(Editor's Note: The black magicians and mad scientists from Atlantis are back.And [hahaha] they're just "trying to help people who are sick.")
A group of scientists in Massachusetts claimed on Sunday they had cloned the first early human embryo, a step toward providing genetically matched replacement cells for patients with a wide range of diseases.
The scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, in Worcester, Massachusetts, say they have no immediate interest in transplanting such early embryos into a woman's womb to give birth to a cloned human being.
Several states, including California, have banned human cloning. Congress is considering such a ban.
"These are exciting preliminary results," said Dr Robert Lanza, one of the researchers at Advanced Cell Technology. "This work sets the stage for human therapeutic cloning as a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine."
In findings published Sunday by The Journal of Regenerative Medicineand described online in Scientific American, the scientists said they had grown a six-cell human embryo.
They said they created the early embryo by injecting a very small cell with its genetic material into a woman's donated egg. In such cloning, the injected DNA often comes from a skin cell, but the researchers this time used a cumulus cell, which nurtures a developing egg.
In a separate experiment, the scientists showed they could push the development of human egg cells even further with a technique known as parthenogenesis.
They exposed 22 egg cells to chemicals that changed the concentration of electrically charged ions within them. Six eggs reprogrammed themselves to develop into early embryos known as blastocysts, which contain dozens of cells.
The scientists described the work as preliminary. Neither experiment has yet produced the coveted stem cells that grow inside an embryo and differentiate into other body tissues.
But the researchers described the work as an important step toward producing these stem cells to generate replacement cells as treatments for diabetes, heart disease, spinal injuries, and many other ailments.
In the wake of the announcement, the White House today reiterated US President George W Bush's "100 per cent'' opposition to human cloning in response to a medical breakthrough announced by a Massachusetts-based team of researchers.
The president has "made it clear 100 per cent that he is opposed to any type of human cloning'', White House spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise said.
Millerwise said the president gave his full support to a bill that passed the US House of Representatives to ban all human cloning and suggested the US Senate do the same.
``He supported the House legislation to ban human cloning, and although the Senate has a busy calendar, this shows why it is important for the Senate to act.''
ACT chief executive officer Michael West insisted today that any research to create cloned embryos would be applied to therapeutic, not reproductive, procedures.
"We are just trying to help people who are sick,'' West said. "We're not talking about a little embryo with hands and feet. We're talking about a cluster of cells.''
AP/AFP
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Killing Each Taliban Soldier Costs $50 Million
(September 30, 2010) The Pentagon will not tell the public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban appear to be Super-Soldiers.
As set out in this article, the estimated cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a conservative estimate being $50 million.
A public discussion should be taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have become too expensive an enemy to defeat.
Each month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author decided to compile his own statistics.
As the goal of any war is to kill the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a statistic are formidable.
The problem is that the Pentagon continues to illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information.
Regardless, some information has been collected from independent sources.
Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:
1. Taliban Field Strength: 35,000 troops
2. Taliban Killed Per Year by Coalition forces: 2,000 (best available information)
3. Pentagon Direct Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion
4. Pentagon Indirect Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion
Using the fact that 2,000 Taliban are being killed each year and that the Pentagon spends $200 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan, one simply has to divide one number into the other. That calculation reveals that $100 million is being spent to kill each Taliban soldier.
In order to be conservative, the author decided to double the number of Taliban being killed each year by U.S. and NATO forces (although the likelihood of such being true is unlikely). This reduces the cost to kill each Taliban to $50 million, which is the title of this article. The final number is outrageously high regardless of how one calculates it.
To put this information another way, using the conservative estimate of $50 million to kill each Taliban:
It costs the American taxpayers $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban
As the U.S. military estimates there to be 35,000 hard-core Taliban and assuming that no reinforcements and replacements will arrive from Pakistan and Iran:
Just killing the existing Taliban would cost $1.75 Trillion
The reason for these exorbitant costs is that United States has the world�s most mechanized, computerized, weaponized and synchronized military, not to mention the most pampered (at least at Forward Operating Bases).
An estimated 150,000 civilian contractors support, protect, feed and cater to the American personnel in Afghanistan, which is an astonishing number. The Americans enjoy such perks and distinctions in part because no other country is willing to pay (waste) so much money on their military.
The ponderous American war machine is a logistics nightmare and a maintenance train wreck. It is also part-myth. This author served at a senior level within the U.S. Air Force. Air Force "smart" bombs are no way near as consistently accurate as the Pentagon boasts; Army mortars remain inaccurate; even standard American field rifles are frequently outmatched by Taliban weapons, which have a longer range.
The American public would pale if it actually learned the full story about the poor quality of the weapons and equipment that are being purchased with its tax dollars. The Taliban's best ally within the United States may be the Pentagon, whose contempt for fiscal responsibility and accountability may force a premature U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Americans cannot continue to fund these Pentagon excesses.
If President Obama refuses to drastically reform the Pentagon�s inefficient way of making war, he may conclude that the Taliban is simply too expensive an enemy to fight. He would then have little choice but to abandon the Afghan people to the Taliban's "Super-Soldiers." That would be an intolerable disgrace.
The problem is not simply within the Pentagon.
The hapless U.S. State Department is equally to blame. It:
1. Continues to sit on the sidelines of this war;
2. Refused for nine years to deploy an adequate number of civilian experts;
3. Continues to hire abusive and disreputable security contractors;
4. Failed to fight for the needs of Afghan civilians; and
5. Has made little effort to win their hearts and minds.
A crucial statistic that demonstrates this is to compare military and security expenditures by the United States in Afghanistan with expenditures for civilian aid, such as reconstruction. That statistic is as follows:
Money spent on Military/Security: $365 billion
Money spent on Afghan civilians: $8.5 billion
This latter number spells out "FAILURE."
U.S. diplomats and USAID officials have failed to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and as a result they have accomplished the impossible. Their lack of resolve and interest has made an increasing number of disillusioned Afghans view Taliban rule as potentially an improvement.
Appendix (Supporting Information)
Taliban Field Strength:
The figure of 35,000 is based on an interview given by General Stanley McChrystal earlier this year.
Taliban Soldiers Killed:
The Pentagon refuses to disclose the total number of Taliban killed each month in Afghanistan by coalition forces, special operations personnel and the CIA. One reason became obvious during Operation Moshtarak in Marjah earlier this year. The Pentagon and NATO refused to specify the actual number of Taliban casualties in Marjah because the number was embarrassing low. American, NATO and Afghan forces reportedly suffered more casualties (killed and wounded) than they inflicted on the Taliban, making Marjah a military defeat for the West (if casualties determine victory or defeat).
