Monday, February 28, 2011

Foreclosures helping change color of some suburbs

Cheaper housing costs open suburbs up to lower income Detroit residents, sowing conflict 

, On Monday February 28, 2011, 12:02 am EST
 
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (AP) -- Three years ago, Lamar Grace left Detroit for the suburb of Southfield. He got a good deal -- a 3,000-square-foot colonial that once was worth $220,000. In foreclosure, he paid $109,000.
The neighbors were not pleased.
"They don't want to live next door to ghetto folks," he says.
That his neighbors are black, like Grace, is immaterial. Many in the black middle class moved out of Detroit and settled in the northern suburbs years ago; now, due to foreclosures, it is easy to buy or rent houses on the cheap here. The result has been a new, poorer wave of arrivals from the city, and growing tensions between established residents and the newcomers.
"There's a way in which they look down on people moving in from Detroit into houses they bought for much lower prices," says Grace, a 39-year-old telephone company analyst. "I understand you want to keep out the riffraff, but it's not my fault you paid $250,000 and I paid a buck."
The neighbors say there's more to it than that. People like John Clanton, a retired auto worker, say the new arrivals have brought behavior more common in the inner city -- increased trash, adults and children on the streets at all times of the night, a disregard for others' property.
"During the summer months, I sat in the garage and at 3 o'clock in the morning you see them walking up and the down the streets on their cell phones talking," Clanton says. "They pull up (in cars) in the middle of the street, and they'll hold a conversation. You can't get in your driveway. You blow the horn and they look back at you and keep on talking. That's all Detroit."
The tensions have not gone unnoticed by local officials.
"I've got people of color who don't want people of color to move into the city," says Southfield Police Chief Joseph Thomas, who is himself black. "It's not a black-white thing. This is a black-black thing. My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, bringing in their bad behaviors."
For example, "They still think it's OK to play basketball at 3 o'clock in the morning; it's OK to play football in the streets when there's a car coming; it's OK to walk down the streets three abreast. That's unacceptable in this city."
Thomas has seen the desperation of the new arrivals. His officers, handling complaints, have found two or more families living in a single house, pooling their money for rent. They have "no food in the refrigerator and no furniture," Thomas says. "They can't afford the food. They can't afford the furniture." But they were eager to flee the gunfire of their old neighborhoods in Detroit.
The foreclosure crisis made it possible.
"We had a large number of people who have purchased homes from 2005 on, where the banks were very generous with their credit and they've allowed for people without documentation and income verification to borrow 95 to 100 percent of home values," Southfield Treasurer Irv Lowenberg says. "Many purchased homes when they had two jobs in the household and one of the jobs was lost.
"As values began dropping, people were looking around and saying 'Why should I stay and pay my mortgage when other people aren't?' They decided to hand the keys back to the bank."
Many of the foreclosed upon Southfield homes were going for $40,000 to $60,000. The median home value dropped from more than $190,000 to below $130,000 over the same period, according to Census figures.
With so many empty houses available, rents also dipped by hundreds of dollars. Renters increased from about 13,100 in 2006 to 15,400 in 2009.
The lure of low prices to Detroiters was obvious -- as was the likelihood that their arrival would not be without issues.
"Blacks, like all Americans, want good schools and a safe community, and they can find that in the suburbs," says Richard Schragger, who teaches local government and urban law at the University of Virginia.
Now, suburbs closest to big cities are "bedeviled" by the same problems that helped spur urban flight decades ago, Schragger adds. "And you're seeing further flight out. Rising crime levels, some rising levels of disorder."
These were the things that prompted Richard Twiggs to leave Detroit 23 years ago for the safety, quiet and peace of mind Southfield offered.
"The reason suburbs are the way they are is because a certain element can't afford to live in your community," adds Twiggs, a 54-year-old printer. "If you have $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 homes you're relatively secure in the fact that (the homeowners) are people who can afford it.
"But when you have this crash, people who normally couldn't afford to live in Southfield are moving in. When you have a house for $9,900 on the corner over there -- that just destroys my property."
The pride that comes with home ownership and a large financial investment in the property is missing, says Clanton, who lives across the street from Twiggs on Stahelin, about a half-mile north of Detroit. Back yards are deep and mostly tree-shaded. Sidewalks are few.
"I treasure what I bought," Clanton says. "I want to keep it, but I don't need somebody to come in and throw their garbage on mine. Why would they come and make our lives miserable because they don't care?"
Though they acknowledge they would lose money by selling their current homes, Clanton and Twiggs are contemplating moving further north.
Sheryll Cashin, who teaches constitutional law and race and American law at Georgetown University, says it would be a shame if black flight from the city set off black flight from the near suburbs.
Some blacks just don't want to live near other blacks, she says: "There is classism within the black community. The foreclosure crisis may be accelerating it." But she says middle-class blacks, like middle-class whites, are also put off by behavior of impoverished blacks who "have developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America."
Those who contemplate fleeing have fallen into what Cashin calls the "black middle-class dilemma."
"You have a choice of whether you are willing to be around your people or go 180 degrees in the other direction," she says. "To the higher income black people, if you don't want to love and help your lower-income black brethren, why would you expect white people to? If you can't do it, no one in society can do it. You can try to flee or you can be part of the solution."
Southfield officials say one solution to changing neighborhoods is blight enforcement, other ordinances and costly fines. The idea, said the police chief, Thomas, is not to chase people away, but to help them assimilate.
Soon after Grace, the telephone company analyst, moved into his house, he was cited for parking a small trailer on the property and storing interior doors outside. These are things that would have drawn little notice in Detroit amid the crime and failing schools, he said.
He paid $400 in fines, got rid of the doors and put the trailer in paid storage.
Eugene Williams found a foreclosure steal in one of Southfield's many well-kempt and stable neighborhoods. Williams, like Grace, wanted to get away from Detroit.
"The kids are running around without any control," says Williams, a 56-year-old auto plant worker. "They walk down the middle of the street and block traffic. There was gunfire at night. It was a common thing to hear gunfire."
But the transition to life in the suburbs hasn't been easy. As he was making improvements indoors, Southfield ordinance officials were writing citations outside. He was fined $200 for noxious weeds because the grass was too high and dandelions covered much of the front lawn.
"It wouldn't happen in Detroit," he says. "Your property is pretty much your property. I think, here, they are going a little overboard."

