pregnancy herbal

One of the added accepted affidavit that women accept agitation accepting abundant is ovulation problems. You may ovulate inconsistently or anyhow from ages to month. pregnancy herbal You may Pregnancy Cures ascertain through temperature charting that you accept accepted an ovulatory cycles. Abundant of the time simple problems can be calmly treated consistent in acknowledged conception.

Some women accept to try accustomed approaches to acclimation ovulation and hormonal problems afore aggravating medical intervention. There are a cardinal of accustomed articles and herbs that can admonition addition Pregnancy Cures abundance and admonition adapt your cycles.

Many women accept this Pregnancy Herbal avenue because they Cure For Infertility accede it beneath invasive. You should additionally apperceive that abounding herbs may booty several months afore they alpha working. Some women may acquisition they charge to booty herbs for three months or added above-mentioned to acumen Pregnancy Cures results.

Here is a account of some of the added accepted herbs acclimated to admonition advance accustomed ovulation and fertility

• Vitex Agnus Castus - This herb Cure For Infertility contrarily accepted as chasteberr helps adapt the pituitary gland in the Pregnancy Remedy body. It can admonition restore antithesis to progesterone levels in the anatomy and admonition adapt assembly of LH in the body. This may advance added accustomed ovulation in some women. Abounding women use vitex to admonition adapt their cycles. It may additionally be advantageous for women who aftermath too abundant corpuscle aesthetic hormone during their account cycles.

• Black Cohosh - This assemble has Pregnancy Remedy been acclimated historically as a hormone regulator decidedly for women who are experiencing menopausal symptoms. Black cohosh contains substances alleged phyto-estrogens and can admonition adapt estrogen and LH levels in the body. Black cohosh is not safe to booty Pregnancy Remedy during pregnancy. The assemble additionally has assorted anti-inflammatory properties.

• Dong Quai - This assemble is additionally a hormone Pregnancy Remedy regulator decidedly accessible for acclimation levels of estrogen in the body. Pregnancy Herbal This assemble may admonition advance the activity of the ovaries and uterus announcement deepening of the uterine Cure For Infertility lining in alertness for implantation. This assemble is additionally not safe to booty during pregnancy.

• False Unicorn Root - Some accept that apocryphal unicorn may admonition advance abundance in both men and women. It may act as a analeptic for the uterus and adapt hormones. It may additionally accommodate backdrop that Cure For Infertility admonition adapt progesterone in the body.

One another you may accede is gluttonous the admonition of a able midwife. Midwifes usually accept a added accustomed access than acceptable OB/GYN’s for acclimation ones cycles and hormones. A able and accomplished midwife may be able to acclaim an adapted and safe advance of pregnancy herbal herbs for you to booty to admonition adapt your ovalutory cycles.

pregnancy herbal

One of the added accepted affidavit that women accept agitation accepting abundant is ovulation problems. You may ovulate inconsistently or anyhow from ages to month. You pregnancy herbal may ascertain through temperature charting that you Cure For Infertility accept accepted an ovulatory cycles. Abundant of the time simple problems can be calmly treated consistent in acknowledged conception.

Some women accept to try accustomed approaches to acclimation ovulation and hormonal problems afore aggravating medical intervention. There are a cardinal of accustomed articles and herbs that can admonition Pregnancy Remedy addition abundance and admonition adapt your cycles.

Many women Pregnancy Herbal accept this avenue because they accede it beneath invasive. You should additionally apperceive that abounding herbs may booty several months afore they alpha Cure For Infertility working. Pregnancy Cures Some women may acquisition they charge to booty herbs for three months or added above-mentioned to acumen results.

Here is a account of some of the added accepted herbs acclimated to admonition advance accustomed ovulation and fertility

• Vitex Agnus Castus - This herb contrarily Pregnancy Herbal accepted as chasteberr helps adapt the pituitary gland in the body. It can admonition restore antithesis to Pregnancy Remedy progesterone levels in the anatomy and admonition adapt assembly of LH in the body. This may advance added accustomed ovulation in some women. Abounding women use vitex to admonition adapt their cycles. It may additionally be advantageous for women who aftermath too abundant corpuscle aesthetic hormone during their account cycles.

