The following are a few excerpts from an article entitled Illustrated History of Heart Disease 1825-2015. Click the link to read the whole thing. (The illustrations are in the original article.)
-1825: French lawyer and gourmand Brillant-Savarin publishes The Physiology of Taste, in which he says he has identified the cure for obesity: "More or less rigid abstinence from everything that is starchy or floury."
-1863: William Banting published Letter On Corpulence, Addressed to the Public. Banting had lost 85 pounds on a high fat, carbohydrate-restricted diet. The British Medical Journal and Lancet reported that Banting's diet could be dangerous: "We advise Mr Banting, and everyone of his kind, not to meddle with medical literature again, but be content to mind his own business."
-1910: Butter consumption = 18 pounds per capita. In the year 2000 butter consumption went below 4 pounds. When we were using high quality butter lavishly, mortality from heart disease was below 10 percent. (Infections killed a majority of people; a high percentage of infants and women of child-bearing age died during the birthing process.) Today as we consume our “Country Croak,” the mortality from heart disease is 40 to 45 percent. Both Dr. Andrew Weil and the late Dr. Robert C. Atkins agree: "Eat butter; not margarine, regardless of the claims the manufacturer is making for it!"
-1910: Lard, the rendered fat from pigs raised outdoors, was the #1 cooking fat - enjoying 70 percent of the market. Lard was the best source of Vitamin D and a good source of palmitoleic acid, a monounsaturated anti-microbial fatty acid that kills bacteria and viruses. Today highly processed soybean oil has 70 percent of the market; zero vitamin D. Now the same experts who told us not to eat lard are telling us we are deficient in Vitamin D! (Emphasis mine.)
-1937: Columbia University biochemists David Rittenberg & Rudolph Schoenheimer demonstrated that dietary cholesterol had very little effect on blood cholesterol. Although never refuted, for thirty years, the federal Dietary Guidelines have restricted dietary cholesterol to less than 300 milligrams a day.
-1950: Using a newly invented one-of-a-kind centrifuge, University of California medical scientist John Gofman discovered several fat-like substances circulating in the blood, including LDL and VLDL. At this time - 60 years ago - he reported that total cholesterol (TC) was a "dangerously poor predictor" of heart disease.
-1951: The Practise of Endocrinology, a textbook published by seven prominent British clinicians. The weight loss recommendations were almost identical to Banting's. Foods to be avoided: Bread and everything else made with flour; cereals, including breakfast cereals and milk puddings; potatoes and all other root vegetables; foods containing sugar and all sweets.
-1955: John Gofman reported that carbohydrates elevate VLDL - the lipoprotein that transports blood fats (triglycerides) made in the liver from excess carbohydrates. Gofman wrote, "Restricting carbohydrates would lower VLDL." Excess carbs = elevated triglycerides = more VLDL = increased risk of heart disease. John Peters, Yale School of Medicine, using a new analytical centrifuge, was able to quantify the triglyceride concentration in VLDL, confirming the work of Gofman.
-1970: Margaret Albrink, Peter Kuo, Lars Carlson, and Joseph Goldstein reported that elevated triglycerides (TG) were more common in heart disease patients than cholesterol. They confirmed that the majority of people with heart disease have what Gofman called "Carbohydrate Induced Lipemia."
-1974: Framingham Heart Study (24 years). Men with cholesterol levels below 190 mg/dl were three times more likely to get colon cancer as men with cholesterol over 220 mg/dl. In Framingham, there was a strong association between low cholesterol and premature death. Also, there was no relationship between elevated cholesterol and sudden death.
-1986: The same year the U.S. declared "War on Cholesterol," Japanese physicians warn that low blood cholesterol levels are strongly associated with strokes, the number one cause of death in Japan. As the percentage of fat in the Japanese diet increased, the incidence of deadly strokes declined.
-1988: After 20 years researching carbohydrate metabolism, Gerald Reavan, MD, University of California, announces his discovery of “Syndrome X,” now referred to as Metabolic Syndrome or diabetes-related heart disease. Syndrome X is a cluster of abnormalities, including high blood sugar, high insulin levels, elevated triglycerides, and depressed levels of protective HDL. In his book Syndrome X, Dr. Reaven said the culprit in heart disease is excess sugar and excess easily-digested carbohydrates - not red meat.