----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: It is common - esp. by Black Americans - to speak of "Black America." This is a lie. There are TWO Black Americas, and it is GENETIC. Most CIVILIZED Blacks in America today either were born poor or their parents were. They were helped by govt programs; those SAME programs produced NO RESULT in other Blacks. "They" feel entitled to all the benefits of civilization without having to BE civilized.


So what are you going to do, BLACK HUMANS? Are you going to help "them" ruin OUR civilization, just because THEIR skin is the same color as yours?


Law professor Cheryll Cashin describes "It was a common thing to hear gunfire." as THE OTHER BLACK AMERICA having "developed their own culture, one that is very different from mainstream America." She then prescribes the EXACT OPPOSITE of what should be done, she prescibes APPEASING THE AGGRESSOR, contrasting "you can flee" with "you can be part of the solution." Of course, that means "to love and help your lower-income black brethren." Why are THEY "lower-income" Cheryll? Remember, THEY were given the same govt programs as the poor Blacks who became civilized.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

By Zachary Roth

Wed Feb 23, 5:13 pm ET

The Great Recession and the slump that followed have triggered a jobs crisis that's been making headlines since before President Obama was in office, and that will likely be with us for years. But the American economy is also plagued by a less-noted, but just as serious, problem: Simply put, over the last 30 years, the gap between rich and poor has widened into a chasm.

Gradual developments like this don't typically lend themselves to news coverage. But Mother Jones magazine has crunched the data on inequality, and put together a group of stunning new charts. Taken together, they offer a dramatic visual illustration of who's doing well and who's doing badly in modern America.

Here are three samples:

This chart shows that the poorest 90 percent of Americans make an average of $31,244 a year, while the top 1 percent make over $1.1 million:




• According to this chart, most income groups have barely grown richer since 1979. But the top 1 percent has seen its income nearly quadruple:



• And this chart suggests most Americans have little idea of just how unequal income distribution is. And that they'd like things to be divvied up a lot more equitably:

Chart showing US attitudes on wealth inequality

To see the rest of these fascinating charts, click on over to Mother Jones.

------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: 50% of U.S. citizens were actually poor before the financial crisis of 2008; because of the financial crisis/mancession, that number is now 90%. The top 1% are "the rich", leaving only 9% of U.S. citizens who have the combination of income and wealth to be "middle-class."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, February 25, 2011

Vitamin D conspiracy leads straight to Big Pharma



You've probably heard about the bad rap vitamin D has been getting lately. The argument goes something like this...the vitamin D crisis isn't as bad as we thought. You probably don't need as much of it as we thought. But it's a free country. So go ahead and take 400 IU of it per day, if you want. That's more than enough. Just don't go over 4,000 IU per day. "High doses" like that can increase your risk for "harm"
These new guidelines come from the U.S. Institute of Medicine (or IOM), a powerful non-profit agency that advises the nation of matters of health. But here's the problem: Their report is pure propaganda.
In fact, I believe these low doses of vitamin D are a deliberate attempt to keep the American public needing more drugs until the day they die. (I'll admit, that sounds a tad paranoid. But I'll explain why my paranoia is well-founded a moment.)
First, let's look at the three major problems with the IOM research.

Leave it to the IOM to redefine "majority"

First off, the IOM report states that the "majority" of adults living in the U.S. get enough vitamin D...and that's just nonsense.
As you'll recall, last week I told you about a major CDC study that found almost 80 percent of Americans don't get enough vitamin D. Plus, another major study published late last year by researchers from the University of Tennessee came up with similar results. In fact, this time researchers found that 87 percent of the general population is mildly to severely deficient in vitamin D. Even the most conservative estimates put vitamin D deficiencies at about 50 percent of the population.
So how the IOM can confidently claim the "majority" of Americans get enough vitamin D, I have no idea!