To fill the gap created by Pentagon silence on this issue, media groups have published their own Taliban casualty count based on official and press reports. That count is inflated as the U.S. military labels everyone it kills a "Taliban militant," even if they are criminals, drug traders, war lords or civilians defending their homes. As a result of the Pentagon�s lack of credibility on this issue, this author assumes that only 50% of those labeled as Taliban actually are.
The Associated Press has reported that 3,800 militants were killed in 2008, and 4,500 in 2009.
Pro-NATO blogs, such as the web site "Terrorist Death Watch," have calculated that 3,667 terrorists have been killed in Afghanistan since January 1, 2006, (about 700 per year). The author assumes that an average of 2,000 hard-core Taliban are killed each year
U.S. Military Costs:
Total military expenditures in Afghanistan are not clear as the Pentagon does not release all of its direct and indirect cost for the war. While most direct costs are known, billions of dollars in CIA and special operations costs are improperly classified and remain hidden.
In addition, the indirect costs for the war (i.e., military regular pay, equipment depreciation, wear & tear, long term health costs, Pentagon support costs within the U.S., USTRANSCOM transportation costs, transport hub costs such as Manas air base, costs for borrowing funds etc.) are not precisely known. Independent studies conducted of the Iraq war are available and they calculate that the indirect costs equal or exceed the direct costs.
What we know about Pentagon direct costs is as follows:
- From 2001, to April 2009, the Pentagon directly spent $171.7 billion in Afghanistan.
From May 2009, to the present, the Pentagon directly spent an additional $166.3 billion. This is an incredible increase over the past 17 months.
Monthly expenditures have also seen a staggering increase.
October 2009, the Pentagon was directly spending $3.6 billion a month.
February 2010, the Pentagon was directly spending $6.7 billion a month.
October 2010, with the addition of 35,000 more combat and support troops into Afghanistan, the number must be close to $8 billion a month.
Some estimates place direct Pentagon Afghan war costs for all of 2010, at $105 billion.
U.S. State Department Costs:
Officially the State Department and USAID have expended about $35 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. According to most audits, about 75% or $27.5 billion has been spent on training, housing and equipping the Afghan security services, with the balance ($8.5 billion) being spent on civilian projects. Much of this $8.5 billion has been wasted on shoddy road construction, dilapidated schools and minor "trophy" projects in Kabul.
Source: Kabul Press
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://afghanistan.world-countries.net/archives/8783
As set out in this article, the estimated cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a conservative estimate being $50 million.
A public discussion should be taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have become too expensive an enemy to defeat.
Each month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author decided to compile his own statistics.
As the goal of any war is to kill the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a statistic are formidable.
The problem is that the Pentagon continues to illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information.
Regardless, some information has been collected from independent sources.
Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:
1. Taliban Field Strength: 35,000 troops
2. Taliban Killed Per Year by Coalition forces: 2,000 (best available information)
3. Pentagon Direct Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion
4. Pentagon Indirect Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion
Using the fact that 2,000 Taliban are being killed each year and that the Pentagon spends $200 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan, one simply has to divide one number into the other. That calculation reveals that $100 million is being spent to kill each Taliban soldier.
In order to be conservative, the author decided to double the number of Taliban being killed each year by U.S. and NATO forces (although the likelihood of such being true is unlikely). This reduces the cost to kill each Taliban to $50 million, which is the title of this article. The final number is outrageously high regardless of how one calculates it.
To put this information another way, using the conservative estimate of $50 million to kill each Taliban:
It costs the American taxpayers $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban
As the U.S. military estimates there to be 35,000 hard-core Taliban and assuming that no reinforcements and replacements will arrive from Pakistan and Iran:
Just killing the existing Taliban would cost $1.75 Trillion
The reason for these exorbitant costs is that United States has the world�s most mechanized, computerized, weaponized and synchronized military, not to mention the most pampered (at least at Forward Operating Bases).
An estimated 150,000 civilian contractors support, protect, feed and cater to the American personnel in Afghanistan, which is an astonishing number. The Americans enjoy such perks and distinctions in part because no other country is willing to pay (waste) so much money on their military.
The ponderous American war machine is a logistics nightmare and a maintenance train wreck. It is also part-myth. This author served at a senior level within the U.S. Air Force. Air Force "smart" bombs are no way near as consistently accurate as the Pentagon boasts; Army mortars remain inaccurate; even standard American field rifles are frequently outmatched by Taliban weapons, which have a longer range.
The American public would pale if it actually learned the full story about the poor quality of the weapons and equipment that are being purchased with its tax dollars. The Taliban's best ally within the United States may be the Pentagon, whose contempt for fiscal responsibility and accountability may force a premature U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Americans cannot continue to fund these Pentagon excesses.
If President Obama refuses to drastically reform the Pentagon�s inefficient way of making war, he may conclude that the Taliban is simply too expensive an enemy to fight. He would then have little choice but to abandon the Afghan people to the Taliban's "Super-Soldiers." That would be an intolerable disgrace.
The problem is not simply within the Pentagon.
The hapless U.S. State Department is equally to blame. It:
1. Continues to sit on the sidelines of this war;
2. Refused for nine years to deploy an adequate number of civilian experts;
3. Continues to hire abusive and disreputable security contractors;
4. Failed to fight for the needs of Afghan civilians; and
5. Has made little effort to win their hearts and minds.
A crucial statistic that demonstrates this is to compare military and security expenditures by the United States in Afghanistan with expenditures for civilian aid, such as reconstruction. That statistic is as follows:
Money spent on Military/Security: $365 billion
Money spent on Afghan civilians: $8.5 billion
This latter number spells out "FAILURE."
U.S. diplomats and USAID officials have failed to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and as a result they have accomplished the impossible. Their lack of resolve and interest has made an increasing number of disillusioned Afghans view Taliban rule as potentially an improvement.
Appendix (Supporting Information)
Taliban Field Strength:
The figure of 35,000 is based on an interview given by General Stanley McChrystal earlier this year.
Taliban Soldiers Killed:
The Pentagon refuses to disclose the total number of Taliban killed each month in Afghanistan by coalition forces, special operations personnel and the CIA. One reason became obvious during Operation Moshtarak in Marjah earlier this year. The Pentagon and NATO refused to specify the actual number of Taliban casualties in Marjah because the number was embarrassing low. American, NATO and Afghan forces reportedly suffered more casualties (killed and wounded) than they inflicted on the Taliban, making Marjah a military defeat for the West (if casualties determine victory or defeat).