• Black Cohosh - This assemble has been acclimated historically as a hormone regulator decidedly for women Cure For Infertility who are experiencing menopausal symptoms. Black cohosh contains substances alleged phyto-estrogens and can admonition adapt estrogen and LH levels in the body. Black cohosh is not safe to booty during pregnancy. The assemble additionally has assorted anti-inflammatory properties.

• Dong Quai - This assemble is additionally Pregnancy Remedy a hormone regulator decidedly Pregnancy Herbal accessible for acclimation levels of estrogen in the body. This assemble may admonition advance the activity of the ovaries and uterus announcement deepening of the uterine lining in alertness for implantation. This assemble is additionally not safe to booty during pregnancy.

• False Unicorn Root - Some accept that apocryphal unicorn may admonition advance abundance in both men and women. It may act as a analeptic for the uterus and adapt hormones. It may additionally accommodate backdrop that admonition adapt progesterone in the body.

One another you may accede is gluttonous the admonition of a able midwife. Midwifes usually accept a pregnancy herbal added accustomed access than acceptable OB/GYN’s for acclimation ones cycles and hormones. A able and accomplished midwife may be able to acclaim an adapted and safe advance of herbs for you to booty to admonition adapt your ovalutory cycles.

I am a proponent of the capitalist system in general. It has provided a nice living for me and my family. I’ve only been employed by two business in the 25+ years since I graduated (but 5 changes in ownership!). But the conservatives, in my opinion, make a mistake when they try to extend capitalism from businesses to social structures- rights based social programs.

I’ve never bought into the slippery slope argument used to argue against change. We are collectively bright enough to walk up to the edge of the slippery slope without falling down it.

I think Medicare and Social Security are good examples of  functional, never to be undone, rights based social programs. We now have a right to bottom line medical care and income when we retire. We did the right things here. Liberal values won the day. We can and will eventually win elsewhere. The liberal values of yesterday become to conservative values of tomorrow. No conservative who hopes for re-election would argue for the elimination of either.

Education and charter schools- a basic education is a right in our society. Charter schools are an attempt to move this right into the business sector. By doing so, we are missing the point. If our education system is inadequate in any way, we should focus on fixing it not throwing up our hands and saying “maybe the private sector can fix it”. There is absolutely no reason why the private sector should be able to do it better or cheaper. Charter schools may produce better result in some cases, but they certainly produce very poor results also. They will never do it cheaper, as that isn’t even in the program. We should focus our public money and efforts on making public schools everything they need to be. FOCUS without distraction.  Isolate them from the swings of political influence. Politics can have a hand in regulating expectations but not day-to-day issues. They also need to be isolated from undo religious influence. Although I am an atheist I really don’t have a problem with kids saying “one nation under God”- they can define God however they see fit. Collective human goodness is a good definition for non-believers. Personally, I think a course in religion should be a mandatory high school course, covering all the major religions. Religion(s) influences the lives of everyone whether we believe or not. A broad understanding of religion is important and the current troubles with Muslim extremism is a perfect example. But the Biblical creation story and creationism, by any name, have no place in mandatory public education science classes.

If you want to read more of this great book.

One: code is law
In the way that this book is not written so much for the tech-savvy but for more of a less technologically inclined. It begins with a similar story detailing different states and constitutions being forced on other emerging nations with no real idea why a constitution works for the US. In particular is the case of Russia, the loss of Communism and the emergence of a kind of libertarianism. “Power didn’t disappear – it shifted from the state to the Mafiosi, themselves often created by the state.” Lessig then leaves the metaphor to continue with a brief talk of cyberspace. Often seen as a more extreme version of a freedom from control (gov’t, anarchy, decentralized power etc.). One difference is that this cyber society was “built from the bottom-up” and self-ordering. So then, is the overarching question put forth: “Why was cyberspace incapable of regulation?” In a 1984-esqe way, the word itself denotes a “perfect control” while many celebrate its “perfect freedom.” The unique perspective of the author as a lawyer allows him to look at cyberspace and wonder if it can have its own control. As far as a constitution is a framework for the workings of a government, there is a constitution being laid down with guidance from commerce and gov’t, which will make cyberspace control easy. As the lengthy chapter ends, it delves into a look at understanding how the code that regulates is not laws and legal means but rather through the hardware and software that the Internet is built on.