Spend a minute in the sun each day

The IOM report also states that "North Americans need on average 400 International Units (IUs) of vitamin D per day. People age 71 and older may require as much as 800 IUs per day because of potential changes in people's bodies as they age."
Again, this is pure nonsense. But before I go any further, here's a quick biochemistry primer...
The IOM says you only need 400 IU of vitamin D. But they actually mean 400 IU of vitamin D3 (or cholecalciferol). Your skin makes this natural form of vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. In fact, spending just 30 minutes in the sun without sunscreen, your skin will produce anywhere from 10,000 IU to 50,000 IU of D3! Plus, you can also take D3 as a supplement.
Next...
Vitamin D3 passes through your liver and it turns into a pre-hormone called 25-hydroxycholecalciferol. This is abbreviated as 25(OH)D.
When you get a vitamin D blood test, we really want to see how much 25(OH)D is in your blood. We measure 25(OH)D in nanomoles per liter or nmol/l.
Now, stick with me, because here's where it gets interesting...
According to the IOM report, taking just 400 IU of vitamin D3 per day will give 97 percent of us a blood serum level of 50 nmol/l. And that level will protect us from fractures. Sounds okay, I guess. But let me put this another way to show you just how silly the IOM recommendation really is...
Let's assume that your body makes 10,000 IU of D3 for every 30 minutes spent in the sun without sunscreen. (Most experts say you make at least twice that much...but let's not get picky.) So, how long does it take for your body to make 400 IU of D3?
Hurray! Just 1.2 minutes in the sun! That's all you need to keep your bones strong.
Is it me, or does that just sound wrong?
Well, here's the good news. It isn't just me. It is wrong. And there's some solid scientific proof to back me up...

IOM gets their numbers wrong

Two major meta-analysis' from 2009 found that 50 nmol/l of 25(OH)D in your blood isn't enough to protect you from a fracture or a fall. In fact, 28 separate studies found that 50 nmol/l isn't enough!
Plus, the International Osteoporosis Foundation recommends men and women have 75 nmol/l of 25(OH)D. This is what it takes to protect you from accidental falls and fractures. Lastly, numerous studies over the years show that the more 25(0H)D in your blood, the greater your bone density. But to get up to those higher levels of 25(OH)D, you need more D3.
Plus, here's another interesting twist. The authors of the IOM report most likely knew about all this research...they just chose to ignore it.
You see, before publishing the new vitamin D guidelines, the IOM board consulted with Dr. Walter Willet. The board even thanked Dr. Willet at the end of their report.
So who's Dr. Willet?
He's a vitamin D expert and Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard. He also co-wrote one of the 2009 reports on vitamin D I mentioned earlier. The IOM, however, ignored his findings.
But don't feel bad, Dr. Willet. Yours isn't the only research the IOM ignored...
IOM report ignores research on vitamin D and disease
Remember how I told you the IOM said 400 IU of D3 is enough to protect you against osteoporosis? Well, what about everything else...like cancer and heart disease?
In a press conference, IOM chair Dr. Catherine Ross said "We could not find solid evidence that consuming more [vitamin D] would protect the public from chronic disease ranging from cancer to diabetes to improved immune function." And with that simple statement, Dr. Ross lost all credibility.
Here are some of the best studies linking vitamin D and major diseases:
Breast cancer: Women with vitamin D blood serum levels less than 50 nmol/mL are eight times more likely to develop an aggressive form of breast cancer.
Colon cancer: Men and women with the highest vitamin D levels cut their colon cancer risk by 40 percent.
Heart Disease & Stroke: Men and women with low vitamin D double their heart attack or stroke risk.
Cognitive decline: Older women with low vitamin D are twice as likely to suffer cognitive impairment.
Diabetes: A whopping 91 percent of diabetics have low levels of vitamin D in their blood. Plus, the less vitamin D in their blood, the greater their blood sugar problems.
And I'm just scratching the surface here! If you want to look at all the scientific data on vitamin D, the Vitamin D Council is a good place to start. They list the studies by disease, so you can see all the scientific data Dr. Catherine Ross and her colleagues missed.
In closing, there's one last reason why the IOM report has the pungent smell of propaganda...

There's a rat in the house

Glenville Jones, PhD is one of the authors of the IOM report. He's a scientist and also the co-inventor of drug made by a company called Cytochroma. This drug is still in development...but what condition will they treat with their top-secret drug?
You got it.
Vitamin D deficiencies!
(I'm not making this stuff up. You can see the patent for yourself at the U.S. Patent Office website.)
Dr. Jones also sits on the scientific advisory board of a drug company called Receptor Therapeutics. These guys also made a synthetic vitamin D treatment for cancer...in fact THREE synthetic vitamin D treatments for cancer. (Drug companies use synthetic vitamin D because they can patent it and make a huge profit. You can't patent natural vitamin D.)
Well, isn't that so thoughtful...
You don't need to take vitamin D. But if you do happen to get cancer...guess who plans to have a vitamin D drug you can take?
Here's the bottom line for you: Ignore anything published by the IOM. Take up to 5,000 IU of natural vitamin D3 each day. And avoid anything made by Cytochroma and Receptor Therapeutics.




