Dog & Cat Food Recall - Click this title to view Info.

Disappearing Honey Bees Update

Maryland's Ted Elkin states that selling raw milk is the same as selling pot

Health News & Headlines March 18th, 2007

Arsenic in my Fluoride? CDC admits Yes -- Trace amounts of arsenic are found in fluoride chemicals added to drinking water supplies, reports the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) website.

Dole Foods to tag veggies with RFIDs -- The world's largest producer of fresh vegetables has started tracking shipments of spinach and lettuce with RFID tags.

Common Chemicals: Breast Cancer Link? -- Experts discuss whether chemicals in our environment have a connection to the risk of breast cancer. Pesticides. Plastics. Cosmetics. Deodorants. Cookware. Stain-resistant furniture. Computers. What do all these seemingly unrelated items have in common? At one time or another, all have been suspected of increasing the risk of breast cancer.

Health News - Sleep Aid Dangers...Medical Marijuana Appeal...Mercury still in Vaccines


F.D.A. Warns of Sleeping Pills' Strange Effects -- The most widely prescribed sleeping pills can cause strange behavior like driving and eating while asleep, the Food and Drug Administration said yesterday, announcing that strong new warnings will be placed on the labels of 13 drugs.

Dying Woman Loses Appeal on Marijuana as Medication -- Federal appellate judges here ruled Wednesday that a terminally ill woman using marijuana was not immune to federal prosecution simply because of her condition, and in a separate case a federal judge dismissed most of the charges against a prominent advocate for the medicinal use of the drug.

Why do Drugmakers Still Defend the Use of Mercury in Their Vaccines? -- How can government officials go to sleep at night knowing that they are allowing a toxic poison to be injected into harmless infants through government-mandated vaccinations in the majority of the United States?

The readers of HIGH TIMES want marijuana legalized, nationwide, and now. The 420 Campaign is a plan to bring legalization before the US Congress and the public. We want to use April 20th as a focal point every year to concentrate pressure on Congress to legalize marijuana until we get the job done.

Here are our top ten reasons marijuana should be legalized:

10. Prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana.
The government has tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually, cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Claims that marijuana prohibition is a successful policy are ludicrous and unsupported by the facts, and the idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy.

9. Arrests for marijuana possession disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics and reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities.
African-Americans account for approximately 13% of the population of the United States and about 13.5% of annual marijuana users, however, blacks also account for 26% of all marijuana arrests. Recent studies have demonstrated that blacks and Hispanics account for the majority of marijuana possession arrests in New York City, primarily for smoking marijuana in public view. Law enforcement has failed to demonstrate that marijuana laws can be enforced fairly without regard to race; far too often minorities are arrested for marijuana use while white/non-Hispanic Americans face a much lower risk of arrest.

8. A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market.
The illegality of marijuana makes it more valuable than if it were legal, providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends. If the excessive profits for marijuana sales were ended through legalization there would be less incentive for teens to sell it to one another. Teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though those drugs are legal for adults, however, the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made even more widespread by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends and peers.

7. Legalized marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs.
Marijuana's illegality makes foreign cultivation and smuggling to the United States extremely profitable, sending billions of dollars overseas in an underground economy while diverting funds from productive economic development.

6. Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions.
Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source – especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States.

5. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation.
Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society.

4. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol.
It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.

3. Marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs.
Law enforcement has more important responsibilities than arresting 750,000 individuals a year for marijuana possession, especially given the additional justice costs of disposing of each of these cases. Marijuana arrests make justice more expensive and less efficient in the United States, wasting jail space, clogging up court systems, and diverting time of police, attorneys, judges, and corrections officials away from violent crime, the sexual abuse of children, and terrorism. Furthermore, taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.

2. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects.
Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest.

1. Marijuana users are determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana probation and accomplish legalization, no matter how long or what it takes to succeed.
Despite the threat of arrests and a variety of other punishments and sanctions marijuana users have persisted in their support for legalization for over a generation. They refuse to give up their long quest for justice because they believe in the fundamental values of American society. Prohibition has failed to silence marijuana users despite its best attempts over the last generation. The issue of marijuana's legalization is a persistent issue that, like marijuana, will simply not go away. Marijuana will be legalized because marijuana users will continue to fight for it until they succeed.

CONFIRMED: YOUR DAUGHTER IS MERCK'S GUINEA PIG

By: Devvy
March 16, 2007

© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com

My February 8, 2007 column resulted in quite a few radio show invitations. During my appearance on Michael Baisden's show, several doctors called in to say the HPV vaccine was safe, it has been tested, and yes, they would get their daughters shot up. One mother who phoned into the show said her daughter has received the first of the three shot series and is now worried and doesn't know what to do. I could give her no advice because I'm not a physician, but she should be worried. On March 15, 2007, the bomb dropped on a cable network show which quickly made the Internet media; see full important column here. Diane M. Harper, a researcher who worked on this vaccine has revealed that it has NOT been tested on young girls and "worst case" scenario: increased cervical cancer rates. As I covered in my February 8th column, Merck needs cash badly. The lawsuits over another "safe" product of theirs, VIOXX, could bankrupt them and they know it; one verdict here. At between $320 - $400 per shot per girl in the U.S., then the world, you can see why Merck has spent millions buying the favors of members of the state legislatures. Now comes the truth from an individual who actually worked on this HPV vaccine and pray to God, enough parents get the truth in time. Stockholders of Merck need to bring down the boom on their CEO and others in that company for such irresponsible corporate shennanigans.

While many of us have been trying to warn parents about this vaccine, competing against the propaganda 'happy ads' for Guardasil targeted at young teen girls on the stupid tube, we have also been urging parents here in Texas to get in the face of the state legislature to over ride Gov. Rick Perry's "mandate" to vaccinate the young guinea pigs, er, girls, in this state. Informed legislators in our state house, most parents themselves, also got up in arms over this blatant move by Perry to bypass the process and fulfill his obligation to Merck for their fat campaign donations. The result: A couple of days ago the house side of our legislature voted to rescind Perry's Executive Order (118-23). Next comes the Texas Senate and I encourage everyone in this state to call your state senator and tell them to vote to rescind Perry's EO. The next question remains is will Gov. Perry do the right thing? Stay tuned.

In the meantime, watch out New Mexico. It appears your governor, Bill Richardson, has said he will sign a mandatory vaccine bill. Man those phones even if you have to do it at lunch time. Richardson's office number is: (505) 476-2200. Call your state rep and senator and let them know how you feel and tell them if they voted for SB 1174, they'll find themselves job hunting next election. Remember this: If your daughter gets those shots and ten years down the road develops cervical cancer, turns sterile or has a baby with defects, neither Richardson or your state legislator/senator can be sued. If Merck's still in business then, you might have an option.

In my previous column, I pointed out Gov. Perry's press release where he came clean by stating, "Finally, parents need to know that they have the final decision about whether or not their daughter is vaccinated. I am a strong believer in protecting parental rights, which is why this executive order allows them to opt out." But, how many parents got that memo? Listen to the "news" on ABC, CBS, NBC and cable networks when they cover this issue. Without exception, they all refer to Texas' plan as "mandatory." Trust "mainstream media"? Hardly. However, as one reader pointed out, opting out isn't so easy, which is why the deceitful Gov. Perry made it opt out v opt in:

Here are four reasons why "opting out" of sate mandated vaccines doesn't work for many families in Texas: 1,) "Opt-out" or Conscientious Exemption to Vaccination Process is a Bureaucratic Nightmare

To get the exemption form, parents must first submit a written form to State Health Department in Austin which forces the disclosure of the child's full name, birthdate, and mailing address. The Health Department takes those written requests and creates yet another form on which they print the child's same personal information that the parent had to send to health department, and the Health Department sometimes takes weeks to mail out these forms inevitably disrupting the child's school attendance. The Health Department only sends the forms by U.S. mail, and once the parent receives the forms, they must be notarized within 90 days of submitting them and then repeatedly resubmitted every 2 years even though there is no expiration set in statute.[1] Because the Health Department further eroded parental rights by publishing more rules getting rid of provisional enrollment for exemptions, (families used to have 30 days at the beginning of school to get their paperwork in), now schools participate in aggressive misleading education campaigns touting "no shots – no school" while not informing families of the exemption or the instructions how to obtain it.