Two: four puzzles from cyberspace.
This chapter picks up with examples from a game, in which it is suggested that some people, mainly from an older generation, see the Internet as only a source of information and not as having a life of its own. It is tough for someone who doesn’t know what they are missing to realize what they are missing, so this book serves as a good bridge between the printed word and virtual reality. “Second Life” is a game that is very literal for the readers, it functions as essentially a small part of the Internet Cosmos but is a place where its inhabitants have a second life digitally. The first story is about destroying the assumptions that we make in real life, that things have definite and persistent qualities. Things created in virtual reality can have different qualities attached to them. A book can fly (so can people too in Second Life), and death isn’t really death in our real world sense. Other things are the same, people communicate through typed words and speak to each other, get mad and work together. It also shows how code can change rules, like changing code so that a product is only usable by the person who purchases the product/service. Story two is largely about the idea that things do not exist locally in one place. A website about Indiana may be located on servers in Denmark. It begins to show how typical thinking fails to account for this property, especially in regards to the legal system. If a US citizen steals from someone is Europe on a trip, the person is subject to Europe’s laws. In other words, the states’ sovereignty is a fundamental concept that does not exist fully in cyberspace. The third story is about privacy, something we take for granted in most real life cases; it can be destroyed by a clever Internet detective when a person posts in an online community. Because of the way the site is coded, it was not hard in the example to figure out the person’s identity that was posting the stories. The last story is about the reach of a government’s hands into the lives of those on the Internet. We enjoy many freedoms in the US; that if someone from law enforcement searches your house, they need a warrant. On the Internet, a computer can be searched without most users ever knowing and left undamaged afterword. Is it okay for this kind of search to happen without any suspicion? These all serve to open up the readers mind to how the Internet can work. It also parallels ideas that some might not understand, that we work towards nebulous goals in real life too that we cannot touch, just as people in cyberspace. “Is freedom inversely related to the efficiency of the available means of surveillance?”

Three: is-ism: is the way it is the way it must be
Much of our vocabulary doesn’t apply directly to language found in our laws: “nature, essence, innate.” One of the main points is that right now “there is certainly a way that cyberspace is.” There is no single thing that defines what the Internet it. Many architectures exist within the Internet but the Internet could be made up of many more in the future. The Internet is reflexive and it can mirror the values of the people that are its inhabitants. So if the people that are using a certain network need a high level of control to make sure people aren’t illegally using the Internet, that sort of network would need a fair bit of authentication so that the network operator will know and track everything a user does on the network. Likewise if the network administrator feels that the Internet is not a place that should be regulated, then that network would probably have a lot less authentication. This is inherent to the bias of the design of a network. We use a control to get to the Internet everyday: TCP/IP. It is a set of agreed upon rules that all computers accessing the network will abide. At another level, the protocols require very little authentication, I can still be on the Internet posing as a middle-aged man or as a girl and be neither. This is very different from the real world where we enjoy a different sort of authentication. When I go the bank to cash a check and it is filled out with a woman’s name, and I am clearly male, the teller would naturally ask for ID. The ID is a multi-level authentication, my name would match their records and my picture would match, and most likely in most states, would also have a signature. Put succinctly “…there is no simple way to know who someone is, where they are from, and what they’re doing.”

Four: architecture of control
The original design wasn’t done with control in mind. So people could be anonymous because it wasn’t important to regulate the internet. Part of the problem too, is that most objects in life can be replicated. The same holds true for credentials, I can forge headers in email and make the receiver think they are from the government. I can make my computers IP address appear to be the same as any users (almost). To this end, we have credentials, drivers licenses and passports both give  “…a relatively high level of confidence about the facts asserted…”  that the information is about you. It is true that everyone would benefit from better authentication to prove who a user is on the Internet. We could better control our bank accounts and more efficient business. The problem is that these enable some to exert more control if the architectures are designed in a particular way.  Essentially the Internet was designed to be the way it is today the “network philosophy pushes complexity to the edge of the network – to the applications that run on the network, rather than they network’s core.” This keeps the Internet efficient and free to route traffic versus having to code new versions of the Internet to build things in like IM capability and new media features. It is easy to forget that many different computers are handling our data as it moves end-to-end and thus, can be seen by many eyes. With business looking to capitalize more and more on the Internet, industries like marketing want to link behavior and identity to specific people. There is also growing concern of not just privacy but of how information about users is stored. It would be catastrophic if someone managed to download a list of unencrypted users and passwords from Amazon.com. But the data needs to be in a database (or many) to make it easy for the user to not have to re-type all their purchasing data when shopping. One easy solution to some of the problems is encryption except that it makes things harder to regulate while keeping more inaccessible to prying eyes.