Thursday, February 24, 2011

Supreme Court rejects vaccine lawsuit

Posted by Jan Crawford 

February 22, 2011 12:39 PM

The Supreme Court today gave vaccine manufacturers greater protection from lawsuits by parents who say vaccinations harmed their children, ruling that Congress had blocked those types of claims against drug makers.


In a 6-2 decision, the justices said Congress had effectively shut the courthouse door to these lawsuits in 1986, when it created a special vaccine court designed to compensate victims of vaccine injuries.


The decision immediately was hailed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said it would safeguard the nation's vaccine supply by protecting vaccine makers from potentially crippling legal liability--which could have driven manufacturers out of the vaccine market.

"Childhood vaccines are among the greatest medical breakthroughs of the last century," said the organization's president, Dr. O. Marion Burton. "Today's Supreme Court decision protects children by strengthening our national immunization system and ensuring that vaccines will continue to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in this country."

But it was a crushing defeat for the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who have waged a years-long legal battle after their daughter suffered a series of seizures when she got a routine DPT vaccination at her 6-month checkup. 

The seizures caused Hannah severe brain damage. Today, 19 years later, her vocabulary is that of a toddler. 

With Hannah facing a lifetime of constant care, the Bruesewitz's first filed a claim for compensation in the special vaccine court, under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Congress, concerned that runaway jury verdicts would drive vaccine makers out of the market, created that program for families whose children suffer adverse reactions from vaccines.

When their claim was denied, they sued Wyeth, the vaccine manufacturer, arguing the DPT vaccination was defectively designed and that the company could have provided a safer vaccine.

"Someone has to be responsible for this," Robie Bruesewitz, Hannah's mother, said when the Court took up their case.

But courts ruled against them, holding that vaccine compensation program was the sole way to handle those types of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. And today, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a decision by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court said the special compensation program preempts lawsuits like the one filed by the Bruesewitz's, which allege vaccines were defectively designed. The program was designed to get those cases out of the courts--making it easier for parents to be compensated, while also protecting drug makers from outsized jury verdicts.

"Vaccine manufacturers fund from their sales an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries," Scalia said. "In exchange they avoid costly tort litigation and the occasional disproportionate jury verdict."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case because she worked on it before she joined the Court.

The vaccine protocol Hannah received injured 65 other children. In 1998, it was removed from the market.

But that was too late for Hannah.

"We should have been taking our daughter to college this fall," her mother told CBS News last October. "If she would have been a normally, typically developing child, she'd be going to college."

----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: The Medical BUSINESS is NOT a "health care system". "Our" govt protects the "right" of companies to profit from poisoning you and your children.


Vaccines are an attack on the human race.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Mother's Employment Increases Children's Health Risks

http://teachingyourmiddleschooler.blogspot.com/2011/02/mothers-employment-increases-childrens.html

NCSU economics professor Dr. Melinda Morrill has some bad news for working moms.  In her study comparing health statistics of school-aged children with working mothers to those with mothers who stay at home, Morrill found that the children of mothers who worked were 200% more likely to be hospitalized overnight, to suffer an injury or poisoning, or to have a asthma attack.  
Morrill’s study looked at 20 years of health statistics involving approximately 89,000 children aged 7-17.  Her results differ from previous studies that indicated  children of working mothers were healthier, presumably because of higher income, greater access to health insurance, and increased maternal self-esteem.  Those studies were flawed, according to Morrill, because they had reversed cause and effect.  That is, the stay-at-home mother group had numbers of moms of children with such severe medical problems that they required full-time care or supervision, effectively eliminating the option of the mother to work outside the home.  But these children weren’t getting sick because their moms were home; their moms were home because the children were so sick.  When Morrill used advanced statistical techniques to account for such issues, she found that the opposite was actually true--that children of stay-at-home moms had highly significant better chances of avoiding injury and poisoning, hospitalization, and asthma attacks.
Morrill clearly wants to avoid setting off another “mommy war.”  She states “I don’t think anyone should make sweeping value judgements based on a mother’s decision to work or not work.”  “But,” she continues, “it is important that we are aware of the the costs and benefits associated with a mother’s decision to work.”   Apparently, one of those costs is increased health risks for the children of working moms.

-------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: The evidence keeps proving that Feminism is evil.