2, Private Schools Deny Admission

The Texas attorney general issued an opinion in April of 2006, that states that private schools do not have to accept the conscience exemption to vaccination in Texas Law,[2] and many private schools do not. For example, the Dallas Diocese for Catholic Schools policy number 5024 states, "Schools will comply with immunization requirements established by the Texas Catholic Conference Education Department. Conscientious objections/waivers are not accepted in schools of the Diocese."[3] Every new vaccine mandate causes more children with valid legal exemptions to be denied their private school education.

3, Doctors Refuse Medical Care

Even though you may be able to get a piece of paper from the state health department affirming your right to refuse state mandated vaccines for your child, just try and find a doctor who will honor it! According to a recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 39% of pediatricians surveyed said they would throw kids out of practices who are not vaccinated.[4] PROVE has documented this rampant problem of doctors dismissing families utilizing a vaccine exemption in Texas to the legislature in previous sessions. Please review our report entitled "The Erosion of Public Trust & Informed Consent through Immunization Harassment, Discrimination and Coercion" prepared for the House Public Health Committee in 2005.[5]

4, Insurance Rates Rise and Accessibility Affected

Responsible parents who have secured health care coverage for their children will be forced to pay higher insurance rates whether they want the HPV vaccine or not. Even if you "opt-out" of the HPV vaccine mandate for Gardasil by Merck by securing a conscientious exemption waiver, there is no way for Texas parents to "opt-out" of the corresponding rise in their insurance premiums. § 1367.053. (a) (2) of the Insurance Code REQUIRES that any vaccine required be law must be covered by insurance.[6] This first-dollar coverage requirement results in corresponding direct hiking of insurance premiums to meet costs, and for a vaccine as expensive as this one, an HPV vaccine mandate risks putting premiums for basic health care coverage out of reach financially for even more Texas families. Additionally, we have received complaints from families where insurance companies are harassing parents with letters and discriminating on coverage based on whether or not the child has had all their state mandated vaccines.

Thank you, Dawn, for sending along the above information. I was aware of some of this nonsense, but not all of it as my daughter is 31 and thankfully, I didn't have to deal with this type of government tyranny when she was growing up. This is beyond an outrage. The parents of America should NOT have to endure this type of discrimination to protect the health of their children either by schools or doctors. The parents of this country should NOT have to go through these types of horse and pony shows because of corrupt politicians who claim "for the children!" Many will be too afraid not to get their daughter shot up because of the four areas detailed above. The ONLY way to send a loud, clear message to members of the state legislatures in all 50 states of the Union is for a massive backlash by parents. Tell them: get your hands off our children. We don't want a nanny state. You will NOT use my child as a guinea pig for the big pharma houses who enrich your pockets.

More Info at the following:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd256.htm

Toddler Contracts Rare Infection From Smallpox Vaccination

Associated Press | March 17, 2007

CHICAGO - A 2-year-old Indiana boy and his mother contracted a rare and life-threatening infection from his soldier father's smallpox vaccination, according to a published report.

The boy and his mother were being treated in a specially ventilated room at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital, the Chicago Tribune reported Saturday.

The family's name and home town were not released at their request.

The boy developed a virulent rash over 80 percent of his body earlier this month after coming in contact with his father, who had recently been vaccinated for smallpox before he was to be deployed overseas by the Army, the paper said.

Physicians stressed that the boy was not suffering from smallpox, but from the related vaccinia virus which is used to convey immunity to the much deadlier disease. They said the infection was a rare condition called eczema vaccinatum, which has not been reported since at least 1990, when the military ended a previous program of smallpox vaccination. Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980.

The military began smallpox vaccinations again in 2002 because of bioterrorism fears.

Doctors said the child suffered from eczema, which is a known risk factor for vaccinia infection. People with eczema are warned not to have close physical contact with the recently vaccinated because the condition allows the virus to enter the skin, they said.

The U.S. Defense Department and federal, state and local health authorities have been in daily contact with the hospital about the case. Health officials say there is no infection risk for the general population because the vaccinia virus can be spread only through close physical contact.

Nonetheless, Dr. Madelyn Kahana, the hospital's chief of pediatric intensive care, said staff members treating the boy and his mother were required to wear face masks and gloves, and that the two had been placed in a special room with negative air pressure, so all air would blow inward.

Kahana said the boy had been treated with a potent antiviral drug, as well as with an anti-vaccinia agent supplied by the CDC and the experimental drug ST-246, which was untried as a therapy in humans.

She said the boy appeared to be improving this week, but will probably lose 20 percent of his outer skin layer.

Wild Weather in the Ozarks & Midwest

I stayed up all night last night watching tornado warnings from northern Missouri all the way into northern Arkansas and the frenzie did not stop until the morning hours. Flint reported hail in Gainesville as one tornadic storm rushed over our area. I was at a neigbors at 6:00 am. until 6:30. Around 6:33 tragedy struck.

Report:
Parts of several Midwestern states and regions as far south as the Gulf Coast to the Florida panhandle were under tornado watches or warnings. In the town of Caulfield in south-central Missouri, a tornado killed a 7 year old girl in a mobile home and damaged six other homes and two gasoline stations, officials reported.

Damaging hailstorms struck several states.

The little girl's parents were air lifted to nearby hospitals along with other residents that sustained more minor injuries. According to Howell County Sheriff's office the tornado touched down in Caufield around 6:33 am and skipped across a 20 mile stretch of the county.

Snow piling up at a rate of 2 inches an hour closed Interstate 80, a major transcontinental highway, in southeast Nebraska from Omaha westward, where more than 9 inches of snow had fallen in some areas.

More than 50 counties were under blizzard warnings in neighboring western Iowa. Interstate 29 was closed in Iowa from near Omaha north to Sioux City at the South Dakota line.

Schools were closed across southern Minnesota as snow began piling up.

HPV Reaction

HPV Vaccine Reaction

Infowars | February 27, 2007

These images were sent by a reader who has a young daughter who recently was treated with the new HPV Vaccine.

From the Reader:

Attached are 3 pictures of my 14 year oldgrandaughter. This is what she has been living with since November. Sometimes the flare ups are much worse. There is no relief or medication for the pain, burning and itching.
Click on Bold Title above (HPV Reaction to view photos)

Texas Rally

TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY RALLY - MARCH 2
Keep Our State Free & Don't Let Them Tag Texas

..> ..> ..> GUEST SPEAKERS :
Penny Langford-Freeman
District Director for Congressman Ron Paul

Alex Jones
National radio broadcaster and documentary filmmaker

Hank Gilbert
2006 Democratic Candidate for Texas Ag Commissioner

Liz McIntyre
Co-author of Spychips

Michael Badnarik
2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate

John Dromgoole
The Natural Gardener

Judith McGeary
Executive Director, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

Linda Curtis
Executive Director of Independent Texans

David Stall
Co-Founder of Corridor Watch

Terri Hall
Regional Director, San Antonio Toll Party

Gina Parker
National Issues Chairman, Eagle Forum

..>
..>
..> Together with several other groups, we will be sponsoring a rally in Austin on Friday, March 2. The Texas Legislature will be considering bills to address both the National Animal Identification System and the Trans-Texas Corridor, and our elected officials need to hear from the people! A parade of tractors, horses, and people will drive, ride, and walk up Congress Avenue to the Capitol. There will be speakers on the steps of the Capitol. See below for more information about the speakers and logistics.

Please come join us for this important event! And if you can't take off work, you can still help the rally succeed! Post this flyer at local feed stores, supply stores, farmers markets, and co-ops. Take this press release to your local newspaper or radio station, and ask them to do a story. We also need donations to help cover the costs of parking, buses, printing signs, etc. You can donate online , and earmark the donation for the rally.

Date: Friday, March 2, 2007, Texas Independence Day

Time: The march will begin at 1:45 pm, and the rally on the steps of the capitol will run from 2:30-5:00

Musical Performance: Jimmie Vaughan, one of the greatest guitarists in the world of popular music, will be performing a song about RFIDs. www.jimmievaughan.com And more ...

Volunteers: We need volunteers, both before and the day of the rally. Please contact us at info@farmandranchfreedom.org or 512-243-9404 if you can help.