Five: regulating code
Technological advances in regards to Internet commerce have also helped the government with their regulation. One way to help agencies like law enforcement is the CALEA to design one type of network that can be more easily monitored by the government. In this indirect way, the code is being regulated because of the law passed. Another avenue being pursued is through encryption with a twist, a backdoor that the government can use to look at the data being sent. They can regulate encryption systems and indirectly regulate the information people are sending. This is purely because of the way the Internet is designed. No system is perfect but through some laws with limited scope, the bad behaviors and crimes can be better weeded out though these actions. Also introduced by the government is digital ID’s that provide a sort of personal database where only the needed information is provided to a website. Along with this idea is also a visual of the citizen to better facilitate traceability. Then the chapter moves to a sort of summary of how these codes differ, the code of law and the code of the Internet. The problems lie in that we have dealt with security on the web for a drop in the bucket compared to private property, Internet code has about 200 years of catching up to do. The chapter moves on to Z-theory that the terror will incite change, just like the patriot act after 9/11 the increase in incidents involving viruses and security will spurn radical change. As these changes are put in place though, so does the ability to subvert the good intentions. Thus, “we must ask of every exercise of power: Why?” Ideally this works, but as we all have had some exposure to political lobbyists and special interest groups, sometimes people ask question’s a lot later after acting.

Michelle Malkin’s article entitled “Another Bogus ACORN Lawsuit” states in part that ACORN has received more than $53 million since 1994.

I agree with her that ACORN has, to say the least, misappropriated federal funds.

It is the unregulated part of the U.S. Government’s funding for all non-profit organizations that I question.

Misuse and possible unlawful use of public funds by ACORN has heightened my interest with this issue. Why are any nonprofits getting even one dollar from the taxpayers? It would seem that once funded the revenue stream never stops. Add another qualified nonprofit non-audited organization and then another and yet another and pretty soon you’re talking about big money, provided via the taxpayer. Audit and regulate any wasteful spending on the part of these trough feeding entities or cut them off completely. Are these organization funded with the best interests of all citizens in mind or are they merely a mechanism with which to fund “friends of …” fill in the blank or a support base to help a certain political party get re-elected?

Enough already with the pet projects and social engineering. It’s time we elect CPAs, Constitutional attorneys and salt-of-the-earth citizens to reduce this unsustainable government spending. Remove the millionaire politicians from office as they are obviously removed from the economic realities of our countries fiscal situation.

When you take your child into any store it’s perfectly clear to you that you cannot buy your child everything they demand you buy, no matter how much they kick and scream. Why don’t this congress and this president understand what every parent understands? Time to tell your children in Washington DC that we can’t afford to buy them all of the shinny objects in the store.

Crying wolf..several CEO’s of ‘too big to fail’ companies are using New York State’s economy as a hedge to push back against the Congress’s plan to regulate that they not be allowed to ‘own’ their markets by their size…..lets see what happens after the alarm of last year has subsided…

…..Do these companies keep their immunity and stay ‘too big to fail’?

Capitalism is one thing….Corporate ‘bigmail’ is another…….

I’ve discussed this question with friends and colleagues, and it was brought up again on twitter (a tweet from someone at the PRSSA National Conference #prssnc): Should PR professionals have to go through some sort of licensing before they can practice PR?

My opinion is YES.

Here’s why:

1. The PR profession is in need of a MAJOR face lift. Case in point: When I told my mom I was no longer going to aspire to be a lawyer, but a PR practitioner instead, her response was “Oh, so you’re going to make white lies sound like the truth?” I think a lot of people have that same misconception about the PR function.
2. There are too many bad PR people who call themselves professionals that ruin it for the rest of us. Have you read the Bad Pitch Blog lately? If you have, you will know how many stupid PR people there are out there: and this blog only exposes a few of them! There needs to be a way to regulate who can practice PR and who cannot.
3. APR and PRSA are not enough. There already is an accreditation test available, but it’s a common opinion today that an APR is useless since you don’t “really” have to have it to practice PR. And I would have to agree, ANYONE with a suit and a smile can call themselves a PR pro these days. Most CEOs or clients don’t know what the hell an APR even is or what it stands for. Another form of an attempt to keep PR pros in check are the PRSA ethical guidelines. However, this deals with the same dilemma. What happens when that so-called PR person is not a PRSA member? More importantly, what happens to the CEO or client that doesn’t understand the point of PRSA and hires bad PR? Both APR and PRSA may be important to (some) good PR people, but the point is that it’s not about us, it’s about them: the client.