The Capitalists supported Feminism because flooding the market with more job-seekers hid the destruction of the middle-class all through the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Lara Logan, CBS Reporter and Warzone 'It Girl,' Raped Repeatedly Amid Egypt Celebration

Breaking news: South African TV journalist Lara Logan, known for her shocking good looks and ballsy knack for pushing her way to the heart of the action, was brutally and repeatedly raped while a crowd of 200 celebrated the February 11 resignation of 30-year Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Logan was in Tahrir Square with her "60 Minutes" news team when Mubarak's announcement broke. Then, in a rush of frenzied excitement, some Egyptian protesters apparently consummated their newfound independence by sexually assaulting the blonde reporter:
CBS News reports that "she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration." Then, the horrific assault:
In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently in the hospital recovering.
Thirty-nine-year-old Logan has long attacked Hollywood-lite reporters for their dumbing down of overseas violence -- at the same time using her Hollywood good looks and spotlight to push a more hard-hitting agenda.
In this 2008 interview with Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, the gutsy stunner calls America out on its appetite for easy, bite-sized war reporting:
Strangely, Logan had just been detained by the Egyptian government during anti-Mubarak protests the week before her rape, and was reported as having returned to the U.S. momentarily on February 4.
But she went back again, hoping to catch Middle Eastern history in the making -- and fell victim to the chaos of the moment. An Esquire interview with Logan last Friday called her "insane" for making the return trip to Egypt. One chilling excerpt:
But Lara Logan, you see, is not afraid. "There's no doubt in my mind that the situation we were caught in before, we are now arriving into again," she tells The Politics Blog.
Another unsettling discovery for us, in light of Logan's brutal rape, is how viciously she's long been attacked by both right and left bloggers for her no-holds-barred approach. On February 3, Mofo Politics wrote: "OMG if I were her captors and there were no sanctions for doing so? I would totally rape her." The Huffington Post has dealt her a few blows as well.
Logan's sex life famously came under fire in 2008. From the New York Post:
Sexy CBS siren Lara Logan spent her days covering the heat of the Iraq war - but that was nothing compared to the heat of her nights. The "60 Minutes" reporter and former swimsuit model apparently courted two beaus while she was in Baghdad, and has been labeled a home wrecker for allegedly destroying the marriage of a civilian contractor there, sources said.
Passions got so hot in the combat zone that one of her lovers, Joe Burkett, brawled in a Baghdad "safe house" with her other paramour, CNN war reporter Michael Ware, a source said.
The wife of Burkett, a US Embassy worker, claims the sultry 37-year-old correspondent seduced him while bullets flew overhead.
But there are also those who've focused on appreciating her attack approach -- including one Los Angeles Times blogger, who commented on the "Daily Show" cameo:
"I for one was struck by Logan's candor. What she says about the sanitizing of war coverage borders on media sacrilege. You rarely hear that kind of opinion from a major media representative, let alone on a major television station. Impressive."
Impressive, indeed -- but nobody's invincible. For a look back at Logan's break into big journalism, see 2005 New York Times piece "War Zone 'It Girl' Has a Big Future at CBS News."

Update: Well! Never has this girl's inbox been so thoroughly inundated with hatred. Scary stuff, guys.
Just so we're clear: Rape is awful. Logan's rape was not her fault. Nothing she did before or during the February 11 attack could have possibly invited or justified the heinous crime that was committed against her. And, just so we're clear, nowhere in providing links to her highly publicized past did we mean to suggest those facts had somehow led to her assault.
Seriously though. We may be wordy and nosy and over-saturated, but we know our human rights.
True, Salon.com, apparently looking for its own hard-hitting approach to the day's biggest story, did choose to take that angle -- meanwhile reprinting about half our story on its own pages (enough said) -- but that was another blogger's choice.
Fox News, for its part, went after one prestigious New York University fellow and rampant Tweeter in particular, a somewhat public figure who made the mistake of thumbing out some disrespectful blurbs about war mongers and small humor and his own lack of sympathies.
And NPR apparently got so fed up with the hate speech in its comment stream that it resorted to deleting all the nasty ones.
But back to Logan.
We're mostly just glad the "blonde reporter" is alive today, and hopefully recovering, hopefully well on her way back to fighting the good fight for truth, journalism and girls who happen to fall on the gorgeous side of the fight for truthful journalism.
Things are definitely looking up on that front, seeing as she had the guts to go public with the roughest story of all yesterday: her own.
Originally posted February 15 at 1:35 p.m.

----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: Lara Logan identified herself over and over again with her many 60 Minutes "  reports"   (i.e., psychological warfare operations) as EVIL. Unfortunately, she will now get much sympathy because of the REPORT of her being "  brutally raped."  


"  the blonde reporter"  , "  the gutsy stunner"  , her "  Hollywood good looks"  ... Jesus, Simone, you are just desperate to suck Lara's dick, aren't you?


" girls who happen to fall on the gorgeous side"  ; yes, this is a factor. TV reporters are chosen for their looks, not for their journalistic integrity.


BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Well folks as you may have imagined, today I grabbed my pick and shovel and went out on the net to see what gems of truth I could find to fill in the holes on this story. What I found out was quite another matter, as it appears that, if not the story, at least the way the story is being handled has been orchestrated without a doubt. 

