This article on FOX News is not news for a lot of folks, but it's a nice update even for those who are aware that the Feds are attempting to thwart the freedom of choice concerning supplements with its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) regulations.

According to those opposing the NDI guidelines, once certain supplements are banned, Big Pharma would likely begin developing and eventually patenting the formulas for those items. Since they, unlike independent manufacturers, are more than capable of footing the hefty bill associated with the regulatory testing process, soon enough the companies bringing you conventional medications would be the same ones offering alternative treatments. Consumers’ money would be going into one big pocket.

This is an article from the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics: "Should Participation in Vaccine Clinical Trials Be Mandated?". Excuse the long quote from the journal article, but in this case it is necessary to the impact of this blog post:

In recent decades there has been a distressing decline in the numbers of healthy volunteers who participate in clinical trials [7], a decline that has the potential to become a key rate-limiting factor in vaccine development. Reasons for this decline are unclear but are likely to be multifaceted. One familiar problem is the payment of volunteers [8]. To date, the relatively meagre compensation that participants often receive could be seen to belittle and undervalue the contribution of these individuals to global health. The modest financial remuneration commonly provided often means that students and the unemployed make up the bulk of volunteers [6, 8, 9]. As a result, the risks of developing a health intervention that would benefit the whole population are carried disproportionately by some of society’s most poor and vulnerable. This is a situation few would judge to be fair or ethical. However it is hard to increase volunteer payment without creating financial incentives. “Danger money” is frowned upon as an inducement that inevitably clouds an individual’s appreciation of risk, limiting the likelihood that consent is informed [6, 7]. As a result, consensus has generally dictated that payment for volunteers’ trial involvement be modest and limited to compensation for travel, time, and inconvenience only.

If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) [10], and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon. In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.

The article goes on to say that if the severity of a disease is increased (meaning state propaganda and lies exaggerating or inventing crises), the forcing of human beings to become test monkeys "becomes a more palatable option." Accordingly, there is a huge motivation to lie, spread myths, distort studies, and clamp down on dissenters from the conventional wisdom.

The authors also state that "sensationalist and unfounded stories" have been the root cause of more and more people fearing and thus denying the government's vaccination indoctrination. The two authors of this piece are truly evil and perverted individuals. Thanks to Travis Holte for the link.

How many of you who watched the Super Bowl game yesterday caught faux libertarian Clint Eastwood's tacit support of the fascist bailout of Chrysler Corporation? As my friend's son Rafael (a Ron Paul supporter) quipped after the commercial, "I expected to hear 'I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.'"

UPDATE: But don't worry, Clint, the taxpayers lost $1.3 on Chrysler's "comeback." [Thanks to Eli Cryderman]

Lew: And this was managed without the use of any "hanging chads" or ballot counters with magnifying glasses? Were any cardsharps brought in to count ballots from the bottom of the deck? Once again, Stalin's Realpolitik prevails!

In yet another step toward a cashless society, a homeowner in California was not allowed to pay his monthly mortgage payment in "legal tender." The bank manager even called the police on the customer. Do you see how easy it is for the Banksters' puppets to carry out the Banksters' plans for a cashless society/global worthless currency? The next step will be that instead of a a credit card, debit card, or even a bank check, you will be required to have a microchip implanted under your skin with your account information on it for "security" purposes, i.e., all physical payments will be illegal (or even possible) anymore.

A middle school in Pennsylvania has banned open-top boots because they can hide contraband too easily. The contraband? Personal electronic devices. The policy sounds more like prison rules. The texting is said to be disruptive to a "positive education atmosphere." A quote from the article:

The school district does have a mandatory uniform for the middle school students. The school handbook devotes a section to proper attire that states shoes, boots and sneakers with matching-colored laces are permitted. It also says if clothing disrupts learning, the administration has the right to set rules about questionable attire.

If a student does not comply, discipline can range from a reminder sent home to parents on the first offense to possible detention or suspensions at the principal's discretion for repeated offenses.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything," the communist dictator Joseph Stalin is purported to have said.

If you search this on the Web you will find many flag-waving democracy worshippers who insist on seeing a videotape of Stalin actually saying this before they will accept it. Videotape or not, it would be just as true if Mother Theresa, the Pope, or anyone else said it. Anyone who follows Nevada and Iowa Republican Party politics knows this.

A reader, Barbara, writes me to say: "I was in Whole Foods today and picked up a brochure titled "Healthy Heart." Was shocked to read that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children should get blood pressure screenings - starting at age 3! American medicine is truly a racket!"

It's true.

In my home state, the government's prison masters are trying to stop the spread of charter virtual schools (cyber schooling) because such freedom of education would not allow the state to gather up your children in big, yellow bully houses on wheels, and take them to near-windowless buildings to physically detain them and indoctrinate them for nine months out of the year, 6-8 hours per day.

Virtual charter schools allow students in grades kindergarten through 12 to take classes at home with a computer and the help of a parent or guardian serving as a "learning coach."

Students interact with a teacher through email, telephone and interactive software, including video conferencing.

Two schools in the state opened last year -- one based in Grand Rapids with about 800 students and the other in Okemos with more than 500 students.

Educators, including the state Board of Education, have asked that lawmakers not allow more of the schools to open until several years of academic data is accumulated to determine if the schools are effective.

Cyber learning means that the parent makes the decision about what the child does "at school" and the child has flexibility in determining what he wants to learn and/or not learn. Individuality and creativity is not a part of the plan. Thanks to James Nellis for the link.