This leads to my conclusion:

There needs to be an identifiable (aka PUBLICIZED) form of licensing or accreditation that is mandatory for all PR practitioners. PR practitioners should have to EARN the right to practice PR. But more importantly, publics must be made aware, as well as educated, about the formal requirement to practice PR in order for PR to earn credibility and trust.

Lawyers have to attend law school and pass the BAR exam in order to practice law. They can also be dismembered from the BAR and banned from practicing law if they cross the fine line of ethical standards. In my mind, a PR pro’s function – dare I say it? — can be as important as a lawyer’s (I DID just go there!). Therefore, PR practitioners, like Lawyers, should be held to some sort of standard that produces serious consequences when trodden upon.

Times Online has an interesting counterpoint to my opinion about PR people and Lawyers that I suggest you all read. The Times Online viewpoint, and others like it, proves that we need to do something to be taken more seriously as professionals.

Dj Mellow m’a envoyé ça ce matin, ça envoie du lourd! Enjoy!

SCHLACHTHOFBRONX vs THE BODY SNATCHERS feat. YOLANDA – Regulate my pimpin time (DJ Mellow mashup) (Download via Souncloud)

Prochaines dates de Dj Mellow:

6 novembre 2009 au Tavernier (Cimetière d’Ixelles)

15 novembre 2009 à la Halle aux Draps de Soignies (Sweat Sweat Sound System & Dj Mellow)

20 novembre 2009 à la Bodega (Molenbeek): Regulate #2 avec Scottie B, Dave Luxe, Kesmo, Jay La Teigne

4 décembre 2009 au Recyclart (Bruxelles): Night Shop avec Ghislain Poirier, Sonido Del Principe et Batida

http://www.myspace.com/djmellow_music

I will simply repeat what I said in my previous post from today, Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance, when Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy (D-Vt.) was unable to answer the same question:

Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

So, are we serious?  Yes, Ms. Pelosi.  We are deadly serious.  We are not about to let you steal our freedom and shove your totalitarian crap down our throats.  Oh, by the way.  YOU’RE FIRED!

Here’s the text from Pelosi’s web site where she attempts to justify their constitutional power to do what they are doing.Pelosi Commerce Clause Justification

The idiots who don’t care enough to read their constitution or question the politicians might fall for her crap, but most of you reading this know better.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

What our power-hungry pole-iticians are hanging their hats on with this healthcare mandate, as I’ve been able to deduce thus far, are the “General Welfare” clause and Commerce Clause from Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.  They read as follows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Liberals and power-hungry dictator/ruling class wannabe’s (Obama and the leadership of the house and senate) interpret “provide for the… general Welfare…” to mean “welfare” in the modern sense of the word, which is to say redistribution of wealth, taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots.  As usual, they are wrong.  Welfare in the constitutional sense means “health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being,”  not public assistance as it is being interpreted.  It is one heck of a stretch to interpret the General Welfare clause as meaning the government must provide “free” healthcare.  Even if you could interpret the clause to mean the government had to provide it, which violates the intent of the clause, you CAN NOT interpret in any way that they can mandate that you purchase it.

Here is a good primer on the General Welfare clause, and how it has been twisted and taken advantage of over the years. http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

Now, looking at the Commerce Clause, there is no authority given to MANDATE that private citizens purchase ANYTHING.  Mandating that we purchase the government insurance, and then either fining or imprisoning us if we don’t is what’s known as a Bill of Attainder (In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment).) which is specifically forbidden to Congress under Article 1, Section 9 (Limits of Congress).  That reads:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Obama and the liberals are trying to circumvent the constitution and grab power before we can figure out what they are doing.  We must not allow this to happen.

Stay on the phones to congress, the senate, and the White House to express your outrage at their attempted destruction of the constitution.  Let them know that you will join any effort to remove them from office if they continue this course of action.

THEY MUST ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACT SAYS THEY WORK FOR US!