Since the invention of the fax machine (and later the net) those in power have had to change their approach to keeping things quiet. No longer could they suppress, kill and threaten those who know what's going on to keep it all hush hush. When somebody in Moscow, or Cairo or wherever can slip a document or picture into a fax machine, (or email) and have it pop out in New York City it became time to re-formulate their approach to 'security'. Apparently someone suggested the 'Gold Nugget in the bucket of mud' approach to hiding the facts. Since they could no longer hide the truth, they decided to dump tons of BS out there to help cover it up. Today I've been out there slogging through that mud. It's dirty time consuming work, but you would be surprised what you can find out if you have the time (and the stomach) to wade through it.

First of all I wont bore you with all the garbage I read today but suffice to say 98% of the sites were .. 'Oh Boo Hoo ..Poor Lara' .. stuff, mostly including an unbelievable amount of  Anti-Arab, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Men, Anti-Egyptian 'clap trap' for lack of  a better word. I expected this, I mean we're men right? We don't like to see women beat up or assaulted, it makes us mad and we want to protect women from all that. It's our nature. However .. I didn't quite expect the amount of vitriolic outpouring of hatred, racism, and Anti-Muslim bigotry  I ran into.

Secondly, this is the first time I can remember, that I ran into so many websites that had the comments section CLOSED or so heavily moderated that no questioning of the story or comments about Logan herself were tolerated  !  Even the 'drone' sites that just carried the straight story from CBS (Complete BullS hit ) mostly fell into this category. So people have to ask themselves what is it about this story that makes it sooo .. important that NO QUESTIONS about the full story and NO COMMENTS running contrary to their piece will be tolerated !  (Most of them shut down the comment section rather then even take a chance that someone might question what they were dishing out.) Getting that many sites to shut down their comment section for this (one) story is quite a feat ! Face it, that fact alone screams orchestrated !!
 
Third, a few years ago stories of her sexual exploits with the troops etc. were fairly common on the web, but it looks like they've been pretty well vacuumed up with the exception of  this one .. In 2008, she became a minor tabloid press sensation – NY Post Page Six, and even the holiest of holies, The National Enquirerat the center of a Baghdad romantic triangle. One guy was a US Embassy attaché, the other a CNN reporter.  from Mallory's Camera

Fourth, as the Committee to Protect Journalists correctly pointed out that 52 journalists were attacked and 76 were imprisoned during the unrest in Egypt that led Mubarak to step down after 30 years in power. All have been released, it said.  One journalist, Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ta'awun, was killed while filming clashes near Tahrir Square, the CPJ said." .... Reuters   ( So with over 100 journalists attacked or arrested Why Lara Logan ? .. What makes this story so 'special' ? )

As I mentioned in my previous article yesterday, "this just don't feel, look, or smell right !"  For instance even Susan Milligan from US News (Hardly a Muslim friendly person, had to admit ..)  "In Muslim Albania, I found that rebels who stopped to check us for weapons would barely touch me, although they would examine my male colleagues in a way that would make a TSA screener blush. As Muslims, they automatically recoiled at touching a strange woman  .. (I’d pull open my field vest to show I had no weapons, which was enough)"

"The Wall Street Journal cited an unnamed source as saying Logan, a married mother, was not raped, however, details regarding the exact nature of the assault remain unclear. ... Neither CBS nor Logan reported the crime to Egyptian authorities "      The Post Chronicle 
"The difference was Coopers attack and the arrest and assault on journalist at that time, supposedly came from pro Mubarak forces trying to squelch the uprising. Logan 's assault came at a time when .. the Egyptian people were jubilant and celebrating in the streets of Cairo"     Yahoo Associated Content


"It is unclear whether Friday's assault against Ms. Logan had political aims."     WSJ
 
I could fill up 3 more pages of these quotes but as Mike Rivero @ Whatreallyhappened.com commented .. "This Logan story is a repeat the Jessica Lynch hoax used to help sell the Iraq war, only it turned out Jessica wasn’t such an innocent lady after all."  (Complete with pix of her) and I tend to agree with him.

If this wasn't a 'put up job' to throw mud on the Egyptians, Muslims, and Arabs in general, coming out of Israel through their control of the Media, it would be the first time in history !  So stay tuned folks, If I were a betting man I'd be looking for pix or videos of her with at least a black eye (from her vicious 'assault') to show up in the next few days to two weeks, even if she has to go back over and hire somebody to get one ! 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Tea Party Crashes: The Most UnPatriotic Act

By Susan Lindauer, 9/11 Whistleblower indicted on the Patriot Act
February 15th, 2011

I confess that since November I’ve been holding my breath, watching the clock for how long Tea Party newcomers could hold out against the entrenched Republican elite on Capitol Hill. Collapse was inevitable, however I admit to feeling bitterly surprised at how rapidly they have thrown in the towel.