Tractors, horses, etc: Please email info@farmandranchfreedom.org or call 866-687-6452 if you are planning to bring your tractor, horse, or any other animal. All animals need to be under full control at all times – please do not bring any animals that are not used to traffic, crowds, and lots of noise. After the march, tractors and livestock will be escorted back to the staging area where they will stay during the speaker portion of the rally because we cannot have them on the Capitol grounds. City crews will deal with any manure on the streets, but please be prepared to clean up manure at the parking lot.

Staging Area for the March: We have reserved a parking lot at the northeast corner of Cesar Chavez (1st) and Red River. If you plan to be part of the march up Congress, please be at the staging area around 1 pm and NO LATER THAN 1:30 pm. Click here for a map of the area -- the lot is marked with a star.

Route for the March: Everyone will march together down Cesar Chavez (1st) Street to Congress, and then up Congress Avenue. When we reach the Capitol, the people on foot will remain there. Tractors and livestock will turn right on 11th Street and go to Red River, and the go down Red River back to the staging area. People will then be bused and shuttled back to the Capitol steps. We need volunteers to watch the animals back at the staging area from 2:30-5:30. Please let us know if you are willing to help.

Other Parking: Tractors and trailers will have first rights on the reserved parking. There are several parking lots around the Capitol that charge daily rates. In addition, there are several parking garages off of Congress: http://www.downtownaustin.com/transportation/parking/lots/ If you're coming for the speakers, but not the march, Capitol Visitors Center Parking is available in the Capitol Visitors Parking Garage at 1201 San Jacinto located between Trinity and San Jacinto Streets at 12th and 13th streets. Metered spaces are available throughout the complex.

Lobbying: While you're in Austin, go talk to your legislator in person. We'll have talking points and information packets to help people effectively lobby their legislators. Don't be discouraged if your legislator is gone, because talking to their staff is very important too!!! Remember, be polite at all times.

Signs: We will have some signs available at the rally. Feel free to bring your own sign, as long as it has no profanity . All signs should have slogans focused on the topics of the rally: NAIS and the TTC.

Email Alerts: We will be emailing information about the rally to our Texas listserv. You can sign up for free email alerts on the right-hand side of this page.

BLOG: http://www.dont-tagtexas.com/

..> Attachment Size
Dont-Tag-Texas-flyer-2.15.07.pdf 46.16 KB
Press release 2.12.07 Dont Tag Texas.pdf 16.59 KB
..>

Just Released Today

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell


An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
Now up on : www.prisonplanet.com
video was first released this morning on google video and agents have been trying to get if off the net all afternoon but now thousands have downloaded this footage to forever be free on the net.

Support Your Local Sheriff?

Support your local sheriff, but only if they support the U.S. Constitution and your rights.
The sheriff of your county is the highest elected official and has more power than most people realize. Your local sheriff has the power to tell federal agencies that they will not come into his/her county and attempt to enforce unconstitutional "laws." Your local sheriff is there to protect your rights, not the actions of an out of control government whether it is state or federal.

The sheriff is the only law enforcement official with the authority to summon the power of the county.
"The sheriff represents the power of the people; he does not represent the power of the state." When it comes to keeping the peace no one's authority exceeds that of the sheriff.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. The United States Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) grants 4 law enforcement categories to the federal government: felonies committed on the high seas, counterfeiting, postal issues and treason. Protecting our nation's borders would also be an appropriate constitutional federal obligation. But many of these federal agencies have become powers unto themselves.
Many of these federal agencies have lost sight of their true missions and have forgotten for whom they work and who they are suppose to serve and protect. Now we are coming to the point of being forced to turn to our Sheriffs and local authorities to protect and serve us from federal "protectors".
Amendment X states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local High Sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides.

Sheriffs must NOT cooperate with federal agents in unconstitutional acts.
Sheriffs must stop, in their county, federal agents who attempt to commit unconstitutional acts.
I encourage everyone to contact their local sheriff’s department and see if your sheriff is truly protecting the well being of its citizens against overreaching powers of the federal government. Again, the sheriff’s primary role is to protect the rights of his/her county residents and it is up to the citizens of that county to make sure this is the case.

For contact information on Ozark County Sheriff's office visit the following:
www.ozarkcountyso.com

Awaken

AWAKEN
A beautiful presentation by Ralph Marston Jr.
Turn your speakers up and go to the link below and enjoy!
http://awaken.greatday.com/

Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education

Texas Gov. Perry CONSPIRES with Health Dept to Force HPV Vaccine
Dear PROVE Members, ((Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education) http://vaccineinfo.netLast week we walked the halls and delivered packets to all offices in theTexas House and Senate providing information on why the HPV vaccine should not be mandated. Our visits were met with friendly grateful appreciation. On Monday, some of us were at a House Public Health Committee hearing until after midnight to support HB 1098 which would prohibit HPV vaccine from being required and would overturn the governor's executive order. On Wednesday, the House Public Health Committee passed the bill with a vote of 6 to 3 and the bill is on its way to the full House where it already has 91 joint sponsors out of 150 Representatives. Now as more journalists are using open records requests to piece together the puzzle, the corruption is starting to become clear - Perry was working on this mandate for months and even had the health dept write it! Additionally, some of our friends in Congress have just filed a bill to prohibit federal funding or other assistance to states that mandate the HPV vaccine. Your calls and letters to your elected officials in Texas and Congress are working! Thank you everyone for your hard work and keep the communication with your elected Representatives and Senators in Texas and Washington DC going! They need to hear from you! - DRPerry surprised by backlash to HPV order Mandate was months in the making, but few were in the loop. By Corrie MacLaggan AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Friday, February 23, 2007http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/23/23govhpv.html In the days before his Feb. 6 State of the State address, Gov. Rick Perrydribbled out announcements of several initiatives so they wouldn't get lost in bigger news the day of the speech. On Jan. 30, a disaster contingency fund. On Feb. 1, higher education reforms. And on Feb. 2, the mandate that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus.That turned out to be one of the most controversial initiatives ofPerry's tenure, but the governor's office never saw the backlash coming.The next day, when the governor's executive clerk went to church, he wasunprepared for the criticism he would encounter."I got hammered in church this morning on the Merck thing - and it wasjust Saturday," Chief Clerk Greg Davidson wrote in a Feb. 3 e-mail to colleagues, referring to the company that makes the vaccine. "Do we have any talking points or stats or anything that can help me fight through Sunday. This is brutal."This e-mail and other documents obtained by the Austin American-Statesman under Texas open records laws reveal new details about how Texas became the first state to require the vaccine that helps prevent cervical cancer. They show that the governor's office had been talking about HPV with drug maker Merck for at least five months and that the same state agency that the governor directed to implement the executive order actually drafted the order. And they show that, as Davidson's experience illustrates, the governor's office had simply failed to predict the firestorm.Critics have blasted the executive order, with some saying Perryoverstepped his authority and others worrying about the vaccine itself: that it's too new to know about long-term effects or that getting vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus could encourage young girls to be promiscuous.A House health panel led by state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, R-Temple, amember of Perry's own Republican Party and the mother-in-law of the governor's chief of staff, Deirdre Delisi, this week recommended that the full chamber pass a bill that would essentially overturn Perry's mandate."Did we expect such an uproar?" Perry spokesman Robert Black asked During an interview. "I think it's fair to say no. Would it have changed (Perry's) mind if he would have known that? No. What people thought of his order or the fact that we were the first state in the nation - for the governor, none of that really comes into play."Rather, it is a women's health issue, Black said.Much of the controversy has centered on Merck, which this week suspendedefforts to lobby statehouses around the country to mandate the vaccine, Gardasil. The company had been funneling money through an advocacy group, Women in Government.In Texas, some had questioned Perry's Merck ties: Mike Toomey, Perry'sformer chief of staff, is one of Merck's lobbyists here, and Merck gave $6,000 to Perry's re-election campaign. Black said that Toomey and Perry have never discussed HPV and that "it's a bit of a red herring" since another drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, is also developing an HPV vaccine.However, documents show that on Nov. 7, the day Perry was re-elected, agubernatorial policy adviser sent an e-mail to Toomey and to Lara Keel, both of the Texas Lobby Group, with the subject "HPV numbers." The e-mail included projected costs of providing the HPV vaccine to low-income Texans.In fact, the governor's office was talking with Merck representatives notlong after Gardasil was approved by the FDA in June, documents show.In an Aug. 17 e-mail to Dr. Charles Bell, deputy executive commissionerof the Health and Human Services Commission, gubernatorial adviser Heidi McConnell wrote: "There is a good chance that we are going to do something on the HPV vaccine, so (a colleague) and I met with Merck representatives earlier this week to get an update on the vaccine."Black said that conversations between the governor's office and Merck"shouldn't surprise anyone. They're the ones who had the vaccine," he said.When preparing to announce the executive order, Perry's staffersapparently worried about coming across as too Merck-friendly.On the day before the executive order was issued, in response to a draftof the news release, the governor's assistant director of budget, planning and policy wrote: "(T)hat first line sounds almost like a Merck commercial."The draft was not provided to the Statesman. The governor's office hasasked the attorney general's office for an opinion on whether it may keep HPV-related draft documents confidential, said Chelsea Thornton, the governor's assistant general counsel.While the governor's office was worrying about the wording of theannouncement, key lawmakers were out of the loop. State Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, told reporters Feb. 5 that she was surprised Perry hadn't contacted her about the mandate. She called on him to rescind it, saying, "I just don't think he thought this one through."The same day, Brandon LeBlanc, the governor's community affairs publicliaison, wrote an e-mail to colleagues with the subject "Why the rush?" He asked for an answer to "why we didn't let HPV vaccine run its course in the Leg.? Preferably one I can use in public."Even some members of the governor's staff were blindsided by theexecutive order.Ken Armbrister, a retired state senator who is the governor's new liaisonto lawmakers, was inadvertently left off the list of officials who were to be notified ahead of time. Because Armbrister was unaware, he was unable to alert key lawmakers to what was coming.Perry's support of mandating the vaccine surfaced during thegubernatorial race, though few took notice.In September, after Democrat Chris Bell had said he favored mandating thevaccine, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that Perry spokesman Ted Royer said: "Perry supports requiring the cervical cancer vaccine, as long as parents retain the right to opt their children out."At the time, perhaps because Bell and Perry agreed, "no one batted aneye," Black said.After Election Day, when Perry switched from campaigning to preparing forthe 2007 legislative session, he began to consider how to implement the mandate, Black said.State health officials could have added the vaccine to the required listwithout the drama of an executive order.But "after spending a lot of time thinking about it, talking to folks, not the least of which was Mrs. Perry, who feels very strongly about this issue, I think the governor felt so strongly that it was the absolute right thing to do to protect life, that when we had an opportunity like this to prevent a cancer in young women, that he needed to put the weight of the entire executive branch behind it," Black said.The executive order directs the Health and Human Services Commission toadopt rules that mandate the vaccination against HPV for girls before starting sixth grade.But documents show that state health officials were the ones writing adraft of the executive order that directs their own agency to write the rules.On Jan. 18, Dr. Charles Bell of the commission wrote an e-mail to agubernatorial adviser:"(A)ttached is the draft Executive Order that was requested by theGovernor's Office staff. Neither my staff nor I have ever drafted such a document so we just patterned it off the ones that we found on the Governor's website. I hope the draft is satisfactory to edit and create the official document."Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said it's not surprising thatthe agency drafted the order because "we know the language necessary to implement the vision laid out by the governor's office."The order says that beginning in September 2008, sixth-grade girls mustbe vaccinated against the four strains of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers. The shots cost $360 for the three-dose series, and it will cost $71.7 million a year to pay for the shots for low-income Texans, Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody said. Parents may opt not to have their daughters vaccinated.Three weeks after Perry issued the order, he is standing by it despitewidespread opposition from lawmakers and the social conservatives who have traditionally backed him. Perry is trying to shape the debate into one that's more about people with cervical cancer and less about politics and money. On Monday, Perry introduced reporters to a 31-year-old Houston woman who is dying of cervical cancer caused by HPV."This debate should be based on whether or not this state is going to doeverything it can to prevent cervical cancer in young women, to save women's lives," Black said. "Anything else is a distraction from the real issue."cmaclaggan@statesman.com ; 445-3548Additional material from staff writer Laylan Copelin.==========================Parental Right to Decide Protection Act (Introduced in House)HR 1153 IH110th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 1153To prohibit Federal funding or other assistance for mandatory humanpapillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 16, 2007Mr. GINGREY (for himself, Mr. PITTS, Mr. CARTER, Mr. GOODE, Mrs. MYRICK,Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. PAUL, Mr. AKIN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SALI, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FORTENBERRY, and Mr. JORDAN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce---------------------------------------------------------------------A BILLTo prohibit Federal funding or other assistance for mandatory humanpapillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Parental Right to Decide Protection Act'.SEC. 2. FINDINGS.The Congress finds as follows:(1) HPV, the human papillomavirus, is the most common sexuallytransmitted infection in the United States. HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 6,200,000 Americans become infected with HPV each year and that over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives. On average, there are 9,710 new cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths attributed to it in the United States each year.(2) Early detection is the key to diagnosing and curing cervical cancer,and therefore the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that all women get regular Pap tests. The Pap test looks for cell changes caused by HPV, so the cervix can be treated before the cells turn into cancer. The FDA also states the Pap test can also find cancer in its early stages so it can be treated before it becomes too serious, and reaches the conclusion that it is rare to die from cervical cancer if the disease is caught early.(3) On June 8, 2006, the FDA approved Gardasil, the first vaccinedeveloped to prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions, and genital warts due to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Gardasil is a recombinant vaccine, it does not contain a live virus, and it is given as three injections over a six-month period. The vaccine is approved for use in females 9-26 years of age. However, the FDA also states that since the vaccine is new, more studies need to be done to determine how long women will be protected from HPV. For example, the FDA does not know if a booster is needed after a couple of years to ensure continuity of protection.(4) As detailed by the FDA, four studies were conducted in 21,000 women,one in the United States and three multinational, to show how well Gardasil worked in women between the ages of 16 and 26. The study period was not long enough for cervical cancer to develop; however, preventing cervical precancerous lesions is believed highly likely to result in the prevention of cervical cancer.5) In January 2007 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices(ACIP), under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, issued changes to the previous childhood and adolescent immunization schedule. The ACIP recommends the new human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) to be administered in a 3-dose schedule with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first dose. Routine vaccination with HPV is recommended for females aged 11-12 years, the vaccination series can be started in females as young as age 9 years, and a catch up vaccination is recommended for females aged 13-26 years who have not been vaccinated previously or who have not completed the full vaccine series.(6) States historically have maintained the practice of applyingimmunization recommendations to their school admittance policies so as to protect schoolchildren from outbreaks of contagious disease. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons states that there is no public health purpose for mandating HPV vaccine for schoolchildren. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.(7) With at least 16 States entertaining legislation which takes theunprecedented step in requiring young girls to obtain a vaccine for a disease that is not spread by casual contact in order to attend school, many organizations and associations have come out against mandatory HPV vaccine programs.8) The Texas Medical Association has stated that although it stronglysupports the ability of physicians to provide the HPV vaccine, at this point, it does not support a State mandate.(9) The American College of Pediatricians and the Association of AmericanPhysicians and Surgeons are opposed to any legislation which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance. They have stated that excluding children from school for refusal to be vaccinated for a disease spread only by intercourse is a serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children as well as on the rights of the children to attend school.10) Federal funds should not be used to implement a mandatory vaccineprogram for a disease that does not threaten the public health of schoolchildren in the course of casual, daily interaction between classmates and inserts the government into the lives of children, parents, and physicians.SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING FOR MANDATORY HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (HPV) VACCINATION PROGRAMS.No Federal funds or other assistance may be made available to any State or political subdivision of a State to establish or implement any requirement that individuals receive vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV).-------------------------------------------------------------------Dawn RichardsonPROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education) prove@vaccineinfo.net (email) http://vaccineinfo.net/ (web site)----------------------------------------------------------------PROVE provides information on vaccines, and immunization policies and practices that affect the children and adults of Texas. Our mission is to prevent vaccine injury and death and to promote and protect the right of every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their family.-------------------------------------------------------------------This information is not to be construed as medical OR legal advice.-------------------------------------------------------------------Subscribe to PROVE Email Updates:http://vaccineinfo.net/subscribe.htm Tell a Friend about PROVE:http://vaccineinfo.net/subscribe/friends.shtml

More Agitator Drug Articles

Puppycide
This article on a DEA site where SWAT teams train for raiding meth labs is pretty interesting. First, note that the people who run it all too happy to let lawmakers get the adrenalin rush of a trial drug raid. That's all good and well. But maybe a better test run to put lawmakers through would be to have the on the receiving end of a drug raid. And not at a test site, but when they don't suspect it. Say, while they're at home with their families. My guess is that if such an experience didn't motivate them to put a stop to using SWAT teams to enforce drug warrants, it would at least motivate them to make damn sure the right procedures were in place to make sure the tactics were used sparingly, only against the most violent drug offenders, and that there were checks and double-checks codified into law to guard against wrong-door raids.
On the puppycide front, note the following passage from the article:
The instructor knocks on the front door, shouting, “DEA! Police! We have a search warrant!”
The next thing you know you’re inside, clearing rooms like a SWAT team on “COPS,” firing only at targets with odd numbers. The even-numbered targets could be the good guys, even children. Everyone shoots at the dog. It’s covered with paint-ball splatters.As my old basketball coach used to say, you play the way you practice.