To fill the gap created by Pentagon silence on this issue, media groups have published their own Taliban casualty count based on official and press reports. That count is inflated as the U.S. military labels everyone it kills a "Taliban militant," even if they are criminals, drug traders, war lords or civilians defending their homes. As a result of the Pentagon�s lack of credibility on this issue, this author assumes that only 50% of those labeled as Taliban actually are.
The Associated Press has reported that 3,800 militants were killed in 2008, and 4,500 in 2009.
Pro-NATO blogs, such as the web site "Terrorist Death Watch," have calculated that 3,667 terrorists have been killed in Afghanistan since January 1, 2006, (about 700 per year). The author assumes that an average of 2,000 hard-core Taliban are killed each year
U.S. Military Costs:
Total military expenditures in Afghanistan are not clear as the Pentagon does not release all of its direct and indirect cost for the war. While most direct costs are known, billions of dollars in CIA and special operations costs are improperly classified and remain hidden.
In addition, the indirect costs for the war (i.e., military regular pay, equipment depreciation, wear & tear, long term health costs, Pentagon support costs within the U.S., USTRANSCOM transportation costs, transport hub costs such as Manas air base, costs for borrowing funds etc.) are not precisely known. Independent studies conducted of the Iraq war are available and they calculate that the indirect costs equal or exceed the direct costs.
What we know about Pentagon direct costs is as follows:
- From 2001, to April 2009, the Pentagon directly spent $171.7 billion in Afghanistan.
From May 2009, to the present, the Pentagon directly spent an additional $166.3 billion. This is an incredible increase over the past 17 months.
Monthly expenditures have also seen a staggering increase.
October 2009, the Pentagon was directly spending $3.6 billion a month.
February 2010, the Pentagon was directly spending $6.7 billion a month.
October 2010, with the addition of 35,000 more combat and support troops into Afghanistan, the number must be close to $8 billion a month.
Some estimates place direct Pentagon Afghan war costs for all of 2010, at $105 billion.
U.S. State Department Costs:
Officially the State Department and USAID have expended about $35 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. According to most audits, about 75% or $27.5 billion has been spent on training, housing and equipping the Afghan security services, with the balance ($8.5 billion) being spent on civilian projects. Much of this $8.5 billion has been wasted on shoddy road construction, dilapidated schools and minor "trophy" projects in Kabul.
Source: Kabul Press
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://afghanistan.world-countries.net/archives/8783
Mormon Illuminati Roots: Marriner S. Eccles
(9-26-10) Nothing screams Illuminati Bankster like the Federal Reserve. Controlled by the Rothschilds, and the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve Bank is "The Crown's" way of plundering these United States for the purpose of establishing a One-World, Satanic Psychopathic, government.
To think that the Federal Reserve system almost went under during the Great Depression, and was then rescued by a Mormon Gadianton, is enough to give even the most stalworth Mormon pause.
Gadianton, from the Book of Mormon, means robber or thief.
The Federal Reserve System robs America by charging us interest for the privilege of using its worthless pieces of paper as our national currency. It is a private corporation that collects its ill-gotten gains through the Internal Revenue Service.
Famous Mormon, Marriner Eccles is credited for saving the Federal Reserve system from collapse during the Great Depression. In fact, the Federal Reserve Building is actually named after him.
"Born in Logan, Utah, he attended Brigham Young College and served a Latter-day Saint mission to Scotland. After his mission, while working in a family enterprise in Blacksmith Fork Canyon, he learned of the untimely death of his father. With great skill and tenacity, he was able to reorganize and consolidate the assets of the industrial conglomerate and banking network of his father, David Eccles. Eccles expanded the banking interests into a large western chain of banks called Eccles-Browning Affiliated Banks. He was a millionaire by age 22. The company withstood several bank runs during the Great Depression and, as a leading banker, became involved with the creation of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
After a brief stint at the Treasury Department, he was appointed by President Roosevelt as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1934 and 1948. He stayed on the Board of Governors until 1951, when he resigned over acrimony between the Fed and the Treasury Department prior to the 1951 Accord. He also participated in post-World War II Bretton Woods negotiations that created the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. He later retired back to Utah to run his companies and write his memoirs, titled Beckoning Frontiers."
Eccles was probably the most important advocate for "deficit spending" and Keynesian economics in American history. Deficit spending really means going further into debt to the foreign-owned, Federal Reserve corporation. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Eccles only helped lengthen the depression by raising the "Reserve Requirement" for banks. Simply stated, this meant that banks were required to maintain some reserves in direct relation to the amount they lend. When banks reserves fall, they are forced to borrow from the Fed.
"During the summer of 1933, as excess reserves reached $500 million, Fed officials’ reluctance increased. Nevertheless, as Meltzer (2003) reports, President Roosevelt wished purchases to continue. On October 10, 1933, hoping to avoid a political confrontation, Fed officials decided to continue purchases. Yet, on October 12, these officials unanimously approved a statement to the president noting that (i) the System's holdings of government securities exceeded $2 billion, (ii) bank reserves had reached a record high, and (iii) short-term money rates had dipped to record lows. They halted purchases in November 1933. Quantitative easing did not end there, however: It instead shifted to the Treasury and the White House through gold purchases."
In 1934, Mariner Eccles was appointed as the Federal Reserve Bank's Chairman. The gold reserve act was passed in January 1934. Roosevelt worked with Eccles and the Banksters to help them steal the only real wealth left in America. They had bought up American industry after the stock market collapsed. They had established their banking monopoly, and eliminated their competition, throughout the banking crisis of the 1930s. They now consolidated their political base under Roosevelt and took the last thing that had any real value, by confiscating gold and replacing it with Federal Reserve Notes.
All of this places Marriner Eccles as one of the greatest Gadianton robbers in the history of the world. It appears that he cut his deal with the devil by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve to save his beloved First Security Bank from bank runs in the early 1930s. He helped them consolidate their power in Utah by merging his bank with the Mormon Church owned, Deseret National Bank. The General Authorities of the Mormon Church, which ran the Deseret National Bank, thus surrendered their beloved bank, the first bank in Utah, to Eccles and the Federal Reserve System.
After his retirement:
"Marriner resumed active participation in his family's various businesses, including First Security Corporation, Amalgamated Sugar Company, and Utah Construction Company. As the latter got into mining, it was renamed Utah Construction and Mining, still later as Utah International, Inc. Under Marriner's leadership the firm was sold to General Electric in 1976. Marriner Eccles was also active in speaking and writing about three issues that concerned him: world overpopulation; U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War; and the recognition of Red China."
Illuminati Communist, Illuminati Fascist, Illuminati Bankster?
What's the difference?
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.moneyteachers.org/Marriner+S+%20Eccles.html
To think that the Federal Reserve system almost went under during the Great Depression, and was then rescued by a Mormon Gadianton, is enough to give even the most stalworth Mormon pause.