There's a lot more. It makes for interesting reading so do click on the link and read all of the article. But, with what I have included above, you should get the point. The low fat, high carbohydrate diet is an obesity-, heart disease-, and cancer-causing disaster.
When we ate more butter, lard, coconut oil, safely collected raw milk, less sugar, soft drinks, candy, white flour*, vegetable oils (polyunsaturated fatty acids, not natural monounsaturates like lard and olive oil) we were a healthier people. If we went back to that type of eating health care costs--yours, personally, and everyone else--could be reduce substantially. Of course, the big agricultural industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical-treating-not-curing industry will fight like crazy to keep you sick and dependent on them.
* In his book, Wheat Belly, Dr. William Davis, Cardiologist, explains how modern wheat is nearly the same as a genetically modified organism (GMO) due the intensive hybridization it has gone through in the last 50 years. He claims--and has proven it clinically--that by avoiding all wheat and products containing wheat, including "healthy whole wheat," we can avoid many of today's diseases. Buy the book. In the alternative go to http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/ and check out what's there.
Other links for good, natural diets are:
http://www.westonaprice.org/
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-blog.html
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/#axzz1s1X8BYUM
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Ennui
There has been much in the news lately that could have been subjects for me to write about. But, since my last post, I have had a great sense of ennui settle over me. Does it really matter? That is, I am but one voice crying out in the multitude of voices crying out on the www (and rather a small and unknown one). But more, will writing about that which I feel strongly make a difference...to anyone? Big sigh. Well, maybe later I will be motivated to write something here again.
Besides, I've taken to writing erotic fantasies. I'm even getting paid (a little) for them. And I find that to be ever so much more fun than writing about the reality of the evil actions of individuals and governments.
Besides, I've taken to writing erotic fantasies. I'm even getting paid (a little) for them. And I find that to be ever so much more fun than writing about the reality of the evil actions of individuals and governments.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Regarding Second Hand Smoke
REGARDING GRETCHEN CARLSON’S STATEMENTS MADE ON MARCH 6, 2013 FOX AND FRIENDS REGARDING SECOND HAND SMOKE AND SECOND HAND MARIJUANA SMOKE.
Ms. Carlson accepts the belief that tobacco second hand smoke is as dangerous as has been reported in the media. But, she thinks that marijuana second hand smoke could just be as dangerous or even more so. Her comments seemed to indicate that smoking marijuana was more dangerous than, perhaps, smoking tobacco. I think this is a typical anti-rightist, anti-drug, religious-based, personal moral perspective.
The “truth” can be subjective. Facts are verifiable.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html This page is about the 1993 EPA report on second hand smoke and how it is flawed and how they had to manipulate the data to get to a risk factor that normally would be considered insignificant.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html This page is about the 1998 World Health Organization’s (WHO) study on second hand smoke in Europe and how it produced unexpected results including a 22% lower chance of lung cancer from children raised in a home with a smoker.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html This page is about a much touted, but seriously flawed study funded by the anti-tobacco forces regarding a six-month smoking ban in all businesses in Helena, Montana in 2002.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helenacharts.html This page shows the chart used in the Helena study trying to prove that the six-month ban of smoking in all businesses reduced heart attacks by 60%. The fraud is explained.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/links.html This page has several links to some interesting things, but click on Name Three … Here, I’ll do if for you: http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html This is where Dave Hitt (all the above links came from his “Facts” pages) contacted several people and organizations asking them to name three people who verifiably died from second hand smoke. He was either ignored or when someone did come up with three names they weren’t verified as dying of second hand smoke. In fact one had pancreatic cancer which had traveled to her lungs.
I want to make clear (as does Dave Hitt) that I am not promoting smoking. I was a smoker for 20 years and I’ve been a non-smoker for 27 years. However, I’ve always believed that that much quoted 50,000 people a year are dying from second hand (tobacco) smoke was a big load of B.S.