Daniel Castillo Buried
Daniel Castillo, Sr. buried his son tonight. Meanwhile, the details of what exactly happened in Tuesday's raid haven't gotten much clearer. The ABC affiliate in Houston filed a short story a little after midnight reporting that police say they found $5,000 in crack cocaine and marijuana at the home, and that they arrested Castillo's uncle at the scene on drug charges.
But family spokesman Rick Dovalina told me on Friday afternoon that there was just one arrest, Jerome Hawkins, who was dating one of Castillo's sisters. Dovalina also told me that the crack was found in Hawkins' truck. He said there was hardly enough marijuana stems and seeds to merit a "trace." I suppose these conflicting details will eventually sort themselves out.
Someone in the comments section at Hit & Run asked why the type and quantity of drugs found at the house is important. It really isn't. The raid was wrong and needless and stupid whether Castillo's uncle, Hawkins, or the victim himself were dealing drugs. An unarmed, 17-year-old kid was shot in the face and killed, just a few feet away from 1-year-old child. A 20-year-old woman watched her brother die before her eyes. And a father was forced to bury his son tonight.
All because a confidential informant reported seeing what at worst were a series of nonviolent, consensual drug exchanges.
Even if the drug charges are true, this is a grade-A, prime-cut example of why using SWAT teams to serve nonviolent drug warrants is needlessly dangerous, reckless, violent, and confrontational. How hard is this to understand? When you take men with guns and charge into someone's home, you create violence. You leave very little margin for error. Of course, the police go in with ballistic shields, bulletproof vests, and helmets. So we know who catches the brunt of the errors when they happen.
The national media hasn't picked up on this story, yet. Even the blogs have been quiet, at least in comparison to the Kathryn Johnston case. No one seemed to care much when police shot innocent Isaac Singletary to death a couple of weeks ago, either.
I'm starting to think "how many more people have to die" is the wrong question. I fear that pondering how many of these deaths it will take to spur people into seeing the perversity of our drug laws and their enforcement, and demanding reform is the wrong way to look at it. I'm starting to think that we're now moving in the other direction -- that these stories fatigue people. Numb them. Each one gets a bit less outrageous than the one before.
If that's true, how sad. How incredibly fucking sad if the idea of a 17-year-old kid getting gunned down in his own bed in the name of preventing people from getting high is no longer capable of making us angry. And how incredibly fucking scary.

Free the Mircale Fruit!
My friend Jacob Grier has created an online stir with his post about the wonders of the Miracle Fruit.
It's a small, red berry from West Africa with a strange and wonderful property: It makes sour things taste sweet.
I tried one over the weekend, from the same batch Jacob tried. You put the thing in your mouth, chew it, and slosh it around so it coats your tongue. I then bit into two lemon wedges, and ate them both. I chewed them like candy. They tasted like sweet lemonade.
The secret is a glycoprotein called Miraculin (yes, that's actually what it's called) that attaches itself to your taste buds. No one seems to be quite sure how it turns sour and bitter to sweet. The effect lasts for about 90 to 120 minutes.
The fruit is heavily marketed in Japan, where it's used in fruit form, in powder form, and now that scientists have figured out a way to isolate Miraculin, in tablets. Some chefs there have constructed low-cal deserts around the use of the fruit. Wired News reported last December that there's even Miraculin-infused lettuce in the works.
In Japan, the Miracule Fruit is particularly popular among diabetics and dieters. Those are two very large (sorry) and growing markets in the U.S. It's also used to help leukemia patients get back their appetites, and to make bitter medicine more palatable. All this would seem to mean a great market for the stuff in America. So why can't U.S. consumers get any?
It seems that the FDA banned the fruit under mysterious circumstances in the 1970s. I've seen speculation on various websites that it may have had something to do with the sugar industry, or with the fact that aspartame was working its way to FDA approval at about the same time. There's been little written about why the fruit was banned, only that the prohibition appears to have been sudden and unexpected. It came on the eve of one compnay's plan to roll out a major marketing campaign.
The Miracle Fruit has been used for centuries, now. And there have been quite a few studies of it, with no known ill-effects, other I guess than that it could potentially cause something toxic to taste better than it should. That hardly seems like a reason to ban it.
Seems like something the FDA ought to revisit, particularly with the uptick in diabetes cases over the last several years.
(Cross-posted at Hit & Run.)

Bush administration shows its continuing support for federalism...
...by sending federal agents to raid 11 medical marijuana dispensaries in California, all legal under state law.
Richard Eastman, a pro-medical marijuana activist who said he was diagnosed with AIDS in 1995, said he was horrified by the raids. Some of the pills he takes to fight his illness, Eastman said, "take away my appetite, but the marijuana keeps me eating."
As a result of the raids, Eastman estimated that perhaps 2,000 people who ordinarily would buy marijuana for medical purposes "won't be able to get their medicine tomorrow. And it's not like they can go to Sav-On or Thrifty."A fine use of our tax dollars, Mr. President.
We can't have AIDS-having, pot-smoking hippies in California thumbing their noses at our federal vice laws. Good, God-fearing families in Kansas shouldn't have to worry about what might happen to their kids if we start allowing cancer-stricken chemo patients in Burbank to light up a doob with impunity.
So rest easy, Kansas. Once again, your federal government showed 'em who's boss. Like that time they handcuffed a post-polio patient to her bed, and led her taste the business end of an assault weapon. Man, that was sweet.
It would almost be funny if people weren't, you know, dying because of this shit.

Puppycide
Police in Hartford, Conn. ignore the "beware of dog" sign, and shoot a St. Bernard in front of the 12-year old girl it was protecting. They were investigating a "gun complaint," but found no guns, and made no arrests.

Another Isolated Incident
Alton, Kansas:
The night of May 19, 2005, Billy Peterson awoke about a quarter to midnight to noise at the back door of his family's home.
The door burst open and masked intruders entered, yelling and with guns drawn.
They forced Peterson to the floor at gun point and handcuffed him and his wife, Julie.
The intruders identified themselves as members of the North Central Kansas drug task force. They told the couple they were there with a warrant to search the house for illegal drugs and guns.
The officers found neither. They left empty-handed and without making an arrest, according to an account of the incident filed in a lawsuit.I'm sure this almost never happens.