Gadianton, from the Book of Mormon, means robber or thief.
The Federal Reserve System robs America by charging us interest for the privilege of using its worthless pieces of paper as our national currency. It is a private corporation that collects its ill-gotten gains through the Internal Revenue Service.
Famous Mormon, Marriner Eccles is credited for saving the Federal Reserve system from collapse during the Great Depression. In fact, the Federal Reserve Building is actually named after him.
"Born in Logan, Utah, he attended Brigham Young College and served a Latter-day Saint mission to Scotland. After his mission, while working in a family enterprise in Blacksmith Fork Canyon, he learned of the untimely death of his father. With great skill and tenacity, he was able to reorganize and consolidate the assets of the industrial conglomerate and banking network of his father, David Eccles. Eccles expanded the banking interests into a large western chain of banks called Eccles-Browning Affiliated Banks. He was a millionaire by age 22. The company withstood several bank runs during the Great Depression and, as a leading banker, became involved with the creation of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
After a brief stint at the Treasury Department, he was appointed by President Roosevelt as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1934 and 1948. He stayed on the Board of Governors until 1951, when he resigned over acrimony between the Fed and the Treasury Department prior to the 1951 Accord. He also participated in post-World War II Bretton Woods negotiations that created the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. He later retired back to Utah to run his companies and write his memoirs, titled Beckoning Frontiers."
Eccles was probably the most important advocate for "deficit spending" and Keynesian economics in American history. Deficit spending really means going further into debt to the foreign-owned, Federal Reserve corporation. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Eccles only helped lengthen the depression by raising the "Reserve Requirement" for banks. Simply stated, this meant that banks were required to maintain some reserves in direct relation to the amount they lend. When banks reserves fall, they are forced to borrow from the Fed.
"During the summer of 1933, as excess reserves reached $500 million, Fed officials’ reluctance increased. Nevertheless, as Meltzer (2003) reports, President Roosevelt wished purchases to continue. On October 10, 1933, hoping to avoid a political confrontation, Fed officials decided to continue purchases. Yet, on October 12, these officials unanimously approved a statement to the president noting that (i) the System's holdings of government securities exceeded $2 billion, (ii) bank reserves had reached a record high, and (iii) short-term money rates had dipped to record lows. They halted purchases in November 1933. Quantitative easing did not end there, however: It instead shifted to the Treasury and the White House through gold purchases."
In 1934, Mariner Eccles was appointed as the Federal Reserve Bank's Chairman. The gold reserve act was passed in January 1934. Roosevelt worked with Eccles and the Banksters to help them steal the only real wealth left in America. They had bought up American industry after the stock market collapsed. They had established their banking monopoly, and eliminated their competition, throughout the banking crisis of the 1930s. They now consolidated their political base under Roosevelt and took the last thing that had any real value, by confiscating gold and replacing it with Federal Reserve Notes.
All of this places Marriner Eccles as one of the greatest Gadianton robbers in the history of the world. It appears that he cut his deal with the devil by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve to save his beloved First Security Bank from bank runs in the early 1930s. He helped them consolidate their power in Utah by merging his bank with the Mormon Church owned, Deseret National Bank. The General Authorities of the Mormon Church, which ran the Deseret National Bank, thus surrendered their beloved bank, the first bank in Utah, to Eccles and the Federal Reserve System.
After his retirement:
"Marriner resumed active participation in his family's various businesses, including First Security Corporation, Amalgamated Sugar Company, and Utah Construction Company. As the latter got into mining, it was renamed Utah Construction and Mining, still later as Utah International, Inc. Under Marriner's leadership the firm was sold to General Electric in 1976. Marriner Eccles was also active in speaking and writing about three issues that concerned him: world overpopulation; U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War; and the recognition of Red China."
Illuminati Communist, Illuminati Fascist, Illuminati Bankster?
What's the difference?
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.moneyteachers.org/Marriner+S+%20Eccles.html
Avandia Banned in Europe for 83,000 Heart Attacks
(October 11 2010) A September 23, 2010 article in the New England Journal of Medicine announced that, finally, the FDA has stepped forward and decided on regulatory action for Avandia, a diabetes drug that last year claimed 1,354 lives as a result of cardiac-associated problems.
The FDA is restricting access to Avandia by requiring GSK to submit a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS.
Under the ruling, the drug will be available to patients not already taking it only if they are unable to achieve glycemic control using other medications and, in consultation with their health care professional, decide not to take a different drug for medical reasons.
Current users of Avandia will be able to continue using the medication if they appear to be benefiting from it and they acknowledge that they understand these risks. Doctors will have to attest to and document their patients' eligibility; patients will have to review statements describing the cardiovascular safety concerns.
But did the FDA go far enough -- could it be too little, too late?
Unlike the US FDA, British regulators have ruled that GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia could lead to heart attacks or strokes, and benefits no longer outweigh the risks.
And so last week, they told 90,000 British diabetes patients to stop taking it.
Evidence linking Avandia to an increased risk of a heart attack or stroke has been building since 2007, and GSK has agreed to pay $460 million in damages to settle about 10,000 lawsuits in America linking its use to patients suffering serious medical setbacks. But the US FDA has chosen only to monitor the drug, rather than ask for a recall.
Sources:
New England Journal of Medicine September 23, 2010
Philly.com June 17, 2010
The Guardian 23, 2010
Philly.com September 23, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Like Vioxx, the case of Avandia has turned into yet another classic example of what is fundamentally wrong with the conventional medical paradigm.
Diabetes has increased more than 700 percent in the last 50 years. Today, more than one in four Americans are either pre-diabetic or have full-blown diabetes.
In response, conventional medicine offers up drugs that in no way, shape or form treat the cause of the problem, and worse yet, can prematurely kill many of those who take them.
The drug in question here, rosiglitazone, is sold under the names of Avandia, Avandamet and Avaglim. Avandia alone is used by 2 million people worldwide.
But other diabetic drugs are not necessarily any safer. Two years ago I wrote about Byetta, an "add-on" drug for diabetes (meaning it's usually prescribed in combination with other drugs) that can cause acute and in some cases lethal pancreatitis.
The saddest part about this debacle is that type 2 diabetes is not only a completely avoidable disease, but also one that in nearly all cases can be successfully reversed without ever touching a drug.
The only thing rosiglitazone drugs like Avandia do is to help lower blood glucose, which has virtually no influence on the long-term damage due to type 2 diabetes. Most of the damage is caused by elevated insulin levels, which can be remedied with an optimal diet and exercise program alone, if you're compliant.
Another aspect of this story that makes Avandia such a poster child for this lethal paradigm is the fact that GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, hid damaging information about the drug for over ten years, as it would adversely affect their sales!