If you are worried about second hand smoke, you should be more worried about automobile exhaust according to this article: http://gas2.org/2013/01/10/car-exhaust-the-worlds-second-fastest-growing-cause-of-death I can only assume, if this article is backed up by facts rather than skewed and fraudulent scientific claims that living in a large city is a big risk factor for dying early. Automobile exhaust (and you don’t have to see it for it to be there) is around you all the time.
But I digress. The second issue I wish to take up is marijuana and second hand marijuana smoke, as Gretchen Carlson seemed to have been very aggressively concerned about that.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#sthash.MVjZD2dU.dpbs This page, from Drug War Facts, quotes various accepted sources about drugs, drug use, and drug deaths. Marijuana does not cause any deaths. See paragraph 8 and, especially, paragraph 23.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill This page is from WebMD and talks about two large studies showing that marijuana smoking, even long-term, does not cause heart attacks or lung cancer. This is probably due to the fact that the average user only smokes one marijuana cigarette a day, or less.
Does this mean that minors should have access to marijuana. Absolutely not. Just like they should not have access to alcohol and tobacco, but adults should. That is, if one believes in the concept of inalienable rights which, obviously, most adults and the vast majority in the federal Congress and State Legislatures don’t. (See my dissertation on the myth of inalienable rights at this URL: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com.)
Okay, so marijuana is not a deadly drug, but how much disease is caused from smoking or breathing in second hand marijuana smoke?
I could find nothing directly on the long-term health effects of second hand marijuana smoke, which is easily explained. Marijuana is illegal and it’s hard to do serious research about it’s effects. However another WebMD page, http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer, stated that no correlation could be found between smoking marijuana and lung cancer—again, probably due to less smoking than with tobacco—but on the second page the article cited another study saying that heart attack risk within a short time after smoking was greatly increased.
It would seem that if the direct smoking of marijuana does not promoted lung cancer, then a bit of second hand marijuana smoke would have an even smaller effect. And, as shown above, second hand tobacco smoke probably has little to no effect on non-smokers, so second hand marijuana smoke is probably something even less to worry about.
That doesn’t mean that smoking marijuana is risk free, as these articles point out.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx
The three articles point out the dangers of smoking marijuana for minors and I agree, as I stated above, mind-altering and addictive drugs should be kept out of the hands of minors to the best of our ability. Teen-agers especially are going through the child-to-adult brain growing period and many emotional chemicals are in the mix. That’s why many teen-agers are so difficult. Throwing a mind-altering drug into that mix will only make matters worse.
Of course, as pointed out in Dave Hitt’s articles, above, we don’t know how well the studies on marijuana use were set up, given its illegal status. How large of a study population, what confounding facts, how long were the study conducted, and so forth.
So, Ms. Carlson, I don’t think you have to be worried about the harmful health effects of second hand marijuana smoke and can relax.
Ms. Carlson accepts the belief that tobacco second hand smoke is as dangerous as has been reported in the media. But, she thinks that marijuana second hand smoke could just be as dangerous or even more so. Her comments seemed to indicate that smoking marijuana was more dangerous than, perhaps, smoking tobacco. I think this is a typical anti-rightist, anti-drug, religious-based, personal moral perspective.
The “truth” can be subjective. Facts are verifiable.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html This page is about the 1993 EPA report on second hand smoke and how it is flawed and how they had to manipulate the data to get to a risk factor that normally would be considered insignificant.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html This page is about the 1998 World Health Organization’s (WHO) study on second hand smoke in Europe and how it produced unexpected results including a 22% lower chance of lung cancer from children raised in a home with a smoker.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html This page is about a much touted, but seriously flawed study funded by the anti-tobacco forces regarding a six-month smoking ban in all businesses in Helena, Montana in 2002.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helenacharts.html This page shows the chart used in the Helena study trying to prove that the six-month ban of smoking in all businesses reduced heart attacks by 60%. The fraud is explained.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/links.html This page has several links to some interesting things, but click on Name Three … Here, I’ll do if for you: http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html This is where Dave Hitt (all the above links came from his “Facts” pages) contacted several people and organizations asking them to name three people who verifiably died from second hand smoke. He was either ignored or when someone did come up with three names they weren’t verified as dying of second hand smoke. In fact one had pancreatic cancer which had traveled to her lungs.