For the record, most of the Tea Party quit their principles of liberty on February 14, 2011—20 days into the new Congress—when Tea Party leaders abruptly abandoned their opposition to the Patriot Act and voted to extend intrusive domestic surveillance, wire tapping and warrantless searches of American citizens.  In so doing, they exposed the fraud of their soaring campaign promises to defend the liberty of ordinary Americans, and fight government intrusions on freedom. All those wide eyed speeches that flowed with such thrilling devotions, all of it proved to be self-aggrandizing lies.

The Tea Party didn’t even put up a fight. Briefly they rejected a sneak attack to renew three surveillance clauses of the Patriot Act on a suspension vote. That filled my heart with hope. One push from the Republican elite, however and they went down with a loud thud.

My disappointment is particularly acute. Rather notoriously, I am distinguished as the second non-Arab American to face indictment on the Patriot Act, after Jose Padilla.

My status was pretty close to an enemy non-combatant. One would presume that I must have joined some terrorist conspiracy? Or engaged in some brutal act of sedition, such as stock piling weapons and munitions to overthrow those crooks in Congress?

You would be wrong. I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an “emergency broadcast alert” across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as “imminent,” with the potential for “mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device.

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott’s staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged “civil rights violations.”

All of these are American activists engaged in lawful disputes of government policy. All of them got victimized by the surveillance techniques approved by Tea Party leaders, because they pursued a policy agenda that contradicted current government policies. The Tea Party swore to defend the freedom of independent thinking in Congressional campaigns. One presumes those promises are now forgotten until the next election.

I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington — independently and collectively verified my story— then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed “classified.”

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be “cured” of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. The Patriot Act would be right at the top of that list. Nobody who has supported that wretched law should ever be allowed to brag of defending liberty again. That goes for the Tea Party. By voting to extend surveillance of American citizens, they have abandoned the principles of freedom that brought about their rise to power. They have shown their true face.

It is a face that we, the people, will remember.  I, for one, have no intention of allowing them to forget.

Susan Lindauer is the author of EXTREME PREJUDICE: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.

Intel Hub Note: On a brighter note, Rand Paul is completely against the Patriot Act and sent a letter of opposition to his colleagues.

--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: Even a cursory investigation of the evidence makes it blindingly obvious that 9/11 could not have happened - the way it actually did happen - without top-level U.S. Government foreknowledge and cooperation. The documentation that proves it has been widely available for many years. It is EASY to find out about. There is no excuse for still believing the official myth.


ALSO, the Tea Party is 100% a movement of Conservative Authoritarians; The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer (free PDF) is a must-read for all the rest of us. Basically, those who are both Conservative and Authoritarian (25% of the population) are so desperate to have their beliefs and world-view validated that they will support any leader who just says the right things, no matter what anybody else can prove about that leader.


To paraphrase John Connor from the original Terminator movie: They cannot be bargained with, they cannot be reasoned with..


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 10, 2011

1 killed in Pa. natural gas explosion; 5 missing

Yahoo! News


ALLENTOWN, Pa. – A natural gas explosion rocked a downtown neighborhood overnight, leveling two houses and spawning fires that burned for hours through an entire row of neighboring homes. One person was killed, and at least five others were unaccounted for Thursday.
The victim was found in a two-story row house in a downtown residential neighborhood that blew up about 10:45 p.m. Wednesday, police Chief Roger MacClean said. A couple in their 70s lived in the home, but the condition of the body prevented positive identification, fire Chief Robert Scheirer said.
The cause of the explosion was unclear. The blaze was put out early Thursday, delayed by the difficulty of digging through packed layers of snow and ice to a ruptured underground gas line that was feeding the flames, Scheirer said. About 500 to 600 people who were evacuated were allowed to return home.
Scheirer predicted eight houses would be lost and another 16 damaged.
The blast was so powerful that it sent a flat-screen computer monitor sailing into the back of Antonio Arroyo, whose house was on the opposite end of the row from the explosion.
"I thought we were under attack," he recalled from a shelter where some 250 people took refuge in the hours after the blast.
Arroyo and his wife, Jill, both 43, lost their home in the fire.
Antonio said he ran outside and saw that an entire house had been leveled, a fireball now raging in the spot where it once stood.
"What I saw, I couldn't believe," said Arroyo, a community volunteer.
He and his wife, a nurse, fled their home with only the clothes on their back. They planned to return at daylight to see what they could salvage. Jill Arroyo broke down sobbing when she recalled her son's athletic memorabilia — likely lost in the blaze — including DVDs of his high school football games.
"The DVDs are gone. All his trophies are gone. All gone," she sobbed as her husband comforted her.
Tricia Aleski, who lives a few blocks away, said the explosion jangled her nerves.
"I was reading a book in the living room and it felt like a giant kicked the house. It all shook. Everything shook," she said. "I checked the stove and everything, (to) make sure everything's off."
Jason Soke was watching college basketball when he heard and felt the explosion. It rattled his windows. He went to the third floor and looked out and saw flames and smoke.
"Your senses kind of get stunned," he said. "It puts you on edge."