Again and again we are confronted with indisputable evidence that the drug paradigm is about money, not health.
Between 1999 and 2007, Avandia is estimated to have caused 83,000 unnecessary heart attacks. This is a steep price, to say the least, for a disease that does not require drugs to begin with.
This is 20,000 more deaths than Merck caused when they sold Vioxx.
European Medicines Agency Bans Avandia
Avandia hit the market in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster drug. By 2006 its annual revenue was $3.2 billion. By 2009, sales had dropped to $1.2 billion following a damning study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2007, which linked Avandia to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients treated with other methods.
Unfortunately, a committee of independent experts recommended that Avandia remain on the US market, despite its risks, and an FDA oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept the advice.
Since that 2007 NEJM study, data from various trials, studies and meta-analyses have consistently confirmed the dangers of this drug, and based on the evidence amassed over the past three years, the European Medicines Agency is now recommending the withdrawal of rosiglitazone-containing diabetic drugs due to the increased risk of ischaemic heart disease.
Their recent press release states that,
"...the Committee could not identify additional measures that would reduce the cardiovascular risk. The Committee therefore concluded that the benefits of rosiglitazone no longer outweigh its risks and recommended the suspension of the marketing authorization of the medicines.
Europe will cease all prescriptions of these drugs within the next few months.
American patients, however, will not receive the same protection from the US FDA.
The September 23, 2010 article in NEJM explains:
"Following an advisory committee meeting held in July 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added information about the possibility of ischemic cardiovascular risk to the drug’s existing boxed warning. At the same time, the FDA also required the sponsors to conduct a head-to-head cardiovascular safety trial of rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone — the other antidiabetic drug in this class available in the United States.
After new data became available, the FDA held a second advisory committee meeting on rosiglitazone safety on July 13 and 14, 2010. On September 23, 2010, the FDA announced regulatory actions stemming from these deliberations.”
The regulatory actions we'll see in the US includes restricting access to these drugs, but they’re STILL not being taken off the market.
Current users are supposed to be informed of the dangers and sign off that they understand the risks, but can otherwise continue taking it "if they appear to be benefitting from it." New patients are only supposed to be offered the drug if they're unable to control their diabetes using some other form of medication.
So, while the European agency determined that there is no way of reducing the cardiovascular risks involved if you’re on this drug, and that its risks outweigh its benefits, the US FDA is still vacillating on this issue.
They seem completely incapable of determining whether or not the lives of tens of thousands of people are more valuable than the corporate profits that feed the agency...
Why is that?
NEJM also points this out, stating that:
"The rosiglitazone controversy is remarkable because there are strongly held, differing positions on how the agency should respond to emerging safety data, both inside the FDA and in the biomedical community.
The 2010 advisory committee was split in advising the agency about what to do. Moving from the least to most restrictive options, 3 members voted to allow continued marketing with no changes to the label; 7 voted that the FDA should adjust the label to account for the new concerns but take no additional action; 10 members voted for the FDA to both increase warnings and limit access to rosiglitazone; and 12 voted that the medication should be removed from the market altogether.
The FDA decided to increase warnings and limit access to rosiglitazone substantially."
The fact that ANYONE would be callous enough to vote to continue marketing Avandia with little or no change in strategy whatsoever is astounding to me. Yet there were plenty of voices speaking FOR the continuation of insane greed.
That in and of itself speaks volumes about the FDA’s lack of concern for your well-being...
NEJM also hits the nail on its head with the statement that, "the case of rosiglitazone underscores the need for a robust evidence base to demonstrate the safety of medicines administered long-term."
Amen to that.
But I believe we need to go even further, and re-educate people about their need for such pills in the first place. The drug industry has been able to manipulate the medical industry and most consumers into believing their drugs are the answer to the problem.
Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, taking the drug route will lead you further and further away from health, and closer to ever more serious health problems.
Diabetes in particular is a perfect example of a health problem best treated without drugs -- if you ever want to get well, that is.
So please understand, you cannot successfully treat the underlying cause of diabetes with drugs!
MOST DIABETIC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DEAD WRONG
And I do mean dead, literally, as they are prematurely killing millions with their flawed insights into basic human physiology.
It's sad but true -- most conventional recommendations for diabetics are seriously flawed and if you follow them, you will likely experience increased health problems and premature death.
First and foremost, you must understand that diabetes is NOT a blood sugar disease like your doctor may have led you to believe. Rather, type 2 diabetes is a disease caused by insulin resistance and faulty leptin signaling, both of which are regulated through your diet.
Listen, the evidence is crystal clear. Regarding Avandia, there is NO REASON for ANYONE to take this drug for diabetes. It has already killed over 80,000 people and does nothing to ameliorate the side effects of diabetes or prevent its complications because it does nothing to address the cause.
It is simply CRIMINAL that this drug is still on the market.
If you or anyone you know is still taking this drug you must warn them of this danger. This is literally a life and death situation. Tell them there are simple, inexpensive, and in many cases free, ways to treat diabetes that actually work and do not kill them.
I discuss these strategies below.
Why You MUST Restrict Fructose Consumption
If You Want to Avoid or Treat Diabetes
If you want to successfully address your diabetes, or avoid it in the first place, you simply must address your fructose consumption. Your body metabolizes fructose differently from glucose and these differences lead to serious health consequences, one of which is diabetes.
For example, fructose does not stimulate a rise in leptin, so your satiety signals are diminished. It also reduces the amount of leptin crossing your blood-brain barrier by raising triglycerides. And whereas glucose suppresses ghrelin (the hunger hormone, which makes you want more food), fructose does not.
Fructose also increases your insulin levels, interfering with the communication between leptin and your hypothalamus, so your pleasure signals aren’t extinguished. Your brain senses starvation and prompts you to eat more.
All of this also sets the stage for over indulgence and hence overweight, and puts you on the path toward both obesity and diabetes.
I strongly advise keeping your fructose consumption below 25 grams per day.
However, since most people still eat processed foods, it would be wise for most people to limit their fructose to 15 grams or less.
This includes fruits, which also need to be carefully measured to make certain that you’re not inadvertently consuming too much fructose. See the table below to get an idea of how much fructose is in your favorite fruits.
Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Limes 1 medium 0
Lemons 1 medium 0.6
Cranberries 1 cup 0.7
Passion fruit 1 medium 0.9
Prune 1 medium 1.2
Apricot 1 medium 1.3
Guava 2 medium 2.2
Date (Deglet Noor style) 1 medium 2.6
Cantaloupe 1/8 of med. melon 2.8
Raspberries 1 cup 3.0
Clementine 1 medium 3.4
Kiwifruit 1 medium 3.4
Blackberries 1 cup 3.5
Star fruit 1 medium 3.6
Cherries, sweet 10 3.8
Strawberries 1 cup 3.8
Cherries, sour 1 cup 4.0
Pineapple 1 slice
(3.5" x .75") 4.0
Grapefruit, pink or red 1/2 medium 4.3
Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Boysenberries 1 cup 4.6
Tangerine/mandarin orange 1 medium 4.8
Nectarine 1 medium 5.4
Peach 1 medium 5.9
Orange (navel) 1 medium 6.1
Papaya 1/2 medium 6.3
Honeydew 1/8 of med. melon 6.7
Banana 1 medium 7.1
Blueberries 1 cup 7.4
Date (Medjool) 1 medium 7.7
Apple (composite) 1 medium 9.5
Persimmon 1 medium 10.6
Watermelon 1/16 med. melon 11.3
Pear 1 medium 11.8
Raisins 1/4 cup 12.3
Grapes, seedless (green or red) 1 cup 12.4
Mango 1/2 medium 16.2
Apricots, dried 1 cup 16.4
Figs, dried 1 cup 23.0
Clearly, eliminating excess fructose from your diet is far safer and more effective than taking a drug like Avandia if you have diabetes. Unfortunately, most doctors will not tell you this, because they too have been brainwashed by drug- and food industry propaganda.
YOU CAN CURE DIABETES
As I said earlier, type 2 diabetes is virtually 100 percent avoidable and can be effectively treated without medications in about the same percentage of cases by recovering your leptin and insulin sensitivity.
Leptin, a relatively recently discovered hormone produced by fat, tells your body and brain how much energy it has, whether it needs more (saying "be hungry"), whether it should get rid of some (and stop being hungry) and importantly what to do with the energy it has (reproduce, upregulate cellular repair, or not).
In fact, the two most important organs that may determine whether you become (type 2, insulin resistant) diabetic or not are your liver and your brain, and it is their ability to listen to leptin that will determine this.
And guess what...
The only known way to reestablish proper leptin and insulin signaling is through a proper diet and exercise!
There is NO drug that can accomplish this, but following the lifestyle strategies listed below can help you do at least three things that are essential for successfully treating diabetes:
1. Recover your insulin/leptin sensitivity
2. Help normalize your weight, and
3. Naturally normalize your blood pressure
None of these will drastically raise your risk of a heart attack the way Avandia will. Rather, they will benefit your heart and your entire body:
* Severely limit or eliminate sugar and grains in your diet, especially fructose, which is far more detrimental than any other type of sugar.
Finding out your nutritional type will help you do this without much fuss. While nearly all type 2 diabetics need to swap out their grains for other foods, some people will benefit from using protein for the substitution, while others will benefit from using more vegetable-only carbohydrates.
Therefore, along with reducing grains and sugars, determining your nutritional type will give you some insight into what foods you should use to replace the grains and sugars.
* Exercise regularly -- a must for anyone with diabetes or pre-diabetes. Typically, you'll need large amounts of exercise, until you get your blood sugar levels under control. You may need up to an hour or two a day. Naturally, you'll want to gradually work your way up to that amount, based on your current level of fitness.
* Avoid trans fats
* Get plenty of omega-3 fats from a high quality, animal-based source.
* Get enough high-quality sleep every night.
* Optimize your vitamin D levels. Recent studies have revealed that getting enough vitamin D can have a powerful effect on normalizing your blood pressure and that low vitamin D levels may increase your risk of heart disease.
Optimizing your vitamin D levels may also eliminate the risk of type 1 diabetes in your children if you are pregnant. It's also vital for infants to receive the appropriate amounts of vitamin D in their early years for these same reasons.
Ideally, you'll want to do this by exposing a large amount of your skin to appropriate amounts of sunshine (or a safe tanning bed) on a regular basis, year-round. Your body can safely create up to 20,000 units of vitamin D a day this way.
However, if neither of these options are available, you may want to use an oral vitamin D3 supplement. But remember, if you choose to take an oral supplement it's essential that you get your levels tested regularly by a proficient lab to make sure you're not reaching toxic levels, and are within the therapeutic range. Maintaining your vitamin D levels around 60-80 ng/ml can significantly help control your blood sugar.
* Address any underlying emotional issues and/or stress. Non-invasive tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be extremely helpful and effective.
* Monitor your fasting insulin level. This is every bit as important as your fasting blood sugar. You'll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 to 4. The higher your level, the worse your insulin receptor sensitivity is.
These are the top steps you should take, starting today, if you have type 2 diabetes. Doing so will virtually guarantee that your diabetes will disappear. And if you want to make sure you are not one of the millions impacted by the coming diabetes epidemic, these same steps will help you to stay healthy and diabetes-free.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/11/fda-curbs-avandia-diabetes-drug-use.aspx
The FDA is restricting access to Avandia by requiring GSK to submit a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS.
Under the ruling, the drug will be available to patients not already taking it only if they are unable to achieve glycemic control using other medications and, in consultation with their health care professional, decide not to take a different drug for medical reasons.
Current users of Avandia will be able to continue using the medication if they appear to be benefiting from it and they acknowledge that they understand these risks. Doctors will have to attest to and document their patients' eligibility; patients will have to review statements describing the cardiovascular safety concerns.
But did the FDA go far enough -- could it be too little, too late?
Unlike the US FDA, British regulators have ruled that GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia could lead to heart attacks or strokes, and benefits no longer outweigh the risks.
And so last week, they told 90,000 British diabetes patients to stop taking it.
Evidence linking Avandia to an increased risk of a heart attack or stroke has been building since 2007, and GSK has agreed to pay $460 million in damages to settle about 10,000 lawsuits in America linking its use to patients suffering serious medical setbacks. But the US FDA has chosen only to monitor the drug, rather than ask for a recall.
Sources:
New England Journal of Medicine September 23, 2010
Philly.com June 17, 2010
The Guardian 23, 2010
Philly.com September 23, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Like Vioxx, the case of Avandia has turned into yet another classic example of what is fundamentally wrong with the conventional medical paradigm.
Diabetes has increased more than 700 percent in the last 50 years. Today, more than one in four Americans are either pre-diabetic or have full-blown diabetes.
In response, conventional medicine offers up drugs that in no way, shape or form treat the cause of the problem, and worse yet, can prematurely kill many of those who take them.
The drug in question here, rosiglitazone, is sold under the names of Avandia, Avandamet and Avaglim. Avandia alone is used by 2 million people worldwide.