I want to make clear (as does Dave Hitt) that I am not promoting smoking. I was a smoker for 20 years and I’ve been a non-smoker for 27 years. However, I’ve always believed that that much quoted 50,000 people a year are dying from second hand (tobacco) smoke was a big load of B.S.
If you are worried about second hand smoke, you should be more worried about automobile exhaust according to this article: http://gas2.org/2013/01/10/car-exhaust-the-worlds-second-fastest-growing-cause-of-death I can only assume, if this article is backed up by facts rather than skewed and fraudulent scientific claims that living in a large city is a big risk factor for dying early. Automobile exhaust (and you don’t have to see it for it to be there) is around you all the time.
But I digress. The second issue I wish to take up is marijuana and second hand marijuana smoke, as Gretchen Carlson seemed to have been very aggressively concerned about that.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#sthash.MVjZD2dU.dpbs This page, from Drug War Facts, quotes various accepted sources about drugs, drug use, and drug deaths. Marijuana does not cause any deaths. See paragraph 8 and, especially, paragraph 23.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill This page is from WebMD and talks about two large studies showing that marijuana smoking, even long-term, does not cause heart attacks or lung cancer. This is probably due to the fact that the average user only smokes one marijuana cigarette a day, or less.
Does this mean that minors should have access to marijuana. Absolutely not. Just like they should not have access to alcohol and tobacco, but adults should. That is, if one believes in the concept of inalienable rights which, obviously, most adults and the vast majority in the federal Congress and State Legislatures don’t. (See my dissertation on the myth of inalienable rights at this URL: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com.)
Okay, so marijuana is not a deadly drug, but how much disease is caused from smoking or breathing in second hand marijuana smoke?
I could find nothing directly on the long-term health effects of second hand marijuana smoke, which is easily explained. Marijuana is illegal and it’s hard to do serious research about it’s effects. However another WebMD page, http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer, stated that no correlation could be found between smoking marijuana and lung cancer—again, probably due to less smoking than with tobacco—but on the second page the article cited another study saying that heart attack risk within a short time after smoking was greatly increased.
It would seem that if the direct smoking of marijuana does not promoted lung cancer, then a bit of second hand marijuana smoke would have an even smaller effect. And, as shown above, second hand tobacco smoke probably has little to no effect on non-smokers, so second hand marijuana smoke is probably something even less to worry about.
That doesn’t mean that smoking marijuana is risk free, as these articles point out.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/problems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabis.aspx
The three articles point out the dangers of smoking marijuana for minors and I agree, as I stated above, mind-altering and addictive drugs should be kept out of the hands of minors to the best of our ability. Teen-agers especially are going through the child-to-adult brain growing period and many emotional chemicals are in the mix. That’s why many teen-agers are so difficult. Throwing a mind-altering drug into that mix will only make matters worse.
Of course, as pointed out in Dave Hitt’s articles, above, we don’t know how well the studies on marijuana use were set up, given its illegal status. How large of a study population, what confounding facts, how long were the study conducted, and so forth.
So, Ms. Carlson, I don’t think you have to be worried about the harmful health effects of second hand marijuana smoke and can relax.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Wheat Belly
Wheat Belly is the title of a book by preventative cardiologist, William Davis, M.D. He is one of a growing number of experts who are warning us about the harmful effects of a bad diet and Dr. Davis explains in detail why wheat, today, has become a frankenfood that is wrecking the health of millions, possibly billions, of people around the world.
Wheat actually has a higher gylcemic index than table sugar, sucrose. The modern wheat plant has been so hybridized that it has become, in effect, a genetically modified organism (GMO). The purpose of the hybridization was to make the wheat produce more grain per acre. That was done, but along with it came changes in how the wheat--all of its proteins--inter-react in our bodies when we eat it.
Dr. Davis says that in his personal experience--advising overweight, diabetic, and pre-diabetic patitents, sent to him by their family doctors because of their heart disease risk--he has seen people lose weight and either control or eliminate type 2 diabetes by getting wheat out of their diet. This applies to people with Celiac Disease, too, as well as other physical ailments. There are many aspects to how wheat negatively affects your body, many of which may not be apparent but will make you more and more unhealthy as you age.