Re-port Of Dec. Meth Article

Government's Drug War Fuels Meth Problem
Last month, President Bush declared Nov. 30 "National Methamphetamine Awareness Day."
The official statement from the White House implored, "I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs and activities."
There's no question that meth is a particularly nasty, vicious drug, both in how it's manufactured and in what it does to the people who use it. I think some skeptics have raised legitimate questions about the accuracy of some of the more hysterical media proclaiming we're in the midst of an "epidemic," but there's no question that the drug is widely available, and that it has some pretty terrible effects on users.
That said, the approaches the government is taking toward attacking meth don't make much sense.
As is often the case with policies aimed at curbing the drug supply, civil liberties were one of the first casualties of the meth hysteria. Several cities and states, for example, quickly made it illegal for businesses to sell customers combinations of ingredients that together, are used to make meth, but that are perfectly legal if bought separately.
Sell bhutane, cold medicine, and matches to the same customer, and an unknowing store clerk could well be arrested. These laws effectively deputized private business to begin policing the shopping habits of their customers – never a good idea.
The idea has led to some horrific outcomes.
In Northwest Georgia, for example, a meth sting ended with the arrest of 49 convenience store clerks for violating the odd new law. The problem is that 47 of the clerks were of Indian decent, and spoke only broken English. When undercover police officers tossed out drug lingo like "cooking up a hit," the clerks had no idea what they were talking about.
More troubling, 23 of the 24 stores targeted were owned by Indians, despite the fact that 75 percent of the convenience stores in the area are owned by whites.
Then there's cold medicine. When law enforcement officials began reporting that meth producers were extracting pseudoephedrine from over-the-counter medication to make methamphetamine, lawmakers in meth-plagued states like Oklahoma and Oregon rushed to make cold medicine more difficult to purchase – putting it behind the counter, requiring consumers to show ID and sign a registry to get it.
Critics like me complained that the laws wouldn't solve the meth problem, they would only invite new suppliers into thse communities – all while inconveniencing consumers. These measures might dry up homemade labs – and admittedly, they did – but they would create a market for purer, more potent meth from Mexico, along with the attendant crime that comes with an international, black market drug trade.
Additionally, the measures hurt generic drug makers, who rely on shelf space next to the brand names as the central part of their marketing strategy.
Nevertheless, more states followed suit. And last year, Congress applied the policy to the entire country, tacking it on to the renewal of the PATRIOT Act.
Sure enough, we now see in early-adopting states like Oklahoma that meth is as prevalent and available as ever. In fact, it's more potent, which means it's creating more addicts. And as predicted, police are tracing the new stuff back to Mexico. So instead of some loser mixing up a personal supply of meth in his basement, the state's now flush with a more toxic for of the drug, pushed by international smugglers.
One not-often reported part of the cold medicine story involves the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. As the media seized on the meth hysteria, critics of the pharmaceutical industry began lambasting the companies for their complicity in the "epidemic." The charge was that out of greed, the companies were refusing to substitute pseudephedrine out of their cold medicines in favor of the substitute ingredient phenylephrine, which is useless in producing meth. (See this criticism from an anti-meth activist on the PBS series Frontline).
Pfizer eventually made the switch, and put out the phenylephrine medication Sudafed PE.
There's just one problem. Phenylephrine doesn't work, and most in the pharmaceutical industry know it. Thanks to the new law and pressure from Congress, millions of customers have been wasting their money on a cold medication that's no more effective than a placebo.
As you might expect, pharmaceutical industry critics have seized on this, too: Rep. Henry Waxman, for example, has asked the FDA to investigate Pfizer for marketing a useless medication. Not wanting to upset Bush administration drug warriors, the FDA has thus far refused.
But don't feel too bad for Pfizer. Given all the abuse the drug companies were taking for what was a blatant, unintended misuse of their product, you could almost forgive them for putting the new product on the shelves, even if they knew it was useless -- almost.
What's not forgivable is that according to the Wall Street Journal, once Pfizer's new product was ready to go, the company switched sides, and began to lobby in favor of laws to put pseudoephedrine cold medicine behind the counter. Because the company had a non-pseudoephedrine alternative, the new laws basically cleared the shelves of Pfizer's competitors.
So Americans' access to cold medicine has been restricted, we've embarked on questionable sting operations that likely ensnare innocent people, and the FDA is allowing a useless medication to be sold to U.S. consumers. And to what end? Meth is more available and more potent than it ever was.
Typical drug war folly. This is probably the place to point out that drug war itself is the bad government policy gave us the crude form of methampehtamine that's so popular today in the first place. Think back to alcohol prohibition -- alcohol was manufactured, shipped, and stored on the black market, just as illicit drugs are today. Consequently, much of the booze that was available was concentrated, potent, and often toxic.
Deaths and hospitalizations from alcohol poisoning soared. Some who tried concoctions made with methanol literally drank themselves blind.
The similarities between so-called "bathtub gin" and modern meth are inescapable. When alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1932, the home brews dried up (not all of them, but the vast majority of them).
We don't swig basement-brewed booze anymore because it's vile and hazardous – we now have an enormous variety of safe-in-moderation liquors to chose from that are sold openly, and consequently are regulated by market forces. Were conventional amphetamines less strictly controlled, I think you'd see the same thing happen with cruder drugs like meth and crack cocaine.
President Bush wants us to take some time to make ourselves more aware of the meth problem. Fine. But I'd encourage Americans to look beyond what the White House or the Office of National Drug Control Policy tells you. The government's having a hard time solving the meth problem because the government helped create it.
Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com

LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)in the the News

Former Narcs Say Drug War is Futile
It's understandable why when many people first see Howard Wooldridge, they might at first think he's a crank.
The slender, mustachioed man of middle-age frequently wears a cowboy hat, and has been known to get around town on a horse. He also wears a black shirt with loud, conspicuous lettering on both the front and back. You'd be forgiven to dismiss him as a religious zealot proclaiming the coming apocalypse, or a disciple of Lyndon Larouche.
But look closer. The shirt reads: "COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS: ASK ME WHY."
And people do.
"I get stopped just about everywhere," he says. "The shirt works. I have several different for different occasions – I can get my point across in 30 seconds in an elevator, a few minutes in a restaurant, or full-blown speech at a Rotary Club."
If he doesn't leave people convinced, he at least leaves them asking the right questions.
So does Norm Stamper, former police chief for the city of Seattle.
"People ask how a former cop could say drugs should be legalized, but it's precisely because I love police and love police work that I'm saying it. The drug war stops real cops from doing real police work. It's corrupting. It's wasteful. And it has wrecked communities."
Wooldridge and Stamper are featured speakers for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a relatively new but powerfully motivated group of current and former police officers, judges, prosecutors, and politicians who have come out against America's failed war on drugs.
LEAP was founded in 2002 by Jack Cole, a 26-year veteran of the New Jersey State Police. Cole spent 12 of those years as an undercover narcotics detective. According to his bio, it was his post-retirement struggle with the "emotional residue" left over from his work as a narcotics officer that led him to the realization that the war on drugs has failed.
After forming LEAP, Cole, Wooldridge, and three other founding members hit the public speaking circuit, talking to government classes, Rotary Clubs, and campus organizations. They wrote op-eds for local newspapers, and they debated on radio programs. In just under five years, LEAP now claims more than 6,500 members.
Proponents of drug prohibition tend to dismiss reform groups like NORML or the Drug Policy Alliance as fringe ideologues (politicians seem fond of dismissing the latter group for no other reason than that it gets its funding from George Soros). But when decorated police officers, former police chiefs, and ex-judges and prosecutors speak up, audiences can't help but take notice.
These aren't stoners. They're former public servants, and many risked their lives for a cause they now say is mistaken.
That's powerful stuff. When a guy tells you he regrets what he's done for most of his career -- and what he could well have died for -- his words take on a unique credibility and urgency.
One common characteristic you'll find in many members of LEAP is guilt. Most of these former officers lug around a weighty burden. Many concede they realized early in their careers that the drug war was a failure, and would always be a failure. They regret now that they didn't speak up sooner.
Stamper says in LEAP's promotional video, "Even though I knew that the drug war was harmful financially and psychically and spiritually . . . I should have been saying much more of that, much more strenuously."
One thing LEAP's members can attest to that other drug war critics can't is the drug war's corrupting influence on police officers.
Tony Ryan, one of LEAP's newest member and a well-decorated, 36-year Denver police officer recently wrote in an op-ed, "the huge lure of money is always there, either through bribes by drug dealers, or during busts where piles of money are lying around. Corruption of law enforcement was at its highest during alcohol prohibition and we see it now with drug prohibition."
Any Lexis or Google News search will confirm Ryan's warning about corruption a dozen times over. That's not an indictment of police officers. Rather, it's an indictment of policy that puts police officers in situations where temptation and corruption come begging. But it's still a difficult argument for someone without law enforcement experience to make. Coming from a retired cop – in fact from dozens of them affiliated with LEAP – it becomes impossible for drug war proponents to ignore.
LEAP's message is powerful. I've now heard or seen four of its speakers' presentations. They use tales from the front lines to illustrate their broader points on public policy. Their delivery is authentic and gently persuasive, not didactic. They come from all political stripes, from hippy-ish liberals to live-and-let-live libertarians to law-and-order conservatives, the latter having come to the realization that the drug war consists of bad laws that cause much disorder.
For several years now, LEAP has been looking for a debate with the country's top drug policymakers – anyone from DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to Drug Czar John Walters to powerful prohibition politicians like Indiana Rep. Mark Souder.
So far, they've had little luck. That's too bad. If the drug war is still as important and necessary as our leaders in government say it is, it's champions should be able to defend it--especially against the law enforcement officers they've asked to fight it.
Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com