But other diabetic drugs are not necessarily any safer. Two years ago I wrote about Byetta, an "add-on" drug for diabetes (meaning it's usually prescribed in combination with other drugs) that can cause acute and in some cases lethal pancreatitis.
The saddest part about this debacle is that type 2 diabetes is not only a completely avoidable disease, but also one that in nearly all cases can be successfully reversed without ever touching a drug.
The only thing rosiglitazone drugs like Avandia do is to help lower blood glucose, which has virtually no influence on the long-term damage due to type 2 diabetes. Most of the damage is caused by elevated insulin levels, which can be remedied with an optimal diet and exercise program alone, if you're compliant.
Another aspect of this story that makes Avandia such a poster child for this lethal paradigm is the fact that GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, hid damaging information about the drug for over ten years, as it would adversely affect their sales!
Again and again we are confronted with indisputable evidence that the drug paradigm is about money, not health.
Between 1999 and 2007, Avandia is estimated to have caused 83,000 unnecessary heart attacks. This is a steep price, to say the least, for a disease that does not require drugs to begin with.
This is 20,000 more deaths than Merck caused when they sold Vioxx.
European Medicines Agency Bans Avandia
Avandia hit the market in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster drug. By 2006 its annual revenue was $3.2 billion. By 2009, sales had dropped to $1.2 billion following a damning study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2007, which linked Avandia to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients treated with other methods.
Unfortunately, a committee of independent experts recommended that Avandia remain on the US market, despite its risks, and an FDA oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept the advice.
Since that 2007 NEJM study, data from various trials, studies and meta-analyses have consistently confirmed the dangers of this drug, and based on the evidence amassed over the past three years, the European Medicines Agency is now recommending the withdrawal of rosiglitazone-containing diabetic drugs due to the increased risk of ischaemic heart disease.
Their recent press release states that,
"...the Committee could not identify additional measures that would reduce the cardiovascular risk. The Committee therefore concluded that the benefits of rosiglitazone no longer outweigh its risks and recommended the suspension of the marketing authorization of the medicines.
Europe will cease all prescriptions of these drugs within the next few months.
American patients, however, will not receive the same protection from the US FDA.
The September 23, 2010 article in NEJM explains:
"Following an advisory committee meeting held in July 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added information about the possibility of ischemic cardiovascular risk to the drug’s existing boxed warning. At the same time, the FDA also required the sponsors to conduct a head-to-head cardiovascular safety trial of rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone — the other antidiabetic drug in this class available in the United States.
After new data became available, the FDA held a second advisory committee meeting on rosiglitazone safety on July 13 and 14, 2010. On September 23, 2010, the FDA announced regulatory actions stemming from these deliberations.”
The regulatory actions we'll see in the US includes restricting access to these drugs, but they’re STILL not being taken off the market.
Current users are supposed to be informed of the dangers and sign off that they understand the risks, but can otherwise continue taking it "if they appear to be benefitting from it." New patients are only supposed to be offered the drug if they're unable to control their diabetes using some other form of medication.
So, while the European agency determined that there is no way of reducing the cardiovascular risks involved if you’re on this drug, and that its risks outweigh its benefits, the US FDA is still vacillating on this issue.
They seem completely incapable of determining whether or not the lives of tens of thousands of people are more valuable than the corporate profits that feed the agency...
Why is that?
NEJM also points this out, stating that:
"The rosiglitazone controversy is remarkable because there are strongly held, differing positions on how the agency should respond to emerging safety data, both inside the FDA and in the biomedical community.
The 2010 advisory committee was split in advising the agency about what to do. Moving from the least to most restrictive options, 3 members voted to allow continued marketing with no changes to the label; 7 voted that the FDA should adjust the label to account for the new concerns but take no additional action; 10 members voted for the FDA to both increase warnings and limit access to rosiglitazone; and 12 voted that the medication should be removed from the market altogether.
The FDA decided to increase warnings and limit access to rosiglitazone substantially."
The fact that ANYONE would be callous enough to vote to continue marketing Avandia with little or no change in strategy whatsoever is astounding to me. Yet there were plenty of voices speaking FOR the continuation of insane greed.
That in and of itself speaks volumes about the FDA’s lack of concern for your well-being...
NEJM also hits the nail on its head with the statement that, "the case of rosiglitazone underscores the need for a robust evidence base to demonstrate the safety of medicines administered long-term."
Amen to that.
But I believe we need to go even further, and re-educate people about their need for such pills in the first place. The drug industry has been able to manipulate the medical industry and most consumers into believing their drugs are the answer to the problem.
Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, taking the drug route will lead you further and further away from health, and closer to ever more serious health problems.
Diabetes in particular is a perfect example of a health problem best treated without drugs -- if you ever want to get well, that is.
So please understand, you cannot successfully treat the underlying cause of diabetes with drugs!
MOST DIABETIC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DEAD WRONG
And I do mean dead, literally, as they are prematurely killing millions with their flawed insights into basic human physiology.
It's sad but true -- most conventional recommendations for diabetics are seriously flawed and if you follow them, you will likely experience increased health problems and premature death.
First and foremost, you must understand that diabetes is NOT a blood sugar disease like your doctor may have led you to believe. Rather, type 2 diabetes is a disease caused by insulin resistance and faulty leptin signaling, both of which are regulated through your diet.
Listen, the evidence is crystal clear. Regarding Avandia, there is NO REASON for ANYONE to take this drug for diabetes. It has already killed over 80,000 people and does nothing to ameliorate the side effects of diabetes or prevent its complications because it does nothing to address the cause.
It is simply CRIMINAL that this drug is still on the market.
If you or anyone you know is still taking this drug you must warn them of this danger. This is literally a life and death situation. Tell them there are simple, inexpensive, and in many cases free, ways to treat diabetes that actually work and do not kill them.
I discuss these strategies below.
Why You MUST Restrict Fructose Consumption
If You Want to Avoid or Treat Diabetes
If you want to successfully address your diabetes, or avoid it in the first place, you simply must address your fructose consumption. Your body metabolizes fructose differently from glucose and these differences lead to serious health consequences, one of which is diabetes.
For example, fructose does not stimulate a rise in leptin, so your satiety signals are diminished. It also reduces the amount of leptin crossing your blood-brain barrier by raising triglycerides. And whereas glucose suppresses ghrelin (the hunger hormone, which makes you want more food), fructose does not.
Fructose also increases your insulin levels, interfering with the communication between leptin and your hypothalamus, so your pleasure signals aren’t extinguished. Your brain senses starvation and prompts you to eat more.
All of this also sets the stage for over indulgence and hence overweight, and puts you on the path toward both obesity and diabetes.
I strongly advise keeping your fructose consumption below 25 grams per day.