I, personally, have eliminated all grains from my diet. I am following a paleo diet. But if you're not ready to do that, or can't afford to, then by all means get all wheat out of your diet. That would include so-called healthy whole wheat (grains) and sprouted wheat, too. I know that's a tall order considering just how much our society is addicted to wheat and wheat products, but your future health could depend upon it.
Wheat Belly is well-referenced with some studies going back decades. I highly recommend this book for anyone serious about controlling their health and losing weight. Also, you can go to wheatbellyblog.com to find out more. Go! Go now!
Wheat actually has a higher gylcemic index than table sugar, sucrose. The modern wheat plant has been so hybridized that it has become, in effect, a genetically modified organism (GMO). The purpose of the hybridization was to make the wheat produce more grain per acre. That was done, but along with it came changes in how the wheat--all of its proteins--inter-react in our bodies when we eat it.
Dr. Davis says that in his personal experience--advising overweight, diabetic, and pre-diabetic patitents, sent to him by their family doctors because of their heart disease risk--he has seen people lose weight and either control or eliminate type 2 diabetes by getting wheat out of their diet. This applies to people with Celiac Disease, too, as well as other physical ailments. There are many aspects to how wheat negatively affects your body, many of which may not be apparent but will make you more and more unhealthy as you age.
I, personally, have eliminated all grains from my diet. I am following a paleo diet. But if you're not ready to do that, or can't afford to, then by all means get all wheat out of your diet. That would include so-called healthy whole wheat (grains) and sprouted wheat, too. I know that's a tall order considering just how much our society is addicted to wheat and wheat products, but your future health could depend upon it.
Wheat Belly is well-referenced with some studies going back decades. I highly recommend this book for anyone serious about controlling their health and losing weight. Also, you can go to wheatbellyblog.com to find out more. Go! Go now!
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Gun Control
The purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was in part for self protection but it was also to protect the citizens against its own government.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.- George Mason
Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia… . - George Mason
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.- James Madison
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. - Patrick Henry
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed… . - Noah Webster
And, of course, Ben Franklin famously said this: Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
George Washington had this to say about governments in general: Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
The point George Washington was making was that all laws are backed up by the use of force and deadly force if the govenment agents carrying out those laws feel deadly force is necessary. There are many laws on the books that are violative of the rights of the people. If you break one and resist arrest you could be shot and killed.
Then there is the issue of a government take-over. Most people believe it can't happen here, in America. They may be right. However, history has shown that all republics become empires and despotic. We are all humans and we are all liable to human desires. Can you not forsee a scenario when America is in deep trouble and a person much like Julius Caesar rises up and takes us from republic to empire?
But what did modern dictators have to say about guns in the hands of the people?
From Fidel Castro's public address of January 9, 1959: I appeal to the public to disarm the ambitious. Why are clandestine arms being stored at this very minute? Why are arms being hidden at distinct points of the capital? Why are arms being smuggled at this moment? I tell you that there are members of certain revolutionary organizations who are smuggling and storing arms. All the arms that were found by the rebel army are stored and locked in barracks, where they belong. What are these arms for? Against whom are they going to be used?
It's good to be a Communist dictator, disarm the people and rule how you want.
How about what the mass murderer Mao Zedong had to say: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And the people of China have to look at the barrels of the guns of the government if they protest that government, because they have do not have a right to bear arms.
Then there's this from Vladimir Lenin: One man with a gun can control 100 without one. I'm sure, that V. Lenin meant for the one man to be working for the government and the 100, to be the people who the government wants to control.
Hitler had this to say about arms in the hands of the people: History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939
But what have a few famous Americans said about gun control?
Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3 (Ms. Brady's desire, then, is to conquer the free people of America. See the Hitler quote above.)
And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them. Bill Clinton, President, sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution
Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. Former Attorney General Janet Reno, also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned. Former Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH), also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Maybe a totalitarian take-over of our government isn't possible, but that would be because millions of people own firearms and, so far, have the right to own them. There are those among us-- a former President, U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Senator--who would gladly disarm the Ameriocan people. If that ever happens then our nation is doomed to become a socialist dictatorship because there would be no brakes on what power-hungry people could do. And the power-hungry are always with us. But, as it stands now, they have to sneak around and try to wear away our rights and liberties a little at a time.
It's rather like putting a frog in a pan of cold water and heating the pan slowly. By the time the frog realizes something's wrong, it's too late.
At base, the right of the people to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from an out of control government, however unlikely that may seem, and to overthrow that government when that government becomes abusive of the rights of the people.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.... Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration of Independence.
Finally, I heard former U.S. Representative, Gabrielle Giffords, speak before a Senate hearing on gun control. Something she said struck a note. "Too many children are dying... ." She was referring to children killed by guns in the U.S. And I agree with her, althought the statistics show that the majority of the deaths occur among black children which might be a condition of socio-economic problems rather than of mere legal gun ownership.
But this new outcry for gun control came after the horrible murder of twenty childern and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conneticutt, a gun-free zone with no armed guards or armed teachers there to protect them. I wonder how Ms. Giffords feels about the approximately 178 children murdered in U.S. drone strikes. If she were still in Congress would she be for these drone strikes or vehemently against them? Would the possible killing of certain Taliban and Al Qaeda members take precedent over the lives of innocent children? Or, because they're just dirty little Pakis or Yemenis it really doesn't matter? I would like to think that Ms. Giffords' care and compassion would include those children in foreign countries murdered in our attempts to kill the bad guys and that she would want to stop that carnage, too.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.- George Mason
Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia… . - George Mason
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.- James Madison
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. - Patrick Henry
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed… . - Noah Webster
And, of course, Ben Franklin famously said this: Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
George Washington had this to say about governments in general: Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
The point George Washington was making was that all laws are backed up by the use of force and deadly force if the govenment agents carrying out those laws feel deadly force is necessary. There are many laws on the books that are violative of the rights of the people. If you break one and resist arrest you could be shot and killed.
Then there is the issue of a government take-over. Most people believe it can't happen here, in America. They may be right. However, history has shown that all republics become empires and despotic. We are all humans and we are all liable to human desires. Can you not forsee a scenario when America is in deep trouble and a person much like Julius Caesar rises up and takes us from republic to empire?
But what did modern dictators have to say about guns in the hands of the people?
From Fidel Castro's public address of January 9, 1959: I appeal to the public to disarm the ambitious. Why are clandestine arms being stored at this very minute? Why are arms being hidden at distinct points of the capital? Why are arms being smuggled at this moment? I tell you that there are members of certain revolutionary organizations who are smuggling and storing arms. All the arms that were found by the rebel army are stored and locked in barracks, where they belong. What are these arms for? Against whom are they going to be used?
It's good to be a Communist dictator, disarm the people and rule how you want.
How about what the mass murderer Mao Zedong had to say: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And the people of China have to look at the barrels of the guns of the government if they protest that government, because they have do not have a right to bear arms.
Then there's this from Vladimir Lenin: One man with a gun can control 100 without one. I'm sure, that V. Lenin meant for the one man to be working for the government and the 100, to be the people who the government wants to control.
Hitler had this to say about arms in the hands of the people: History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939
But what have a few famous Americans said about gun control?
Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3 (Ms. Brady's desire, then, is to conquer the free people of America. See the Hitler quote above.)
And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them. Bill Clinton, President, sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution
Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. Former Attorney General Janet Reno, also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned. Former Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH), also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Maybe a totalitarian take-over of our government isn't possible, but that would be because millions of people own firearms and, so far, have the right to own them. There are those among us-- a former President, U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Senator--who would gladly disarm the Ameriocan people. If that ever happens then our nation is doomed to become a socialist dictatorship because there would be no brakes on what power-hungry people could do. And the power-hungry are always with us. But, as it stands now, they have to sneak around and try to wear away our rights and liberties a little at a time.
It's rather like putting a frog in a pan of cold water and heating the pan slowly. By the time the frog realizes something's wrong, it's too late.
At base, the right of the people to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from an out of control government, however unlikely that may seem, and to overthrow that government when that government becomes abusive of the rights of the people.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.... Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration of Independence.