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’

Friday, October 23, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a ”serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

(Just in case the flash link doesn’t work, here’s the audio)

done

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing  written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. ”If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

What our power-hungry pole-iticians are hanging their hats on with this healthcare mandate, as I’ve been able to deduce thus far, are the “General Welfare” clause and Commerce Clause from Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.  They read as follows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Liberals and power-hungry dictator/ruling class wannabe’s (Obama and the leadership of the house and senate) interpret “provide for the… general Welfare…” to mean “welfare” in the modern sense of the word, which is to say redistribution of wealth, taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots.  As usual, they are wrong.  Welfare in the constitutional sense means “health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being,”  not public assistance as it is being interpreted.  It is one heck of a stretch to interpret the General Welfare clause as meaning the government must provide “free” healthcare.  Even if you could interpret the clause to mean the government had to provide it, which violates the intent of the clause, you CAN NOT interpret in any way that they can mandate that you purchase it.

Here is a good primer on the General Welfare clause, and how it has been twisted and taken advantage of over the years. http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

Now, looking at the Commerce Clause, there is no authority given to MANDATE that private citizens purchase ANYTHING.  Mandating that we purchase the government insurance, and then either fining or imprisoning us if we don’t is what’s known as a Bill of Attainder (In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment).) which is specifically forbidden to Congress under Article 1, Section 9 (Limits of Congress).  That reads:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Obama and the liberals are trying to circumvent the constitution and grab power before we can figure out what they are doing.  We must not allow this to happen.

Stay on the phones to congress, the senate, and the White House to express your outrage at their attempted destruction of the constitution.  Let them know that you will join any effort to remove them from office if they continue this course of action.

THEY MUST ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACT SAYS THEY WORK FOR US!

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

http://cnsnews.com/news/print/55910

Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Photo courtesy of Leahy’s Web site)

(This story was updated Oct. 22, 2009, at 1:30p.m..)

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance–as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.

Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: “Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?”

Sen. Leahy: “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?”

CNSNews.com: “I’m asking–”

Sen. Leahy: “Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.” (No question?  Really?)

(Just in case the flash link doesn’t work, here’s the audio file)

done

When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government’s ability to set speed limits on interstate highways–before turning and walking away.

CNSNews.com: “But where, I mean, which–”

Sen. Leahy: “Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?

CNSNews.com: “The states do that.”

Sen. Leahy: “No. The federal government does that on federal highways.”

Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states.

Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit–the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974–withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress’ authority to dole out federal tax revenue.  Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that omission engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation.

All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy health insurance.  Americans who don’t would be subject to a financial penalty.

Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy’s response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance “is wrong.”

“None of Congress’ enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate,” said Rivkin. “We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress’ prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a ‘novel question.’”

“This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers’ vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers,” he said. ”If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables.”

“This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty,” said Rivkin.  ”It is profoundly un-American.”

This is not the first time Congress has considered forcing Americans to buy health insurance. In 193-94, an individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton’s health care reform proposal.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a 1994 report that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be “unprecedented,” adding that the government had “never required” Americans to purchase anything. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” CBO found.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” said the CBO report.

“An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Although Sen. Leahy said that “nobody” questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that Hatch’s amendment was out of order.

In making his ruling, Sen. Baucus said the issue should not be considered by the Finance Committee because it came under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee–the panel chaired by Sen. Leahy.

“If we have the power simply to order Americans to buy certain products, why did we need a Cash-for-Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy appliances?” Hatch asked on Oct. 1 when trying to offer his amendment in the committee. ”We could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers or refrigerators.”

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

I’m so sick and tired of statists calling for “more government regulation” and control over things that the Free-Market should be in charge of. Healthcare, retirement and possibly Mass Media are now subject to federal authority.

The Thought Police at the Federal Communications Commission are busy creating plans to control the internet (the “fairness doctrine” of the internet). This new plan called “Net Neutrality” would essentially prohibit broadband providers from “discriminating against certain kinds of internet traffic.”* Their excuse: The internet is failing (“the sky is falling!”). Freedom of choice, self-interest and competition are completely foreign to these people. If the internet really is failing, why not allow private industry to improve and fix it? What they want is control over what you believe, see, hear and spend your money on.