-----------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: Another "gas pipe explosion". Couldn't have been an impactor from space hitting the ground. The explosion, the leveling of the houses, the rupturing of the ancient natural gas pipe - they couldn't all be EFFECTS of a big fuckin rock coming down at a steep angle.


Go back to sleep, America. Nothing to see here. What time is Gladiator's on?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Pepsi MAX – 2011 – Love Hurts


This is easily one of the best from the Crash The Super Bowl contest, which frankly means that we didn’t hold out much hope for it to win. Looks like we were wrong about the collective intelligence of this great nation, which gives us hope for seeing a 2012 Presidential campaign that does not include Ex-Governor Stupid from Alaska. In any case this commercial is funny and multi-racial, which means it’s almost 100% dislike-proof!




-----------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: This ad is evil in three ways.


ONE, psychopath-ic finding humor in random violence.
TWO, the man is treated like a stupid child who cannot take care of himself and must be literally kicked.
THREE, yes the race issue. A black woman hits a white woman in the head and then runs off. What if the races had been reversed - would that still be funny?
------------------------------------------------------
9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims


David Mihalovic, ND

October 28, 2009

Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-called “vaccine experts” coming out of the wood work attempting to justify the effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous historical and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily squelched with the following 9 questions.

Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of achievements, effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and proven in scientific and medical circles.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?
4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and health agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.
There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history of vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness or achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage to human health).
There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which have objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential effect on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.
Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won’t address those.

Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture of vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them unsafe for use in humans.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?
6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the preservatives and chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been observed on the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines
Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have on the human body. People just don’t read them. All you have to do is look at the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients, alerts and potentially lethal effects.
See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.
Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject any type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is completely misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding human health.

Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.

Fact: The claim is completely false.

7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?
8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.
Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!
Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period of one flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune defenses of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.
I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:

- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped
- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.
- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.

www.preventdisease.com

Dave Mihalovic is a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

----------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: Vaccines are an attack on the human race.
----------------------------------------------------------

Monday, February 7, 2011

Many get antidepressants for no psychiatric reason

NEW YORK | Fri Feb 4, 2011 4:20pm EST

(Reuters Health) - More than a quarter of Americans taking antidepressants have never been diagnosed with any of the conditions the drugs are typically used to treat, according to new research.
That means millions could be exposed to side effects from the medicines without proven health benefits, researchers say.
"We cannot be sure that the risks and side effects of antidepressants are worth the benefit of taking them for people who do not meet criteria for major depression," said Jina Pagura, a psychologist and currently a medical student at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who worked on the study.
"These individuals are likely approaching their physicians with concerns that may be related to depression, and could include symptoms like trouble sleeping, poor mood, difficulties in relationships, etc.," she added in an e-mail to Reuters Health. "Although an antidepressant might help with these issues, the problems may also go away on their own with time, or might be more amenable to counseling or psychotherapy."
The researchers tapped into data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiologic Surveys, which include a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 U.S. adults interviewed between 2001 and 2003.
Roughly one in ten people told interviewers they had been taking antidepressants during the past year. Yet a quarter of those people had never been diagnosed with any of the conditions that doctors usually treat with the medication, such as major depression and anxiety disorder.
According to The National Institute of Mental Health, nearly 15 million American adults suffer from major depression, and 40 million more have anxiety disorders.
Although the survey didn't include all mental illnesses that might have led doctors to prescribe an antidepressant -- say, obsessive-compulsive disorder or to help quit smoking -- other experts said the new findings are not exaggerated.
"Reviews of claims records, which are diagnoses actually given by health care professionals, suggest that only about 50% of patients who are prescribed antidepressants receive a psychiatric diagnosis," said Dr. Mark Olfson, a psychiatrist at Columbia University in New York.
"These findings raise questions about the clinical appropriateness of antidepressant treatment selection for many primary care patients," he added in an e-mail to Reuters Health.
With sales of $9.9 billion in 2009, up three percent since the previous year, antidepressants rank fourth among prescription drugs in the U.S., according to IMS Health, a company that analyzes the pharmaceutical industry.
Popular brand names include Pfizer's Zoloft, Forest Laboratories' Lexapro and Eli Lilly's Prozac.
While studies have shown the drugs may help some people with depression, they come with a price tag -- and not only the $100 or more that a month's supply can cost. Some users experience sexual problems or gain weight, for instance.
"Nearly all medication has side effects, so there are undoubtedly a large number of Americans who are taking antidepressants that may not be effective at treating their conditions, yet they suffer from the side effects," said Jeffrey S. Harman, an expert in health services at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who was not involved in the new study.
"Not to mention inappropriate use of our health care dollars that comes along with inappropriate prescribing," he added in an e-mail.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT: Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

"Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance." 
 
What that means in plain English is: the "anti-depressants" don't work, and the drug companies know it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------