Finally, I heard former U.S. Representative, Gabrielle Giffords, speak before a Senate hearing on gun control. Something she said struck a note. "Too many children are dying... ." She was referring to children killed by guns in the U.S. And I agree with her, althought the statistics show that the majority of the deaths occur among black children which might be a condition of socio-economic problems rather than of mere legal gun ownership.
But this new outcry for gun control came after the horrible murder of twenty childern and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conneticutt, a gun-free zone with no armed guards or armed teachers there to protect them. I wonder how Ms. Giffords feels about the approximately 178 children murdered in U.S. drone strikes. If she were still in Congress would she be for these drone strikes or vehemently against them? Would the possible killing of certain Taliban and Al Qaeda members take precedent over the lives of innocent children? Or, because they're just dirty little Pakis or Yemenis it really doesn't matter? I would like to think that Ms. Giffords' care and compassion would include those children in foreign countries murdered in our attempts to kill the bad guys and that she would want to stop that carnage, too.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Ms. Universe and Marijuana
I saw Olivia Culpo on Fox and Friends this morning. She's the new Ms. Universe. (I wonder how other sentient beings in the universe feel about that title.)
The thing I want to comment on is that she holds a position against legalized marijuana. She claims that there were serious consequences to its use.
Really? Are they as serious as the consequences to the use of alcohol? Alcohol, a true narcotic drug, is the number one violence-causing drug in America, probably the world, merely from it's use. Alcohol is the third leading cause of premature death in the world according to this article. Of course, smoking is worse, but I'm pretty sure Ms. Culpo is against smoking, too, but would she want Congress to pass laws making it illegal like marijuana?
Can a fifteen-year-old walk into a liquor store or grocery store and by alcohol? Of course not. Yet that same fifteen-year-old can, if he or she wants to, find someone to sell them marijuana. Like Pauline Sabine said when she testified before Congress about the harmful effects of alcohol prohibition:
"In pre-prohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children."
If marijuana, and other presently illegal drugs, were sold legally in drug/liquor stores to adults upon proof of age, it would be harder for teenagers to get access to those drugs. As to adults, we don't jail them for drinking or smoking, even though alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and addictive substances. It's the right of an adult to decide if he or she wants to use one or both of those substances. It should be the same for the presently illegal drugs.
That is, it would be if we actually believed in the myth of inalienable rights, which obviously, we don't. The principle of inalienable rights states that some things cannot be voted on, that a majority has no legitimate power to negate a person's actions in certain situations. Under the principle of real and true inalienable rights then, an adult whose behavior does not violate the rights of others and does not threaten or endanger the rights of other, has an inalienable right to that behavior even if you or everyone else in the country believes that the behavior in question is immoral.
Immorality is a religious concept and religion should not control our laws. By advocating the illegality of marijuana, Ms. Culpo, you are advocating the imposition of religion into our secular laws. You are following in the footsteps of the relgious groups who lobbied Congress to make certain drugs illegal because they were immoral. That led to the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, which, to me, was a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause of the United States Constitution. The diminishment of inalienable rights has only gotten worse since then.
By all objective evidence, from the prohibition of alcohol to the prohibition of other drugs today, making those drugs illegal only creates more real crime and violence and allows them to be more available to minors. I strongly suggest, Ms. Culpo, that you study this issue more and, hopefully, come down on the side of inalienable rights, the right of all consenting adults to use the property of their bodies and minds as they wish, just so long as they do not violate the rights of others in so doing. The legalization of marijuana would be a good first step.
The thing I want to comment on is that she holds a position against legalized marijuana. She claims that there were serious consequences to its use.
Really? Are they as serious as the consequences to the use of alcohol? Alcohol, a true narcotic drug, is the number one violence-causing drug in America, probably the world, merely from it's use. Alcohol is the third leading cause of premature death in the world according to this article. Of course, smoking is worse, but I'm pretty sure Ms. Culpo is against smoking, too, but would she want Congress to pass laws making it illegal like marijuana?
Can a fifteen-year-old walk into a liquor store or grocery store and by alcohol? Of course not. Yet that same fifteen-year-old can, if he or she wants to, find someone to sell them marijuana. Like Pauline Sabine said when she testified before Congress about the harmful effects of alcohol prohibition:
"In pre-prohibition days, mothers had little fear in regard to the saloon as far as their children were concerned. A saloon-keeper's license was revoked if he were caught selling liquor to minors. Today in any speakeasy in the United States you can find boys and girls in their teens drinking liquor, and this situation has become so acute that the mothers of the country feel something must be done to protect their children."
If marijuana, and other presently illegal drugs, were sold legally in drug/liquor stores to adults upon proof of age, it would be harder for teenagers to get access to those drugs. As to adults, we don't jail them for drinking or smoking, even though alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and addictive substances. It's the right of an adult to decide if he or she wants to use one or both of those substances. It should be the same for the presently illegal drugs.
That is, it would be if we actually believed in the myth of inalienable rights, which obviously, we don't. The principle of inalienable rights states that some things cannot be voted on, that a majority has no legitimate power to negate a person's actions in certain situations. Under the principle of real and true inalienable rights then, an adult whose behavior does not violate the rights of others and does not threaten or endanger the rights of other, has an inalienable right to that behavior even if you or everyone else in the country believes that the behavior in question is immoral.
Immorality is a religious concept and religion should not control our laws. By advocating the illegality of marijuana, Ms. Culpo, you are advocating the imposition of religion into our secular laws. You are following in the footsteps of the relgious groups who lobbied Congress to make certain drugs illegal because they were immoral. That led to the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, which, to me, was a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause of the United States Constitution. The diminishment of inalienable rights has only gotten worse since then.
By all objective evidence, from the prohibition of alcohol to the prohibition of other drugs today, making those drugs illegal only creates more real crime and violence and allows them to be more available to minors. I strongly suggest, Ms. Culpo, that you study this issue more and, hopefully, come down on the side of inalienable rights, the right of all consenting adults to use the property of their bodies and minds as they wish, just so long as they do not violate the rights of others in so doing. The legalization of marijuana would be a good first step.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Climate Change: More Cold and Snow
I haven't seen anything in the main stream media (MSM) about the cold and snow that is affecting the Northern Hemisphere from Europe to Japan. Here are some links to stories provided by the Ice Age Now site.
Bitter Cold Kill Three in Bulgaria. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/bitter-cold-kills-bulgaria/
Heavy Snowfall Cuts Power to Hundreds of Ukraine Villages. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/heavy-snowfall-cuts-power-hundreds-ukraine-villages/
Heavy Snow Strands Many in Japan--Video. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/heavy-snow-strands-japan-video/
Record Snowfall in Kyiv--Heaviest in at least 130 Years. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/record-snowfall-kyiv-heaviest-130-years/
Record Snowfall Hits Southwest Norway. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/record-snowfall-hits-southwest-norway/
This is just a sampling of what's happening around the Northern Hemisphere this year that the MSM is not reporting. A "consensus" of valid climatologist are suggesting that we are headed for a mini-ice age, if not a full blown one. And that will be much worse that the global warming that Al Gore and the U.N. are promoting.
Go to the first link above to keep reading about what's really happening with our climate.
Bitter Cold Kill Three in Bulgaria. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/bitter-cold-kills-bulgaria/
Heavy Snowfall Cuts Power to Hundreds of Ukraine Villages. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/heavy-snowfall-cuts-power-hundreds-ukraine-villages/
Heavy Snow Strands Many in Japan--Video. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/heavy-snow-strands-japan-video/
Record Snowfall in Kyiv--Heaviest in at least 130 Years. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/record-snowfall-kyiv-heaviest-130-years/
Record Snowfall Hits Southwest Norway. http://iceagenow.info/2012/12/record-snowfall-hits-southwest-norway/
This is just a sampling of what's happening around the Northern Hemisphere this year that the MSM is not reporting. A "consensus" of valid climatologist are suggesting that we are headed for a mini-ice age, if not a full blown one. And that will be much worse that the global warming that Al Gore and the U.N. are promoting.
Go to the first link above to keep reading about what's really happening with our climate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)