Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Andrew Lloyd Webber weighs in on soaking the rich:
Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what's left.
This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live.
His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.
He says that he is young enough to set up shop somewhere else. The new tax rates were the final straw. These talented young people know they will make it impossible for them to educate their kids privately in the UK.
So Britain plc loses not just the 40 per cent he would have paid in personal taxes under the old regime - plus NI and everything else - but... Come on, I don't need to explain the knock-on effect. It's obviously huge and immensely damaging - that's why I am writing this article quickly and probably with too much passion.
The extraordinary thing is that, back in 1974, even Denis 'squeeze the rich until the pips squeak' Healey realised that you can't crush these talented people - who work much of the year abroad and away from their families - like specimen butterflies.
He introduced a reduction in tax of 25 per cent for any work performed by a UK resident overseas. This, amazingly, rose to 100 per cent if the work took the individual out of the UK for a year. These reductions were scrapped by the Tories when they introduced the 40 per cent top rate.
In the Healey days, there was no open-ended national insurance tax. Then national insurance was supposed to be just that, not the gigantic Ponzi scheme financed through direct taxation that it has become...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Why is this news?
An Italian cruise ship successfully defends itself from pirates:
Cmdr. Ciro Pinto told Italian state radio that six men in a small white speed boat approached the Msc Melody and opened fire Saturday night, but retreated after the Israeli security officers aboard the cruise ship returned fire.It's not that they're the best trained but that they aren't restrained by politicians who are terrified of protecting law-abiding citizens from criminals.
"It felt like we were in war," Pinto said.
None of the roughly 1,000 passengers and 500 crew members were hurt, Melody owner Msc Cruises said in a statement issued by its German branch.
Domenico Pellegrino, head of the Italian cruise line, said Msc Cruises hired the Israelis because they were the best trained security agents, the ANSA news agency reported.
This week I asked how the planet’s leading AIDS researchers and scientists could have possibly prepared, reviewed, and signed this condemnation of the movie House of Numbers before any of them had ever seen it.
Reader Choice Joyce asked this morning:
I believe the people interviewed in the film were given the opportunity to preview it (according to what one of the interviewees told me), so Karitzkes (sic) probably already saw it. (04.26.09 - 11:34 am)While interviewees like Christian Fiala may have seen the movie before April 19, 2009, Mr. Leung tells me that none of signatories of this press release saw it until Daniel Kuritzkes saw it in Boston – two days AFTER the press release was distributed in Nashville. All were welcome to attend the Nashville and Boston film festivals but declined – except for Kuritzkes, who wasted nearly half of the post-movie Q & A by a slow and careful recitation of the same meaningless press release.
Because of the open hostility of doctors Daniel Kuritzkes and John Moore, who pressured Boston and Nashville film festival officials to cancel the showing, I would gladly close my examination of HIV/AIDS science rather than deal with these hysterically unhinged researchers. But after nearly a year of requests to universities and research facilities throughout the US and some provocative attacks, I’m still waiting for verifiable scientific proof that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS. The evidence (and the movie) still shows that all HIV/AIDS research and policy is built upon the assumption that Robert Gallo’s scientific misconduct is accurate.
While House of Numbers represents the most compelling research corruption case since Dr. Jeffrey Wigand risked his life to expose the tobacco industry (trailer), the questions raised are not nearly as fascinating as the rabid objections to them. When asked how he would go about isolating the HIV virus, Nobel laureate David Baltimore grew visibly angry in the film.
If you want to know why House of Numbers terrifies these researchers you can also ask them directly:
- Donald Abrams, MD (415) 476-4082 x444
- Francoise Barre-Sinoussi +33 (0) 1 45 68 87 33
- David Baltimore, PhD (626) 395.4951
- Niel T. Constantine, PhD (800) 492-5538
- Robert Gallo, MD (410) 706-8614
- Harold Jaffe, MD +44 01865 289222
- Daniel Kuritzkes, MD (617) 768-8371
- Jay Levy, MD (415) 597-9203
- Joseph B. McCormick, MD (956) 882-5166
- John P. Moore, PhD (212) 746-4462
- Nancy Padian PhD (415) 848-1321
- Peter Piot, MD PhD +44 (0)20 7589 5111
- Robert Redfield, MD (410) 706-4613
- Robin Weiss, PhD
WSJ on the Obama’s latest fiasco:
As Peter Glaser, an environmental lawyer at Troutman Sanders, told Congress in 2008, "The country will experience years, if not decades, of regulatory agony, as EPA will be required to undertake numerous, controversial, time-consuming, expensive and difficult regulatory proceedings, all of which ultimately will be litigated."
The Obama EPA has now opened this Pandora's box. The centerpiece of the Clean Air Act is something called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, under which the EPA decides the appropriate atmospheric concentration of a given air pollutant. Under this law the states must adopt measures to meet a NAAQS goal, and the costs cannot be considered. For global warming, this is going to be a hugely expensive futility parade.
Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, and it doesn't matter where they come from. A ton of emissions from Ohio has the same effect on global CO2 as a ton emitted in China; and even if Ohio figured out a way to reduce its emissions to zero, it would still have no control over the carbon content in its ambient air. But under the law, EPA would be required to severely punish Ohio -- and every state -- for not complying with NAAQS.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Most film festivals allow filmmakers to present their art to an audience, far from the customary restraints of political correctness and challenge orthodoxy. While some films are better than others, these films give us an opportunity to learn more about ourselves as the world around us.