Hiding behind the guise of “helping the poor” and “public good” they push forth programs that the Constitution doesn’t authorize and the country cannot accomodate (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, TARP, Bailouts, The New Deal, Great Society, etc). In the Leftist mindset, we are all too stupid to make rational decisions. To them our every action requires government oversight and regulation. If there’s a problem, the answer is always “Tax and regulate it.”  No matter what history and economics teach us, we must always repeat past mistakes and continue to dig our own grave. In the words of Ronald Reagan:

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

*http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BG8MT00&show_article=1

WASHINGTON, DC – Facing a Republican demand for a vote on subpoenaing Bank of America for the records of the Countrywide VIP program, the Oversight and Government Committee Majority today met in private for more than thirty minutes and decided to abandon a scheduled 2 p.m. committee mark-up at 2:35 pm without appearing on the dais to formally convened the meeting. Republican members were forced to sit in the hearing room while Democrats mulled to position. While the Majority cited a conflict with a Financial Services Committee meeting for the after-the-fact cancellation explanation, numerous Democrats, including those on the Financial Services Committee, were captured on video leaving the Oversight Committee meeting space after the cancellation.“The origins of the financial crisis lie in the collapse of the housing market – a collapse that was spurred on by reckless and irresponsible lending policies at companies such as Fannie Mae and Countrywide,” said Rep. Issa. “The benefits and strategy behind the Countrywide VIP program were reminiscent of the benefits Jack Abramoff bestowed on individuals with political influence. This Committee, on a bipartisan basis, conducted a targeted investigation into the Jack Abramoff scandal. It needs to investigate Countrywide’s efforts to buy influence.”Added Issa, “Democrats may have skated out of today’s vote, but they can rest assured that Republicans will again demand a vote to hold Countrywide accountable.”

CO2 — many seek to regulate it, legislate it, tax it, capture it, sequester it, cap it, trade it or otherwise control it.  And they who do would have us risk nothing less than worldwide economic destruction based on the theory that not doing so will inevitably lead to catastrophic global warming.  But one need only study the past two centuries of climate history to conclude that CO2 simply does not drive global warming.

Let us start from the data. The plot of the mean global temperature anomaly in deg C for the data from the Hadley Centre from year 1850 to 2008 is shown below.

The New York Times

By STEPHEN LABATON

October 15, 2009

WASHINGTON — A key House committee voted on Thursday to regulate, for the first time, trading in the arcane financial instruments known as derivatives, which have been linked to the financial crisis that shocked Wall Street and cut into the savings of millions of Americans.

The 43-to-26 vote by the Financial Services Committee was mostly along party lines and was a big step in President Obama’s proposed overhaul of rules covering the nation’s financial system.

The measure is part of a bill that will be debated by the House and Senate. Michael S. Barr, the assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions, called the bill “absolutely essential to preserving a strong marketplace.” …

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16regulate.html?_r=1&hp

Market Reform’s Effect on Derivatives: No more “weapons of financial mass destruction”?

Converanet.com

August 05, 2009

Warren Buffett called them “weapons of financial mass destruction” and they have been heavily blamed for the meltdown in the financial system and the freezing of credit markets over the past 2 years. Financial derivatives represent trillions of dollars in securities that trade hands around the world every single day. Yet they are one of the least understood financial instruments.

Derivatives can be traced back more than 200 years, when rice farmers in Japan would sell their crops at a set price today, promising to deliver those crops when they were harvested at a later date. The price was based on what the buyer and seller “guessed” that the price would be a few months down the road. Derivatives started out then as an innocent, simple financial tool for those involved in the buying and selling of commodities. A derivative is simply a financial contract with a value derived from the underlying value of some good or commodity.

Fast forward to the late 1990s and derivatives had transformed into much more complicated vehicles. The commodities involved in many derivative contracts were no longer just rice and beans, but rather interest rates, mortgages, and other financial assets with no intrinsic value. Credit derivatives, for example, are a tool used to shift risk from one financial institution to another. As soon as the housing market started to decline and foreclosures started to increase, the mortgages in these contracts became what we now call “toxic debt.”