Bob Wenzel wants to know.

The politicization of breast cancer is quite an amazing thing to behold. This article in the Wall Street Journal on the Susan G. Komen nonprofit organization touches on only one small slice of a very rotten pie. This organization is a huge player in what I refer to as the Big Cancer industry - an industry where every patient is a vital profit center.

The charity had been funding Planned Parenthood so it could influence women on the conventional wisdom surrounding breast cancer - breast cancer education, exams, and of course, the highly profitable mammogram that is pushed on every woman in America who is 40 or older (and often, women in their thirties). A lot of folks believe the decision was made because of pressure from anti-abortion groups. From the article:

Komen founder Nancy Brinker said Thursday her group's decision wasn't based on "emotions or politics" and wasn't tied to abortion. Komen officials said they had changed their standards for grants in several ways, including not funding organizations under government investigation.

However, this quote from the article is more what I would expect to see as a driver in the funding cut.

The Komen group also said it preferred to give grants to groups that perform mammograms themselves, rather than "pass-through" funding. Planned Parenthood does clinical breast exams but typically refers mammogram patients elsewhere.

The Susan G. Komen organization would like to be able to manage the number of mammograms that will occur, and how and where they will occur. The mammogram scheme has been exposed by many, including William Campbell Douglass, MD. [See his article for the Weston A. Price Foundation. Also see an article by Barbara Minton, "Mammograms: Fat Profits at High Cost to Women."]

Here is a collection of some very relevant quotes from doctors, researchers, investigative journalists, authors, etc. on Big Cancer and why the medical establishment does not want to cure cancer. Also, here are a few (out of many) additional sources to understand more about the racket that is Big Cancer.

- "Cancer Industry Fights to Keep Obscene Profits" on Lawyersandsettlements.com

- "The Great Cancer Hoax, Part II" on Dr. Mercola's website

- "Questioning Chemotherapy," an article that discusses the work of Ralph W. Moss PhD, who was fired from Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center for revealing the lies of the Cancer Establishment.

There is an outstanding 4-minute YouTube from Walter Bortz that must be seen by all folks who have an interest in this topic. As Bortz notes, "Nobody's out there trying to prevent cancer, they're all so busy treating it because you get paid for it." Who is Dr. Walter Bortz? He is a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine. According to his bio, he has "written over 130 medical articles for such publications as JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, The New England Journal of Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, and Journal of Biological Chemistry, as well as articles for lay publications such as The New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and Town & Country."

Dr. Bortz, in the video, quotes Jerome Kassirer, MD when he states this: "The entire medical system is corrupt." Dr. Kassirer is the author of a book I have read and highly recommend: On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. By "big business," Dr. Kassirer, though no libertarian, is referring to what libertarians would refer to as the corporate-socialist state (corporations in partnership/alliances with Big Government). Jerome Kassirer is the former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine.

The black-robed WI terrorist who had claimed we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk, has left the judiciary to reap rich rewards at one of Monsanto's law firms. (Thanks to Kathy Grable)

I periodically receive Conservative Action Alerts in my in-box about the evils of the Democrats and the Obama administration. The recent headline was "Obama Expands Police State!" I fully agree with these assessments, of course, but my only question is this: Why did we rarely hear from conservatives during the Bush years about how Bush was making war on the Bill of Rights and expanding the police state with the Patriot Act, the TSA, and the DHS?

A bumper-sticker that caught my attention the other day: "Jesus loves Wikileaks."

Joe from Australia writes to say that his government is following in the footsteps of the TSA, only he thinks that the folks in his country are far less prone to dissent than Americans. That's hard to believe, I know, but I have a couple of Australian friends, and they reinforce that notion. All aviation passengers in Australia may soon lose the ability to choose the option of a cop-a-feel pat down in place of a radiation porn scan because government officials think the porn scanners give the sheeple "peace of mind." From the article in the Herald Sun:

The proposed Aviation Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will make it mandatory for any passenger selected to participate to have a body scan.

The "no scan, no fly" amendment closes a loophole in the legislation that lets passengers request a pat-down instead of passing through a metal detector.

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said mandatory body scans were necessary to ensure the safety of airports.

Is some branch of the vast US secret police apparatus preparing to stage a false-flag op to incriminate Iran? The event would then be used to justify mass murder and property destruction in Iran, a country that dares to refuse to bend the knee to the US and its assistant empire.

The outrageous and ominous Megaupload theft.

Obama said "Any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern." This perfectly describes Lincoln's government, which is still the same U.S. government today. Lincoln authorized Sherman to brutalize and massacre people that Lincoln regarded as being people of his government or the Union. Under Lincoln, that government made war and brutalized its own people. Since today's government is the same as the Lincoln government, Obama has said that the U.S. government is not fit to govern. Or is there some statute of limitations on the brutalities and massacres that a government imposes? Are we to suppose that today's federal government is legitimate simply because time has passed? Just let a state try seceding and see what happens to it today. See what kind of sanctions and pressures the federal government will bring to bear, up to and including the use of the military.

Lew: Do Molly Ball's words reflect the thinking of the "Trance-Atlantic Cabal"?  (I just couldn't resist!)

The reported $40 million loss last year isn't as bleak as might first appear: The paper would now seem to qualify for a government bailout.  In the Newspeak logic, it is "too big, important, well-connected with power to fail."