Whatever you know or don’t know about the relationships between the gay lifestyle, the pharmaceutical industry, and AIDS, Brent Leung’s House of Numbers presents the subject in a way that few of us have ever seen. Ever since Robert Gallo’s initial fraud in 1984, the pharmaceutical industry has received hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to promote Gallo's unproven theory that HIV=AIDS: and like Hamlet’s Queen Gertrude, the pharmaceutical industry doth protest too much, methinks.
During the past 25 years, the reporters and news agencies that explore this topic are customarily accused of homophobia or threatened directly by the US government, specifically the CDC and NIH. The genius of Leung's film is two-fold: not only has Leung circumvented the ordinary constraints of the AIDS industry, but he has helped the industry declare their incompetence in their own words, and from their own mouths.
Consider this too: If Mr. Leung’s film was about people who believe that the Earth is flat, could anyone imagine NASA spending millions of dollars to defend the US space program? The notion that scientists would line up to refute “flat-earthers” or attack them professionally (or personally) is hard to imagine. Those who are confused by a flat-earth documentary can google “earth images” and decide for themselves – without the hysterical insistence of the world’s top astrophysicists. In the case of AIDS, scientists keep their story secured in a vault at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. What's the big secret? House of Numbers will tell you.
By the time movie debuted in Nashville last Sunday, the pharmaceutical industry had already prepared a statement by the AIDS industry’s highest paid tax dollar recipients who insist that their interviews were all taken out of context and that it presents a dangerous view of HIV and AIDS. And while ordinary Americans can be impressed with their credentials, one wonders exactly how talented a highly paid AIDS scientist could be to arrive at this conclusion and produce their highly critical press release before actually seeing a movie.
But this wasn’t the only anomaly of Boston’s Politically-Correct Film Festival. After telling Mr. Leung that the theater had sold out, we learned that it was far from sold out – which makes one wonder how hard they promoted the movie and how the "sold-out" lie affected sales. Then again, maybe Boston’s festival isn’t as well run as Nashville’s, which filled the theater seats last Sunday.
When the movie ended in Boston, a highly paid AIDS marketer identified himself as the moderator and identified two other highly paid AIDS doctors who would comment on the film. When audience members asked why the unpaid representatives who challenged AIDS orthodoxy were not allowed to participate, the highly paid AIDS marketing moderator responded that the movie had presented that side sufficiently.
About this time, a Boston police officer took me aside and asked me for my identification. When I handed my personal and LAPD ID and asked why, he asked if I was carrying any firearms and said that “a threat had been received” and that I was named as a potential danger at the theater. When I asked where and how he had received the information, he refused to tell me until he had completed his investigation.
While the officer checked my name for criminal wants and warrants and to see if I was falsely representing myself as a retired police officer, highly paid pharmaceutical marketer Daniel Kuritzkes, MD began to slowly read the same tired press release that appeared immediately after the Nashville debut. Because it was written before the movie ever appeared, it contained no relevant or substantive issues and did not contribute to the back-and-forth dialogue that usually takes place after a film festival movie. His pasty hands shaking, Kuritzkes used up half of the time allotted for Q & A.
When the Boston PD determined that I wasn’t a criminal threat, the officer told me that the source of the complaint came from the festival’s managing director. When we asked the director how he received the complaint, he refused to tell us. Both the Boston PD and I were amazed, and it was clear that the source of the call came from AIDS Inc. Think about it – a cop detains you because he received a call and the caller refuses to say who raised the complaint or why he called the police. Too bad that the Boston PD wasn't curious about the source of the complaint.
Finally, Ethan Jacobs of the heterophobic publication Bay Windows wrote this one-sided review of the movie. This is understandable since gay publications would collapse without the full page glossy pharmaceutical ads that push HIV testing and medication in the gay community. After the collapse of Christopher Street and The Native, gay magazines know better than to question or offend highly paid AIDS marketers and researchers like Kuritzkes.
Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes (second from left), a professor at Harvard Medical School, told the audience at the screening that Leung’s film gave unwarranted credibility to the AIDS denialist movement, and he accused Leung of taking his own comments out of context in the film.The reporter never asked Kuritzkes how he prepared the statement days before he saw the film (I’ll post the release when I get back to LA). Nevertheless, the audience was understandably upset by the lopsided panel of pharmaceutical shills and Jacobs was only too happy to cooperate.
I’m back in Nashville now for the next showing, scheduled in less than one hour. I will post video of the Boston fiasco so that readers can decide for themselves.
Either way, Mr. Leung has clearly touched a pharmaceutical nerve – even receiving an email from John P. Moore PhD of Cornell, who threatened to destroy Mr. Leung and his career (I'll post this too). After funneling hundreds of millions of pharmaceutical dollars into that university, Dr. Moore’s concern is warranted. House of Numbers threatens to do to the AIDS industry scientists what Bernie Madoff’s clients have done to Madoff’s pyramid scheme. And since the FDA is funded by that industry, they’re as effective as the SEC was in ending Madoff’s activities.
If you’ve ever wondered what happened to the AIDS hysteria of the 1980s and why the US medical industry is in such disarray, House of Numbers lets you hear it from the industry functionaries - in their own words.
Monday, April 20, 2009
House of Numbers debuted at the Nashville Film Festival this week, and word is that US and European AIDS millionaires have become unhinged. Indeed, they good reason, for after repeated threats and demands to censor the movie, the Nashville and Boston Film Festivals are showing his movie, while Sundance has buckled under the weight of political correctness.
During the past eight years, an unassuming film student named Brent Leung has visited heavily funded (by taxpayers) research centers throughout the US and Europe to interview the world’s leading AIDS scientists. The heaviest hitters, Robert Gallo, John P. Moore, Luc Montagnier, Donald Abrams, David Baltimore and others were interviewed within the past 18 months. Indeed, all of the statements reflect the most up-to-date notions of what HIV and AIDS are today. As each scientist explained what HIV and AIDS meant to him (or her), the audience absorbed each interview like dots of a Pointillist painting.