The biggest problem with financial derivatives was a serious lack of regulation. Ten years ago, legislation allowed for derivatives to be traded over-the-counter with no regulation. The thinking was that the commodities markets were already regulated, so there was no need for an extra layer of regulation when derivatives were made up of commodities. Soon, banks were packaging sub-prime loans into contracts along with traditional, safer mortgage-backed securities, but it was impossible to determine where the bad loans were once they were packaged and traded. Banks with billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps and other financial derivatives were stuck holding securities that were impossible to determine a value for. …

http://www.converanet.com/banking/market-reforms-effect-derivatives-no-more-weapons-financial-mass-destruction

The neocons produced a recipe for disaster – (1) tightly control labor while (2) deregulating the financial industry. There you have, at work,  two of the four main steps of VOODOO economics.

And todays neocons, now calling themselves conservative Republicans, still do not seem to have learned from America’s crashed economy. Is that type of behavior the reason for the word “IN-DENIAL” as a description of some neocon behavior?

Will Rogers said something like, “when you realize you’re in a hole stop digging”. That should be sage advice – but apparently, sometimes it is not.

Nixon and Checkers, a gift given to his daughters

Beginning Dec. 1, blogs will be subjected to the same level of oversight as other forms of media. Today, the FTC announced new regulations requiring that bloggers who review products will have to disclose any potential connection to the advertiser, such as providing the product to the reviewer for free.

As Tim Arango of The New York Times wrote today,

“More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print.”

I see this as progress for the blog medium. Blogs struggle to achieve the same recognition as other forms of media. I know I am guilty of taking information on blogs less seriously than content on newspaper Web sites. I believe this blog bias is due to origins of the blog. I remember when Xanga was popular, and every kid at school had an account. It was the Facebook of 2004. MySpace and Facebook have become the new outlets for venting and personal expression. That was my first exposure to blogging, and I think many web users are in the same boat I am. It takes time to shift from thinking of blogs as personal diatribes to thinking of them as serious media outlets for the dissemination of news and informed opinions.

Arango’s article refers to professor Clay Shirky, whose essay “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” we read earlier in the semester.

“’It crushes the idea that the Internet is separate from the kinds of concerns that have been attached to previous media,’ said Clay Shirky, a professor at New York University.”

Is elevating blog status a step toward saving journalism, as Shirky discussed in his essay on newspapers?

The Times also interviews blog reviewer Christine Young.

“’I think that bloggers definitely need to be held accountable,’ said Ms. Young. ‘I think there is a certain level of trust that bloggers have with readers, and readers deserve to know the whole truth.’”

This leaves me with two thoughts: 1) Will the FTC regulations even be enforceable? I’m not convinced they can be. It seems that we haven’t been able to regulate the Internet at all yet. How is this any different? 2) Am I the only one who is left with a lingering blog bias after the Xanga era, or has everyone else moved on?

Do you think the FTC regulations are reasonable? Do you think they’re enforceable?

Do you take blog media as seriously as other forms of media? Do you ever read product reviews on blogs?

I always enjoy tooting my own horn; after-all, this is a very Leo-centric blog. However, with Zebra slugger Sammy G on the ascent, I really wanted to toot this horn. Sammy’s namesake was partially inspired by Long Beach’s own Warren G. About two months ago, I got to chat with Warren about life in the LBC and such. This interview stoked me for two reasons: First, because I really wanted to tell him how much his super-crass verse on “Aint No Fun” entertained my juvenile ninth grade self. Second and more importantly, because I wanted to tell him that I knew a fledgling rapper who enjoyed G’s contribution to the G-Funk era enough to pay tribute through his moniker. Scope the interview here.

John O. Edwards
Newsmax
September 21, 2009

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.

Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.

But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.

During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls “Net Neutrality.”

Obama’s new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-plans-internet-grab-fcc-to-embrace-net-neutrality/

In today’s irony report, Seanie Mic, the man whose parody videos have piles up 100’s of 1,000’s of 1,000,000’s of views, seems to always be present with his camera for local shows.

Thankfully he was on hand to capture Naledge (Kidz In The Hall) wearing a DOPE Couture shirt on stage with a wig-wearing Double-O?  There’s also footage of U-N-I doing my favorite song of theirs, ‘Beautiful Day,’ and Warren G running through This DJ & Regulators.  The bass was heavy on some of the songs, so sound quality is low.  Hopefully someone over at Heavy Gun has footage of Grey Granite opening up.  Thanks again to Sean for the video.

U-N-I – Beautiful Day:

Kidz In The Hall:

Warren G – Regulators: