiting for your soldering iron to heat up.
The only thing about this flashlight that is less than optimum is that the 3 LEDS have a little too much current going through them. The LEDS appear to be “straw hat” type (20 milliamp) LEDS. Each LED has about 60 milliamps running through it.

Here is a data sheet for a straw hat LED:
The LEDS in this flashlight may be specially made to handle more current but in case they are not, this modification will bring the current down to a level that will insure tens of thousands of hours of LED life.
I chose to add a 56 ohm resistor to the circuit so each LED runs at about 16.5 milliamps. This will increase the run time by 3.6 times.
The other step by step instructable to make a long run time flashlight is here:

Either one will be good to have in an extended power outage.

Step 1


You will need to unscrew the black ring that hold the clear plastic cover on the front of the flashlight. Then remove the assembly shown in the picture above. Install the battery and re-assemble the flashlight. Test the flashlight to make sure it works. Remove the rind and assembly shown in the picture above. Un-solder one of the two red wires from it’s metal contact. I chose the one on the left.


Step 2

Solder The Resistor

Now lets select a resistor. I chose a 56 ohm resistor which reduced the current in the circuit going to the 3 LEDS to 50 milliamps (it was 180 milliamps before the modification). Here are some other resistor values and the currents I measured:
44 ohms (two 22 ohm in series) = 56 milliamps

You may want to try out some other resistors for longer run time or higher brightness. I was going for 200+ hours of run time which is about a month of use if used 6 hours a day.

100 ohms = 31 milliamps
Solder one end of the resistor to the metal contact and the other end of the resistor to the wire that was originally attached to the metal contact.


Step 3


The first picture shows the light from an unmodified flashlight on the left and a modified flashlight on the right. Note that the light on the right is produced using 3.6 times less power or about 28% of the power to produce the light on the left. The picture of the warning sign was taken using only the light from the modified flashlight at a distance of 18 feet (camera on zoom).

Long run time flashlights make great gifts. Make several for the people on your gift list. They are also great for emergencies. This one is good for a 3.6 x bigger emergency.
Update 11-10-12.

I started a test to see how long the batteries would last running 24 hours a day. The test started on the morning of 10-26-12. I was expecting a 200 hour run time. After 15 days (360 hours). The flashlight still puts out a usable amount of light. I can still read with it without any problem. I also got the opinion of a fellow flashlight enthusiast who thinks the flashlight is still useful for its intended purpose which is for the user to be able to easily see their way around the house in the dark and be able to easily read. The flashlight is noticeably dimmer than it was at the beginning of the test so I would conclude that this is a 360 hour flashlight. It has exceeded my expectations because the run time has been increased 5.5x. If I was using this flashlight 6 hours a day the test would have taken 60 days to get to this point.
If this had been a real emergency I would gladly use this flashlight several more days.