But unlike the pleasant surprise that one experiences when stepping back, Leung’s interviews produced something more akin to Rorschach inkblot. As each scientist struggled to explain what they saw in that stained paper, the audience found it hard not to scoff at the creative interpretations of each competing theory. As one scientist contradicted the next, the stories built to a climax when one scientist actually contradicted himself three times within five minutes in the same interview. By the end of the movie, Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier admitted that HIV was harmless to healthy people.
This is not to imply that Leung’s documentary is funny. As one woman explained the rapid decline and death of her pregnant sister after one month of deadly AIDS drugs, the AIDS scientists appeared less comical. As if her malicious death was not enough, Leung posted emails between doctors at the National Institute of Health, who joked about Hafford’s death and her doctor.
Leung also showed the horrifying affects of AIDS drugs on a two-year-old baby, whose parents were told that she would not survive the next year without AIDS treatments. Family video shows the beautiful healthy baby before treatments began and her fast decline during treatments. When the grieving parents made the agonizing decision to stop treatments, the baby quickly recovered. Despite continuous warnings of her impending death, she grew up to be a beautiful, vibrant, and healthy 19-year-old.
When the movie ended, our audience met the young woman and her parents who told us that, of the ten HIV+ children in Minnesota during that period, she was the only one to survive. She was also the only HIV+ child whose parents did not administer AIDS drugs to her.
This leaves me wondering why these scientists are becoming unhinged. Why would someone who made millions on the pretext that HIV=AIDS be concerned that, after nearly 30 years, they might be wrong? After all, this is science and not theology, isn’t it? If Leung is wrong, why would this handful of scientists feel threatened enough to pressure film festival organizers to kill the release? What do they have to hide?
After the movie, a Vanderbilt Medical School student conveyed her shock at the conflicts exposed in the documentary. When she vowed to examine those conflicts at school, I warned her to keep quiet and not risk the retaliation. Like many major universities, Vanderbilt receives millions of pharmaceutical funding and tax dollars each year. With the economy the way it is today, universities can’t afford to bite the hand that feeds it.
Brent Leung’s film will be shown in Boston tomorrow - unless the AIDS Truthers get their way.
Friday, April 17, 2009
I received the attachment by email - "Clark, you've got to see this!"
The ordinary woman appeared on my screen and I immediately wondered why I would interrupt my busy day. My friend has been in the music industry for many years and he doesn't routinely spam me. I watched, and like millions of people around the world, I had to blink to see what I was listening to.
As Colette Douglas Home wrote in the Herald:
Not only do you have to be physically appealing to deserve fame; it seems you now have to be good-looking to merit everyday common respect. If, like Susan (and like millions more), you are plump, middle-aged and too poor or too unworldly to follow fashion or have a good hairdresser, you are a non-person. I dread to think of how Susan would have left the stage if her voice had been less than exceptional. She would have been humiliated in front of 11 million viewers. It's the equivalent of being put in the stocks in front of the nation instead of the village. It used to be a punishment handed out to criminals. Now it is the fate of anyone without obvious sexual allure who dares seek opportunity.Thank you, Susan, for reminding us of what beauty really looks like.
This small, brave soul took her courage in her hands to pitch at her one hope of having her singing talent recognised, and was greeted with a communal sneer. Courage could so easily have failed her.
Yet why shouldn't she sound wonderful? Not every great singer looks like Katherine Jenkins. Edith Piaf would never have been chosen to strut a catwalk. Nor would Nina Simone, nor Ella Fitzgerald. As for Pavarotti But then ridicule is nothing new in Susan Boyle's life. She is a veteran of abuse. She was starved of oxygen at birth and has learning difficulties as a result. At school she was slow and had frizzy hair. She was bullied, mostly verbally. She told one newspaper that
her classmates' jibes left behind the kind of scars that don't heal.
She didn't have boyfriends, is a stranger to romance and has never been kissed.
"Shame," she said. Singing was her life-raft...
Baylor Fans is reporting the inside story of Obama’s handling of the Somali pirate crisis:
Subject: AH, now it comes out
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger
3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.
So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the onscene commander decided he’d had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and  declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
Twelve weeks down and 196 weeks to go...
DirectorBlue updates us on the first twelve weeks of the Obama Administration...
$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.
$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.
$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.
$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.
$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.
$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.
$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so.
Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Government-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.
$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.
$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."
$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.
$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."
$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.
$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act. It's not just a culture of corruption. It's a culture of corruption and stupidity. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats appear to be above the law. All of the aforementioned clowns are still in office, ruling like the royalty they've become.
Update: Neptunus Lex has details on serial tax cheats mistake-makers Geithner and Daschle.
Twelve weeks of the Obama Administration... and they're just getting warmed up...
A seamless conclusion to the smear job heard ’round the world, thanks to some amazingly fortuitous timing by Founding Bloggers. On a day when the grassroots came out to protest the establishment, it’s fitting that a small indie outfit like FB would end up putting the screws to CNN this way. What’s most striking is how savvy the protesters are about the game Roesgen’s playing: They know exactly why she zeroed in on the guy with the Obama/Hitler sign, and it ain’t because of his grasp of economics.First a recap of the CNN attack with a post-attack interview...
Stick with it until the end or else you’ll miss the astounding nerve of this disingenuous moron, who just spent three minutes on national television sneering at the people around her, to say to the woman who’s yelling at her, “You know, you really don’t need to be so antagonistic.”
This is the video Breitbart found from a January CNN (same reporter) interview...
Newsbusters now reports that she tried, and failed, to make it at Fox News - a move that demonstrates their demand for unbiased reporting. She's certainly no Megan Kelly.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Although my wife voted for Barack Obama, she’s so upset with the Democrat plan to punish our grandchildren with high taxes that she decided to make the Van Nuys Tea Party her first protest. Kevin James was one of MANY speakers.
Shortly after arriving, my bride bonded with other post-9/11 ex-Dems who, like her, are successful entrepreneurs. One couple explained that Obama’s policies have forced them to lay off thirty of their 60 employees. Although they dug deep into their liberal past they could not figure out how Obama plans to stimulate the economy by destroying small businesses with unconscionable taxes.
Another friend, a veteran deputy city attorney, told me that although he voted for Obama and received the same education Obama received, our President behaves as though “he never attended the same classes.” We were also surprised to see two of our contractor-friends who admitted that Van Nuys was their first protest.
Despite rumors that moonbats from Code Pink and ACORN would try to crash the party, we identified only two flea-bitten trolls who tried to drag protesters into their theology. We kept an eye on them but, beyond asking some inane questions, the protesters seemed to enjoy venting to the moonbats.
The LAPD and Federal police were also present. They never showed much concern about the crowd, despite Janet Napolitano’s sophomoric warning to law enforcement to be wary of “rightwing radicals.” Once the protesters finished reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and sung the Star Spangled Banner, the cops seemed to relax, sensing that the rest of the evening would be much easier than the customary reception they receive from Obama’s rock-and-bottle supporters. And since us “right-wing radicals” weren’t torching buildings, smashing windows, or stealing plasma TVs and sofas, the news media wasn’t a big presence either.
All in all, we felt invigorated and look forward to the next protest. Having been assigned to a dozen or more protests that included the LA riots, I'd say that I never felt more comfortable than being surrounded by Napolitano's "right-wing extremists." No wonder America's enemies and the Democrat Party don't want us to have guns. (more here)
Does HIV even exist? That’s debatable.House of Numbers debuts next week at the Nashville Film Festival. I will be one of several panelists to discuss the movie on April 23rd. No one from the CDC, NIH, or any other so-called AIDS expert has accepted our invitation to participate in the discussion.
If it exists, does it cause AIDS? That’s debatable.
Is there a definitive way to diagnose AIDS? That’s debatable.
Can you test positive in one country, and negative in another? Yes.
In a train station in Johannesburg, South Africa, Leung takes his own rapid-screening HIV test. The result — well, you’ll have to find out. But can he believe it?
But one of the most poignant, revealing moments of House of Numbers is Leung’s interview with a South African woman.
“A lot of people here is very sick and is very dying,” she said.
“What kind of sickness do you see around here?” Leung asks. “It’s HIV/AIDS,” she explains.
“What is AIDS?” Leung asks.
With frustration, and a shrug of the shoulders, she exclaims, “We don’t know. We don’t know!”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
It’s not every day that someone associated with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) succinctly describes the historical politics involved in the AIDS hysteria. Michael Ellner’s comments are politically incorrect, but accurate:
How can anyone identify a cause for an imaginary infectious syndrome? You can’t. If we want to end this murderous and terrifying AIDS fraud, I believe that we must be willing to deconstruct the original, intentional fraud, since that’s what the present fraud grew out of. I'll do it here. (Warning: my language reflects the popular mindset and culture of the late 1970s and early 1980s - no offense intended.)
There would have been very little, if any compassion at all, for a Community Acquired Syndrome that was killing queers, junkies, their partners and children, hemophiliacs and the very poor. Many considered "AIDS" a godsend and one can only imagine how these zealots would have exploited a Gay Related Immune Deficiency syndrome (GRID, if you recall). The average person would not feel directly affected and probably would not have given a flying flock.
I only mention this because I personally believe the Fraud is the direct consequence of the name change from GRID to AIDS. “Idiopathic GRID” did not require an infectious agent; “idiopathic infectious AIDS” however, along with the claim that "everyone is at risk", did! The name change transformed the problem from a rare, non-infectious, mojo-less social problem into a potentially common, highly infectious, mojo-rich syndrome, one that quickly rose to the top of the heap of health concerns and social evasions.
GRID would have been the kiss of death for Gay Rights; AIDS on the other hand promised to de-gay the syndrome. The CDC used AIDS to frighten the public into modifying their sexual behavior, meanwhile creating a windfall of funding and a whirlwind of gay-related "HIV" hysteria. The AIDS industries therefore were natural, opportunistic outgrowths of the socially necessary viral mythology.
Present company excluded - forget the scientists, forget the medical doctors, forget the editors and forget the journalists. They are unknowingly part of the problem. If we want to end this murderous fraud, we must operate as human beings and find creative and effective ways to reach the hearts and minds of our neighbors, friends, co-workers and so on.
On the other hand, telling people that they are infected with HIV but not to worry about it because HIV is harmless, borders on cruel and unusual punishment! "HIV" promotes uncertainty, doubt and lots of UNNECESSARY FEAR! No one has ever ISOLATED an HI-Virus.
Director Blue reports that 200-plus mainstream media outlets are creating hysteria for the Obama Administration’s push for national healthcare.
The NIH and CDC did the same thing with AIDS almost thirty years ago: 1) Point at a few gay men who are dying from behavioral problems (drug use, lifestyle), 2) create hysteria (“20% of Americans will die by 1990!”), and demand huge funding (nearly a trillion in tax dollars spent so far).
Gore is doing the same with Global Warming by blaming SUVs and CO2 for warming that has occurred for 100,000 years... the difference is that most people know more about the weather than microbiology.In this case, the NIH wants to help Obama tax us into having a failing system like Canada, North Korea, and Cuba - and they hope that sufficient number of college and high school grads are too stupid to figure it out.
Before you buy into the hysteria, imagine your doctor’s office at the DMV or post office. Is that really what you want?
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Since issuing my report on AIDS last year, I have been drawn into a debate with scientists and journalists around the world on the best way to unravel and expose the initial fraud that has resulted in nearly 30 years of misdirected US AIDS policy.
After a question was raised regarding the best way to approach Barack Obama over the issue, I sent this answer:
Unless Obama’s objective is to completely tank the US economy, I doubt he will want to know about, or take action to change, US AIDS policy. I also suspect that this debate is much deeper than the mere scientific corruption related to HIV and AIDS.
It’s clear that the United States and Europe have profited politically and financially by the ongoing rape of Africa’s mineral resources, and AIDS plays a huge part in America’s ability to create and exploit its resulting social and political instability.
Under the pretext of AIDS, US and European taxpayers send billions to Africa’s corrupt leaders who, in turn, allow companies like DeBeers and Shell Oil to mine and drill the continent’s precious mineral resources. AIDS mythology, the systematic poisoning and death with AIDS treatments, and the desperate economic conditions that come from it allow US and European companies to exploit Africa’s cheap labor force at slavery wages. When those workers get sick from pollution and exposure, those companies convince their mostly illiterate workforce that sex is killing them and that, unless they accept treatment with deadly AIDS medications, they will die. Their eventual mortality is then used to convince well-meaning US taxpayers and politicians that AIDS is killing Africa’s population, providing the necessary political pressure to convince US politicians to perpetuate additional AIDS funding.
While I don’t believe that most US politicians are aware of their unwitting complicity in this program, it’s clear that any reticence or reversal to support US and African AIDS projects poses a greater political risk to them personally than does the intellectually honest examination of domestic and foreign AIDS policy.
If I were an enemy of American capitalism, I would present AIDS as Exhibit A. AIDS allows the United States to exploit Africa’s desperate population, forcing them to endure brutal dictators and oppressive working conditions for the profit of US and European interests. In turn, the US profits from Africa’s treasure while avoiding the political challenges that would otherwise require Americans to mine and drill US domestic resources.
Without AIDS, the US, Europe, and their companies will be hard-pressed to explain what has actually been killing Africa’s workers. This would also provide political capital to hostile regimes that have been forced, until now, to rely on manufactured propaganda.
If and when this scam is discovered, I sense that AIDS will eventually stain the US and Europe as deeply as the Holocaust has scarred Germany. I believe that the disclosure of AIDS could result in an existential blow to the America’s financial, moral, and philosophical standing.
Like the banking, housing, and auto industries, AIDS may also be too big to fail.
Shortly after I posted this analysis, I received this email from the CDC about their new program to re-educate Americans about HIV. As stated, this program assumes that HIV infects someone every 9 1/2 minutes. As you read this email from the CDC, I'd like you to think about how afraid you are of AIDS and if you know someone who has allegedly been infected with AIDS.
Chances are that you don't know anyone who is dying of AIDS. If you know someone who is allegedly HIV positive, he or she is healthy if they are not taking drugs or they are getting sicker if they are taking toxic AIDS drugs. Allegedly Keep in mind also that allegedly HIV positive people like Magic Johnson, who advocates HIV drug testing in the black community, has accepted $60 million from Abbott Laboratories (the makers of HIV drugs). Read the email below and, if you don't believe me, write or call the CDC for a copy of their report that describes exactly how scientists proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS.
If they send you something, please forward it to me - I've asked them for proof since last July and have received no evidence that anyone has ever proved it. CB
In the coming weeks, CDC will be reaching out to you directly to participate via teleconference to ensure you fully understand this campaign. It is our hope that you, too, will work within your communities and within your networks to Act Against AIDS. Because every nine and a half minutes, right here in the United States, someone’s brother, sister, father, mother, friend, co-worker, or neighbor becomes infected with HIV. We know how to prevent new HIV infections from occurring. We just need to make sure that everyone understands the importance of prevention and the importance of doing their part to stop the spread of HIV.
- From: email@example.com
Subject: Launch of Act Against AIDS Campaign
Date: April 7, 2009 11:57:56 AM PDT
April 7, 2009
Today, White House officials will team up with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to announce a new national domestic HIV/AIDS campaign called Act Against AIDS. The campaign will be released at a press event scheduled for 1:00 pm EDT and Webcast live at http://www.aids.gov/. If technical difficulties prevent the event from being broadcast live, it will be recorded and made available at a later date on this Web site. So that you are informed about these activities, this letter has information about the new campaign and some of its components, as well as where you can access information to learn more about and how to participate in the campaign.
Act Against AIDS
The domestic HIV epidemic is far from over. As referenced by CDC’s “Estimates of New HIV Infections in the United States, August 2008,” the HIV epidemic is worse than previously known. Further, the data confirm that the most severe impact is among gay and bisexual men of all races and African American men and women, in particular.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/pdf/incidence.pdfYet there continues to be a sense of complacency about the epidemic among individuals and communities throughout the United States. A recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that the percentage of the American people who say that they have seen, heard or read a lot about HIV/AIDS in the United States has fallen from 34% five years ago to just 14% today, and the percentage of African Americans reporting this has fallen from 62% to 33%.
Act Against AIDS is intended to continue to address the urgency given these data and also the decreased attention given to the domestic HIV/AIDS crisis and the complacency that has developed in this country. The campaign recognizes that although HIV and AIDS affect some populations disproportionately, the epidemic is an issue for all people in the United States and as such, we share a collective responsibility for stopping this epidemic. It is a 5-year, multi-faceted communication campaign that is being planned and released in phases. Each phase will have its own unique objectives and target audiences and will utilize mass media and direct-to-consumer communication channels to deliver important HIV prevention messages in a manner designed to be compelling, credible, and relevant. Some campaign phases will influence knowledge and information-seeking behaviors, while other phases will influence complex prevention and testing behaviors. The campaign is designed so that CDC partners can access campaign materials for use in their state and local communities.
Nine and a Half Minutes
Every 9 1/2 minutes, another person in the United States becomes infected with HIV. This resulted in over 56,000 new HIV infections in this country in 2006 alone.
The initial phase of the Act Against AIDS campaign, called Nine and a Half Minutes, will raise awareness of the severity of the domestic epidemic and includes a series of video, audio, and print materials. Beginning with two short videos for the internet, a radio PSA, an online banner, and transit ads, the campaign will deliver the simple message that every nine and a half minutes someone in the United States becomes infected with HIV.
A consumer-oriented Web site www.nineandahalfminutes.org) will be launched at 1:00 pm EDT and will contain resources for individuals and partners who want to use these materials as part of their HIV prevention and awareness efforts.
The Act Against AIDS Leadership Initiative
Africans Americans make up just 12% of the US population, but represented nearly half of the new HIV infections that occurred in 2006 and half of the more than 14,000 AIDS deaths in recent years.
To help ensure the widespread delivery of campaign messages within African American communities, CDC is implementing the Act Against AIDS Leadership Initiative (AAALI). This $10 million, five-year partnership with 14 of the nation’s leading organizations serving the African American community seeks to harness the collective strength and reach of traditional, longstanding African American institutions to increase HIV awareness. The names of these organizations are included in the attached list. While many of the AAALI partners have longstanding commitments to addressing HIV among African Americans, the new initiative will enable each group to make HIV prevention a core component of its day-to-day activities. The AAALI is an outgrowth of CDC’s prevention philosophy of empowering partners to work within their
Partnership with the Kaiser Family Foundation
Because successfully reducing the impact of HIV in the United States will require action from both within and beyond heavily affected African-American communities, CDC will partner with the Kaiser Family Foundation – a leader in health policy and communications – to enlist support from the media and entertainment industries in broadly disseminating these and other HIV prevention messages.
CDC and Kaiser will establish a coalition of entertainment, print, online, and other media organizations interested in providing support to Act Against AIDS. There will be an emphasis on partnerships with media that are uniquely positioned to reach specific populations starting with African-Americans, given the heavy burden of HIV in this population.
For more information
CDC is very excited about the Act Against AIDS campaign and its associated initiatives. The multi-pronged structure of the campaign will enable us to reach multiple and diverse at-risk populations while also working on the national level to raise overall awareness of the HIV epidemic. To find out more about the campaign after 1:00 pm on April 7th, please visit
- www.cdc.gov/hiv/aaa for information about Act Against AIDS
- www.nineandahalfminutes.org for information on the 9 1/2 Minutes phase, useful consumer information on the epidemic, what you can do to help end the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and tools you can use to spread the word and participate in this campaign.
Richard Wolitski, Ph.D.
Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention
National Center for HIV/AIDS,
Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention
Monday, April 06, 2009
By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"
There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama.
Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.Which leads to a question:
I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.
Now let me tell you the real answer:
You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
When disgraced Emory Medical School student Kevin Kuritzky and Atlanta physician James Murtagh MD alleged that UC Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg was guilty of genocide, Semmelweis Society International asked me to investigate.
Having never heard of questions related to the largely unknown AIDS controversy, I expected that it would not take long to prove or disprove the allegations. By the time I concluded my investigation in July 2008, I learned that the allegations against Duesberg (and Celia Farber) were not only false, but that senior officials of the National Institutes of Health, CDC, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the FDA were committed to perpetuating a multi-hundred billion dollar fraud that has existed since 1981. Based upon my examination of their behavior, those institutions appear to suffer from the same political paralysis that prevented the SEC and FBI from protecting Bernie Madoff’s investors that eventually fueled the collapse of the US and global banking systems.
In 1984, Doctors Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier received fame and fortune for being the alleged co-discoverers of HIV. But while Gallo was later found guilty of scientific misconduct, Dr. Montagnier received the Nobel Prize – after his pharmaceutical employer gave $1 million to the Nobel committee. When it comes to hawking HIV products, a million bucks is chump change for a Nobel laureate who pushes drugs. Even after being found guilty of scientific misconduct, Gallo still receives millions of dollars to promote AIDS mythology.
The fact that no researcher has ever proven that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS suggests that US AIDS policy is something akin to pagan theology than science. After Dr. Gallo scribbled over his partner’s refutation that HIV had anything to do with AIDS he somehow convinced the editors of Science to publish his unproven and non-peer-reviewed reports (1, 2, 3, 4). Someone should have looked at his papers before publishing them – especially after being caught pushing weird science throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Once HIV became a widely accepted political theology, cash-strapped PhD grads used their employment as “AIDS researchers” to repay their six-figure college loans. Once they sold their integrity, it’s hard to refuse the money. Universities, newspapers, and magazines that promoted Gallo’s unproven AIDS paradigm were rewarded with research grants and advertising windfalls while more skeptical institutions did not. Individuals who questioned the legitimacy of AIDS research were attacked and dismissed to prevent the loss of pharmaceutical funding. After all funding of Peter Duesberg’s award-winning cancer research was suspended, most PhDs learned to keep their mouths shut.
In the movie trailer House of Numbers, John Moore (the second talking head) states:
There is a group of AIDS denialists that say that AIDS does not exist and that it has never been isolated which is as bizarre as it gets…
In the same trailer, Montagnier states: “We can be exposed to HIV many times without being infected…” What? Is this is the same disease that Oprah Winfrey claimed would kill 20 percent of all heterosexual men by 1990 and that HHS Secretary Donna Shalala said, that if billions weren’t spent to fight AIDS, no one would survive?
My investigation showed that allegedly HIV+ people are living longer not because drugs are improving, but because 1) most people refuse to take HIV/AIDS drugs and 2) the drug makers are reducing the toxic levels in drugs that compromise immune systems, sicken, and killed those who take AIDS drugs. Simply stated, people who take these drugs are not being poisoned as quickly as they used to be. The pharmaceutical industry knows that if patients are kept alive longer, they'll have more time to generate profits.
In my report, I speculated that:
In time, and if no one asks these critical questions, the drug companies may slowly wean their more sensible customers from toxins to life-saving placebos without losing funding. Eventually, ground celery seed capsules under the label of thiswontkillyouflex and sold for $500 a bottle could keep HIV+ patients and drug companies alive for more than a normal lifespan. If and when this occurs, the drug companies, scientists, and politicians could finally congratulate themselves for winning Dr. Gallo’s “War on AIDS.”In a story that corroborates this speculation, Oakland station KTVU reports that the cure for AIDS could be found in Wrigley’s Spearmint gum.
After receiving approval from the FDA to treat a rare unrelated disorder with Cyclodextrin, AIDS researcher James Hildreth now claims that this commonly used sugar could cure AIDS:
"We made the discovery that cholesterol is required for HIV to be infectious," explained Dr. Hildreth.One can only speculate how many millions of AIDS victims around the world could have been saved had they only chewed Wrigley’s or dieted on Snickers Bars. Regardless, giving allegedly HIV+ people chewing gum is much better than killing people with expensive DNA inhibitors that now sickens and kills patients.
The same compound that will hopefully drain cholesterol from the children's brain cells – Dr. Hildreth has discovered – also drains cholesterol from the AIDS virus, killing it… Dr. Hildreth is now working on an AIDS prevention based on Cyclodextrin.
"What's really, really remarkable and got me so excited is here's a substance that's used by humans," said Dr. Hildreth. "Millions are exposed to it every day. It's exceedingly safe, but it can kill HIV. What more can you ask?"
Unsurprisingly, Dr. Hildreth’s employer, Meharry Medical College, also receives millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Dr. Hildreth’s enthusiasm in promoting a common sugar as a lifesaving placebo is only matched by AIDS’ poster child Magic Johnson’s promotion of HIV testing – AFTER Abbott Labs paid Magic $60 million to promote HIV testing among blacks.
Since posting my report last July, no scientist has sent me any report that showed me exactly how HIV was proven to attack cells and cause AIDS. Such a paper has never existed – which is why these scientists and doctors demanded that Science rescind Gallo’s original reports. To their discredit, the editors have not responded.
If I were investigating allegations that the earth was flat, a quick Google search would produce thousands of images. The fact that the pharmaceutical industry uses someone like Brian Foley PhD to hide AIDS research on the Los Alamos campus suggests that something is amiss. And now after killing millions of patients who were diagnosed with tests that can’t detect HIV, the fact that researchers are investigating chewing gum as a cure for HIV only demands more questions about the pagan theology of AIDS.
Instead of wasting another billion dollars to cure Dr. Gallo’s unproven claims, I’d rather have one of these esteemed researchers send me a PDF that shows me exactly how scientists proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS.
While we’re waiting for doctors John Moore, Robert Gallo, and Brian Foley to send that proof, I urge everyone to see House of Numbers and decide for yourselves.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Did you hear the one about the queer, the Muzzie and the pre-op tranny?
Be afraid. Be very VERY afraid. Maybe it would be easier just to ban all jokes, except for official government-licensed rib-ticklers.
That was no lady, that was my Gloucestershire Comedy Court probation officer.
Human Rights Tribunal Joke Investigative Unit. Come out with your hands in the air, not fluttering around your hips as if it’s Carmen Miranda night at the Gay Stereotype Lounge.
To take part in a demonstration against poultrophobic humour.
Be nice to him. Or else.
Obama has far different ambitions. His goal is to rewrite the American social compact, to recast the relationship between government and citizen. He wants government to narrow the nation's income and anxiety gaps. Soak the rich for reasons of revenue and justice. Nationalize health care and federalize education to grant all citizens of all classes the freedom from anxiety about health care and college that the rich enjoy. And fund this vast new social safety net through the cash cow of a disguised carbon tax.
The Washington Post: Before Timothy Geithner became Treasury chief, he regulated major U.S. banks. Now he says: "We're having a major financial crisis in part because of failures of supervision."
Liam Scheff reports that at least 200 dead children lying in the wake of the high-dose drug studies done by Columbia Presbyterian on orphans in NYC.
- The perpetrators won’t release a single medical record, not even to participants.
- Children weren’t paid, families weren’t paid, weren’t asked.
- The children and infants used in major drug trials were often orphans.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Can anyone explain why an American president would bow down before a Muslim monarch? Is the Obama Administration inhabited entirely by children?
(I’m getting actually getting tired of posting Barack Obama’s moronic antics.)
Columnist Ben Shapiro explains Barack Obama’s vision of America:
“In the words of Scripture,” Barack Obama announced at his inauguration, “the time has come to set aside childish things.”
So why does the President of the United States embrace the most childish interpretation of political discourse ever put forward on a national stage?
Politics is about making choices. We either cut spending or we grow spending. We either have less regulation or more regulation. We either strengthen defense or we
weaken it. Obama seemingly understands this. He has repeatedly referred to the “hard choices” we face as a nation.
Yet despite his “hard choices” rhetoric, Barack Obama’s favorite political tactic is to claim that no choices need be made at all; all political differences of opinion, he says, can be chalked up to misunderstanding rather than conflicting fundamental values. All choices are “false choices” if we just think deeply enough. Or rather, if Obama thinks deeply enough. (more)
… a mere 2 months into the Presidency of Barack Obama, it seems painfully clear that we have not only elected a deceitful knave, but one intent on the complete dismantling of our own defenses, with seemingly very little concern for the consequences… we must conclude that President Obama, his entire Administration, the Democratic Congress and their favorite benefactor, George Soros, have an evolved form of slavery in mind… a type of slavery whereby the productive class is held shackled to the political class's outlandish worldview that there isn't a single problem under the sun, which cannot be swiftly solved with our money, produced by the sweat of our collective brow. They consider our wages and the wages of our children and grandchildren to be their own property, to be squandered in whatever manner they see fit.
The AP reports that 9 patients made nearly 2,700 ER visits in Texas at about $1000 per visit:
The average emergency room visit costs $1,000. Hospitals and taxpayers paid the bill through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid… Eight of the nine patients have drug abuse problems, seven were diagnosed with mental health issues and three were homeless. Five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50, the report said, the Austin American-Statesman reported Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Today's New York Post op-ed explains how unions are killing good schools in New York - reminding us that if it's pro-union, it's anti-children:
As The Post reported yesterday, public-school aid will jump a half-billion dollars in the fiscal year that begins today.
But funding for charters, which have shown stunning success, is frozen. Silver & Co. refused to stick with a 10-year-old law that links each charter's funding to the
surrounding district's per-student spending.
Why single out charters -- the unorthodox, but publicly funded, schools?
Because they work so well that they're an embarrassment to the teachers' unions -- which demanded the freeze.
In testimony last January, Alan Lubin of New York State United Teachers insisted on what he called "real reform" of the charter law. He whined of "inflated charter-school payments" -- though charters actually get far less than standard public schools.
The union, you see, can't compete with charters on an even playing field.
So it's looking to tie their hands -- if not strangle them altogether.
Indeed, labor has long opposed these innovative public schools, which use some taxpayer dollars but are largely free of government bureaucracy, including union-imposed work rules.
Or, should we say, union-imposed make-work rules?
From the start, union bosses insisted that charters get less funding. They got lawmakers to cap the number of charters and to impose myriad other restrictions.
Still, the charters work.
They blow away competing public schools -- and parents know it: Last month, some 5,000 of them rallied at the Harlem Armory in support of charters.
Ah, said the United Federation of Teachers (a NYSUT subsidiary), this will never do.
So the union plotted a coup: It would try to unionize the charters.
Take a hike, said the teachers at KIPP Academy in The Bronx and KIPP Infinity in Manhattan. They fear union control could undermine their success -- and they're right.
But the union stubbornly refused to accept that.
It's got Silver and his fellow lawmakers in its pocket. If it can't co-opt charter schools by unionizing them, it'll just steal their money.
As it's doing this week. (A claim Monday by UFT boss Randi Weingarten that "we have never distinguished between students in district schools and students in charter schools" is a bald-faced lie -- as Lubin's testimony proves.)
Charter schools get results -- to the mortification of the unions.
That's why the unions -- and their Albany hirelings -- want to kill them.
It's as simple as that.
LAPD Officer Jack Dunphy doesn't use his real name for two reasons: 1) he's honest when exposing realities of law enforcement and, 2) has legitimate concerns about retaliation from Mayor Villaraigosa's very politically-correct police chief, William Bratton.
In his latest essay, Dunphy follows the fatal trajectory of Oakland cop-killer Lovelle Mixon.
“He’s nice, he’s kind, he’s sweet . . .”
So said Enjoli Mixon of her brother Lovelle, the killer of four Oakland police officers. “We’re all shocked by this,” she told reporters.
She shouldn’t be.
Nor should anyone who knew Lovelle Mixon be at all surprised that he met his violent end on March 21. As is often the case in such violent crimes, many have called the murders “senseless.” They were actually anything but senseless.
Indeed, but for the scale of the carnage Mixon inflicted before he died, it was an utterly predictable culmination to an utterly misspent life.
That afternoon, just after one o’clock, Mixon was driving down MacArthur Boulevard in East Oakland when he was stopped by two Oakland Police Department motorcycle officers, Sergeant Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege. As the officers inspected his driver’s license, Mixon sprang from the car with a semiautomatic pistol and shot both of them. Then, as the officers lay wounded and helpless on the pavement, Mixon walked up, stood over them, and shot them again. Both officers died from their wounds. Neither of them so much as drew his own weapon.
“He’s nice, he’s kind, he’s sweet . . .” (more here)
Those of you who have read my investigation into alleged AIDS co-discoverer
Robert Gallo's scientific misconduct will be pleased to know that Brent Leung's film, House of Numbers, will debut this month.
Mr. Leung has done a remarkable job interviewing scientists and witnesses on both sides of the question, leaving it up to the world to decide whether AIDS is a legitimate threat, or the scientific community's greatest hoax.
Now approaching $1 trillion in taxpayer support since 1981, it's worth watching whether you believe in the research or not. After two decades of NIH, CDC, and pharmaceutical retaliation against journalists and the media, we finally have a chance to make up our own minds. House of Numbers will help you understand the mechanics of America's most virulent political virus.
Opening this month at the Nashville Film Festival.