Ron Paul - FOX News

Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko
When you read about a vote in Congress that goes something like 412-1, odds are pretty good that the sole "nay" came from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He so consistently votes against widely popular bills, in fact, that the Washington Post recently gave him the moniker "Congressman 'No.'"
Paul isn't a reflexive contrarian--he doesn't oppose just to oppose. Rather, he has a core set of principles that guide him. They happen to be the same principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce -- with a premium on peace.
When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly.
This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.
Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news. Not because he's likely to win. He's a not-terribly-powerful Congressman who's a pariah in his own party – which also happens to be the minority party. Not the ideal presidential dossier.
Paul has already run for president once, on the Libertarian Party ticket. He returned to Congress as a Republican in 1996, even though the party machinery opposed him in the primary. He has since won re-election with progressively larger margins of victory, bucking the conventional wisdom about the political value of pork barrel spending and district patronage. Paul, for example, refuses to support federal farm subsidies, despite the fact that much of his district relies on agriculture. His constituents re-elect him anyway.
Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone will make them far more substantive and interesting than they've been in a generation. One example is the continuing disaster that is the drug war, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone will differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage.
But Paul can then swing to the right of every other candidate on federal spending, regulation, the Nanny State, and the growth of government. On these issues, he can reliably and credibly serve as the party's conscience, and browbeat the sitting senators and congressmen running for president for their votes issues like the prescription drug benefit, the surge in federal spending, and the party's complicity in the corrupt earmarking process.
I don't agree with Paul on everything. His stance on monetary policy (he wants to return to the gold standard) is a bit out-there for my taste. He favors strict limits on legal immigration, and is far more alarmist about illegal immigration than I think is necessary.
Of course, the immigration issue will likely be a benefit, not a liability, to Paul in the primaries. He's also a registered OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies – and is anti-abortion.
While Paul probably can't win the GOP nomination, there's a chance he can survive deep enough into the primaries to foster a national debate on issues like drug prohibition, as well as force the Republican Party to do some soul-searching, and perhaps reconnect with its limited government, Barry Goldwater roots.
Ideally, Paul's bona fides on immigration, abortion, federalism, constitutionalism, and limited government will win him credibility with and respect from primary voters, giving him leverage to take principled stands and spur discussion on issues like the drug war, privacy, foreign policy, and civil liberties. He could at least win enough votes and support to last well into the spring, forcing the other candidates to adopt parts of his agenda, and the press to cover his platform.
Under the less optimistic scenario, Republican Party leaders, primary opponents, and the punditocracy punish Paul for his principles, and demagogue his position on Iraq, the drug war, and federal meddling in our personal lives. Talk radio, conservative leaders, and the party machinery dismiss him as an unserious candidate, and primary voters take their cue. Under this scenario, Paul bows out early, the remaining candidates press on with business as usual, and the Republican Party continues down its unfortunate recent trajectory.
Which scenario plays out probably depends on how much primary voters actually care about the GOP's recent embrace of big government. That is, which is more important to core Republican voters: Limited government, or using big government to promote a conservative agenda?
Ronald Reagan once said that libertarianism is "the very heart and soul of conservatism" (Reagan was great at communicating the princples of limited government, if less great at actually implementing them). Of all the candidates so far declared, only Paul can credibly lay claim to the legacy of the Reagan-Goldwater revolution. How well he does, how long he lasts, and who ends up defeating him will reveal whether there's any limited government allegiance at all still stirring the Republican Party.
Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.

Tell USDA to Keep Drugs Out of Our Food!

A Canadian company is poised to ramp up production of genetically engineered safflower to 1,000 acres in Washington State. The company has engineered the safflower plant—typically grown for the vegetable oil obtained from its seeds—to produce a drug to boost the immune systems of farmed shrimp.
Growing drug-producing food crops outdoors poses risks to public health and threatens the economic well-being of farmers because these crops are likely to contaminate our food supply.
Urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fulfill its responsibility for protecting our food by banning drug-producing safflower and other “pharma” food crops grown outdoors.

Take Action: http://ucsaction.org/campaign/2_21_07pharma_safflower?rk=ZdLbfMY15_zYW

Letter from Mike Hagan......The letter Missouri press has refused to print

There is much talk these days at global, national and local levels about 'sustainability' and how we might all work together toward a more reasonable, healthy and green future.

I've attended a number of meetings and talked to a whole lot of people and, so far, I've not heard anyone mention the benefits of the reintroduction of industrial hemp into the regional and national economies.

I see ZERO reasons why this simple step could not have an immediate and positive impact on the national, state and local economies, as well as ALL of the concerns of sustainability/environmentally minded people.

Anyone not willing to discuss the reintroduction of industrial hemp into the US economy is not truly serious about these concerns. And anyone not willing to discuss it as a viable solution here in Missouri is smoking too much of its cousin.

How are we to take seriously those who ignore and reject a single most beneficial solution to a whole host of environmental and energy issues? Food, fuel, textiles, plastics, animal fodder, medicine, soil rejuvenation, etc. All from one plant that can be grown anywhere in this state without pesticides and without fertilizers. Hemp.

If people are serious about the severity of the 'crisis', only psychosis could explain such an obvious ignorance of solution.

Rejecting the realities of the hemp plant is no longer an excuse. Culture bound, provincial and hick-like attitudes are no longer a luxury. This is a BIGTIME corrective measure that can be implemented essentially overnight and it is something that EVERYONE who is sincere about sustainable community and a green future should be able to agree upon.

Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, recently introduced a bill which would return industrial hemp its legal status and provide farmers the option to grow this remarkable plant. I urge my fellow citizens to contact your legislators in the house and senate to get this bill passed and I urge journalists to investigate the hemp story…the entire story…the history of it…everything…and start to report on it honestly.

How about it???

Is this state progressive enough to consider the wisdom of the world's oldest cultivated plant and one that could really, truly help us?

And if not, for god's sake, WHY???

Mike Hagan

www.mikehagan.com

The Truth Campaign

Please fell free to distribute far and wide.

RON PAUL for President Flyer pdf format Ron Paul for President Flyer



HPV Facts Brochure Media reports vs. Facts pdf format HPV (Gardasil) Facts Brochure

Support the Honorable Ron Paul For President
850 N. Randolph Street, Suite 122
Arlington, VA 22203Phone: 703-650-9559Fax: 703-652-2552
mail@ronpaulexplore.com Website: www.ronpaulexplore.com
Toll Free WeeklyUpdate:888-322-1414
http://www.house.gov/paul/

For the Record:

Congressman Paul Opposes NAFTA SuperhighwayRon Paul outrage at the planned “NAFTA superhighway” that will require eminent domain actions on an enormous scale in Texas and beyond. H.Con.Res 487, introduced by Virginia Representative Virgil Goode and cosponsored by Paul, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway or enter into any plans to create a North American Union between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.
Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security
Congress Passes Paul Provision to Reject UN Taxes
Paul Fights Mandatory National Animal Identification SystemNAIS Threatens Independent Ranchers and Farmers
Paul Named #1 Tax Cutter in Congress
Congress Unanimously Supports Paul Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties
Paul Denounces National ID Card
Gun Control on the Back Burner
November 6, 2006 For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 13, 2007
Introduction of the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007"
It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

HPV FACTS:
HPV Information Guide

HPV PAID PROPAGANDA VS. THE FACTS

Media: Reports that Cervical Cancer is the #2 Killer of Woman
FACT: Cervical Cancer According to Mayo Clinic …Cervical Cancer doesn’t even make the Top 10. The top 10 leading killers of women in the U.S. are heart disease, stroke, lung cancer (more than 70,000 deaths of women per year), respiratory diseases, Alzheimer's, breast cancer, diabetes, accidents, flu/pneumonia and colon cancer. About 3,700 U.S. women die of cervical cancer each year; that is about 1/8th of the number of women who die from colon cancer, the No. 10 killer of U.S. women.
Media: Gardasil (HPV Vaccine) protects woman from cervical cancer.
FACT: Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is a vaccine that claims to prevent only 4 out of over 100 HPV viruses.
“HPV, it's a sexually transmitted disease that's virtually 100 percent avoidable without a vaccine.Additionally, most cases of the infection clear up on their own. HPV can be overcome by means such as adequate sunlight exposure and vitamin D consumption, supplementation with probiotics, adequate intake of selenium and zinc, increased consumption of trace minerals and iodine, and regular physical exercise. (Dr. Marcola)”
Media: HPV Vaccine has little to no side effects such as….redness around the injection site, fever and headache.
FACT: The Washington Times reports additional concerns about negative side effects from the vaccine reported in 20 states. The article quotes :"The most frequent serious health events after GARDASIL shots are neurological symptoms," said NVIC Health Policy Analyst Vicky Debold, RN, Ph.D. "These young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain. Some of the girls have lost consciousness during what appears to be seizures."
From the National Vaccine Information Center:
In an analysis of reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the CDC's July 2006 universal use recommendation for all young girls, NVIC found reports of loss of consciousness, seizures, joint pain and Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Gardasil vaccine has only been on the market since June 2006, and there are already 82 reports of serious adverse events filed with the FDA following the administration of this vaccine. ( As of date that number could be significantly higher )
FACT: Because the HPV vaccine was only studied for 3 1/2 years, the long-term effectiveness and safety of this vaccine has yet to be determined. It took years for thalidomide and Vioxx (also a Merck product) to demonstrate their most negative side effects.Merck also states "The duration of immunity following a complete schedule of immunization with GARDASIL has not been established."

CDC Finally Admits Autism is a Greater Danger to Your Children

A new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, considered the most complete assessment of autism to date, has found that the number of children who have an autism disorder is significantly higher than had been previously thought, and could be as high as one out of every 150 children.
Earlier estimates judged the incidence of autism disorders to be 1 in 166 children. But those estimates were based on smaller studies and used different study methods.
These findings may add further fuel to the growing debate over thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was used in infant vaccines up until six years ago, and is still used in flu shots.
For the new report, researchers used data from a multiyear, multistate study of 8-year-olds who were identified as having an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). ASD includes autism, PDD-NOS (pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified) and Asperger's disorder.
These disorders are characterized by problems with language and communication, often accompanied by repetitive or unusual behaviors, and generally begin before age 3, although they may not be diagnosed until later.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report February 9, 2007
USA Today February 9, 2007

Dr. Mercola's Comment:
After this sobering report by the CDC, conventional medicine can't turn its collective backs on autism any more, as it has for a long, long time. The incidence of autism is even higher in some states than the national average; in New Jersey, more than one out of every 100 children suffers from an autism disorder.
Despite the evidence, however, CDC Director Julie Gerberding remains skeptical autism rates are really rising, citing "better studies" as a possible reason for the uptick -- although the results of each successive study are grimmer than the previous ones.
The most important number parents need to remember when it comes to vaccinating your children is 27.
Children were 27 times more likely to develop autism when given three vaccines containing thimerosal, the mercury-based vaccine preservative, and far less so when it was removed from them, according to studies posted here three years ago.
If you remain skeptical about the vaccine-autism link, I urge you to review a pair of interesting reports that go far toward explaining why the Amish haven't experienced autism like the rest of America.
On Vital Votes, reader Josh from Vista, California adds:
"It is sad that the government, the Rx companies and society for that matter cannot see how vaccines are one of the causes of [autism] ... .
"I know lots of families and friends that have chosen not to give vaccines to their kids (I live in CA so it is much easier as they have a philosphical exemption option) and their kids are fine. As well, I have one friend in particular that lives in [Massachusetts] that got their child vaccinated. Their child was a vibrant, loving and energetic expression of life, until the vaccinations. Now, she is autistic."At the same time, even though autism, vaccinations, etc are such an issue, I look at handicapped, autistic, mentally retarded children as higher evolved human beings that are here to teach us. Not us to teach them. That is just my belief!"
http://www.mercola.com/2007/feb/20/cdc-finally-admits-autism-is-a-greater-danger-to-your-children.htm

Gun Rights

Protection against gun seizures in the offing -- Arizonans are on the verge of finally getting some legal protection against having their guns seized by the government. Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler, said representatives of Gov. Janet Napolitano and the National Rifle Association have agreed to a change in state law that would restrict the power of any governor to confiscate weapons and ammunition in time of emergency.

Strong warning sought for Genentech drug

Health regulators say the drug's packaging should make clear that it raises risk of severe allergic reaction.
February 21 2007: 12:19 PM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Genentech's asthma drug Xolair should carry the strongest warning possible about the drug's risk of a serious reaction known as anaphylaxis, health regulators said Wednesday.
The Food and Drug Administration said anaphylaxis - a severe allergic reaction - could occur as late as 24 hours after patients take any amount of the drug, also known as omalizumab. The agency added that doctors and patients should be prepared to treat the reaction, which can cause breathing problems, fainting and hives.
In a statement, the South San Francisco, Calif.-based biotech said it was still discussing the request for a so-called black box warning with the FDA. "The updated wording and its placement in the label is not yet final," the company said.
Shares of Genentech were down 0.2 percent in midday trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Genentech is majority-owned by Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG (Charts).
Reports of the reaction to Xolair were seen in clinical trials before the drug was approved in 2003 to treat patients with allergy-related asthma, the FDA said. About one in a thousand patients experienced it.
Continued reports of the problem after that prompted the agency's call for the tough warning given "their life-threatening potential, frequency, and the possibility for the delayed onset of anaphylaxis," the agency added.http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/21/news/companies/genentech.reut/?postversion=2007022112

Private Property Rights Under Fire in Missouri

by James Burling and Timothy Sandefur>> James S. Burling is a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation who > represented Karl Thomas and Jerry Bray. Timothy Sandefur is a staff > attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, and author of the Cornerstone of > Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America.>> It's hard to top the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, which > enabled government officials to seize homes and businesses and transfer > the land to private developers who stood to profit by them.>> But Missouri has managed to make things worse. A state law allows > nonprofit organizations to take private land for their own private uses - > without paying the owners a dime. And on Feb. 7 the Missouri Court of > Appeals refused even to consider whether the law is constitutional.>> Passed in the 1990s, the little-known statute allows nonprofit > organizations to ask judges to condemn property if it has been unoccupied > for six months, if the taxes are delinquent and if the property is a > "nuisance" that the nonprofit organization intends to "rehabilitate." The > law also defines "nuisance" as including property that is "blighted" - a > term so vague that Missouri officials can take aim at virtually any > property they want.>> When Charles Lasby of Kansas City died in 2002, he owed back taxes on his > home. Two years later, the House Rescue Corp., a nonprofit group that > claims to fix up abandoned houses, petitioned the government to take the > land. Since House Rescue didn't notify Lasby's heirs, they sold the > property in May 2005. But that was five months after a court had allowed > House Rescue to take the property - for free.>> When the mix-up was discovered, the court ordered Karl Thomas, who had > bought the home and paid the back taxes, to stop fixing it. Thomas argued > that the law allowing nonprofits to take land violated the state and > federal constitutions, but the court ruled against him. He filed an > appeal, but only 48 hours later the Court of Appeals rejected his plea > without explanation.>> The idea behind the Missouri law seems to be to encourage private > organizations to clean up deteriorating neighborhoods. But in practice it > allows private groups to use government power to enrich themselves - > despite the Constitution's clear rules that government can only take > property "for public use" and only when it pays "just compensation.">> Unfortunately, Thomas' case is not unique. Three years ago, property owner > Jerry Bray was astonished to discover that a Missouri court was about to > give his land away to a Kansas City church. Bray, a bookstore owner, had > spent $40,000 improving the property - which had never been declared a > nuisance - only to discover that His Kingdom Church was planning to oust > him from the land and that he was entitled to no compensation. With > representation by Pacific Legal Foundation, Bray was able to keep his > property.>> This state law is only one of several examples of the Missouri's hostility > to private property rights. When the Kelo decision came out, Missourians > were rightly outraged that government could seize their land and give it > to politically influential developers. In the 1 1/2 years since, more than > half of the other states have enacted new laws to protect property from > seizure.>> But Missouri lawmakers refused to join this movement. Instead, they passed > SB 1944, which allows government to go on condemning property whenever it > is "an economic liability" and give it to big-box retailers or development > companies. And they refused to amend their constitution.>> The Constitution was intended to protect us from people who think they > know better than we do how to run our lives or how to manage our property. > It's time that the state's judges and lawmakers protect people from the > grasping hands of government.>> This article appeared in the Kansas City Star on February 19, 2007.>