However, since most people still eat processed foods, it would be wise for most people to limit their fructose to 15 grams or less.
This includes fruits, which also need to be carefully measured to make certain that you’re not inadvertently consuming too much fructose. See the table below to get an idea of how much fructose is in your favorite fruits.
Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Limes 1 medium 0
Lemons 1 medium 0.6
Cranberries 1 cup 0.7
Passion fruit 1 medium 0.9
Prune 1 medium 1.2
Apricot 1 medium 1.3
Guava 2 medium 2.2
Date (Deglet Noor style) 1 medium 2.6
Cantaloupe 1/8 of med. melon 2.8
Raspberries 1 cup 3.0
Clementine 1 medium 3.4
Kiwifruit 1 medium 3.4
Blackberries 1 cup 3.5
Star fruit 1 medium 3.6
Cherries, sweet 10 3.8
Strawberries 1 cup 3.8
Cherries, sour 1 cup 4.0
Pineapple 1 slice
(3.5" x .75") 4.0
Grapefruit, pink or red 1/2 medium 4.3
Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Boysenberries 1 cup 4.6
Tangerine/mandarin orange 1 medium 4.8
Nectarine 1 medium 5.4
Peach 1 medium 5.9
Orange (navel) 1 medium 6.1
Papaya 1/2 medium 6.3
Honeydew 1/8 of med. melon 6.7
Banana 1 medium 7.1
Blueberries 1 cup 7.4
Date (Medjool) 1 medium 7.7
Apple (composite) 1 medium 9.5
Persimmon 1 medium 10.6
Watermelon 1/16 med. melon 11.3
Pear 1 medium 11.8
Raisins 1/4 cup 12.3
Grapes, seedless (green or red) 1 cup 12.4
Mango 1/2 medium 16.2
Apricots, dried 1 cup 16.4
Figs, dried 1 cup 23.0
Clearly, eliminating excess fructose from your diet is far safer and more effective than taking a drug like Avandia if you have diabetes. Unfortunately, most doctors will not tell you this, because they too have been brainwashed by drug- and food industry propaganda.
YOU CAN CURE DIABETES
As I said earlier, type 2 diabetes is virtually 100 percent avoidable and can be effectively treated without medications in about the same percentage of cases by recovering your leptin and insulin sensitivity.
Leptin, a relatively recently discovered hormone produced by fat, tells your body and brain how much energy it has, whether it needs more (saying "be hungry"), whether it should get rid of some (and stop being hungry) and importantly what to do with the energy it has (reproduce, upregulate cellular repair, or not).
In fact, the two most important organs that may determine whether you become (type 2, insulin resistant) diabetic or not are your liver and your brain, and it is their ability to listen to leptin that will determine this.
And guess what...
The only known way to reestablish proper leptin and insulin signaling is through a proper diet and exercise!
There is NO drug that can accomplish this, but following the lifestyle strategies listed below can help you do at least three things that are essential for successfully treating diabetes:
1. Recover your insulin/leptin sensitivity
2. Help normalize your weight, and
3. Naturally normalize your blood pressure
None of these will drastically raise your risk of a heart attack the way Avandia will. Rather, they will benefit your heart and your entire body:
* Severely limit or eliminate sugar and grains in your diet, especially fructose, which is far more detrimental than any other type of sugar.
Finding out your nutritional type will help you do this without much fuss. While nearly all type 2 diabetics need to swap out their grains for other foods, some people will benefit from using protein for the substitution, while others will benefit from using more vegetable-only carbohydrates.
Therefore, along with reducing grains and sugars, determining your nutritional type will give you some insight into what foods you should use to replace the grains and sugars.
* Exercise regularly -- a must for anyone with diabetes or pre-diabetes. Typically, you'll need large amounts of exercise, until you get your blood sugar levels under control. You may need up to an hour or two a day. Naturally, you'll want to gradually work your way up to that amount, based on your current level of fitness.
* Avoid trans fats
* Get plenty of omega-3 fats from a high quality, animal-based source.
* Get enough high-quality sleep every night.
* Optimize your vitamin D levels. Recent studies have revealed that getting enough vitamin D can have a powerful effect on normalizing your blood pressure and that low vitamin D levels may increase your risk of heart disease.
Optimizing your vitamin D levels may also eliminate the risk of type 1 diabetes in your children if you are pregnant. It's also vital for infants to receive the appropriate amounts of vitamin D in their early years for these same reasons.
Ideally, you'll want to do this by exposing a large amount of your skin to appropriate amounts of sunshine (or a safe tanning bed) on a regular basis, year-round. Your body can safely create up to 20,000 units of vitamin D a day this way.
However, if neither of these options are available, you may want to use an oral vitamin D3 supplement. But remember, if you choose to take an oral supplement it's essential that you get your levels tested regularly by a proficient lab to make sure you're not reaching toxic levels, and are within the therapeutic range. Maintaining your vitamin D levels around 60-80 ng/ml can significantly help control your blood sugar.
* Address any underlying emotional issues and/or stress. Non-invasive tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be extremely helpful and effective.
* Monitor your fasting insulin level. This is every bit as important as your fasting blood sugar. You'll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 to 4. The higher your level, the worse your insulin receptor sensitivity is.
These are the top steps you should take, starting today, if you have type 2 diabetes. Doing so will virtually guarantee that your diabetes will disappear. And if you want to make sure you are not one of the millions impacted by the coming diabetes epidemic, these same steps will help you to stay healthy and diabetes-free.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/11/fda-curbs-avandia-diabetes-drug-use.aspx
Oil Speculation Scam: Enron Fraud Lives On
(July 17, 2007) In a series of hearings last week on Capitol Hill, members of Congress shed light on the most significant source of volatile energy prices -- excessive speculation and manipulation on the unregulated energy commodity futures markets.
Seven years ago, Enron lobbyists sought to free their new experiment in electronic trading, "Enron Online," from oversight by the principle regulator of energy futures and derivatives, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
They managed to drop a loophole into an appropriations bill that has effectively exempted all electronic over-the-counter energy commodity markets from US regulation.
Before this bill was passed, crude oil was under $25 per barrel and motorists enjoyed affordable gasoline.
Since then, energy commodity traders and hedge funds have poured billions of dollars into these "dark markets."
According to a bipartisan report published by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, excessive speculation may be responsible for as much as $20-$25 of a barrel of crude oil.
Between 50 cents to $1 per gallon of gasoline may be a direct result of irrational and unethical behavior in the commodity markets.
Enron may be long gone, but its legacy remains.
Few Americans realize the extent to which futures trading on dark markets determines the price they pay for energy. Daily trading has an immediate impact on the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, and other fuels.
A large majority of futures trading -- as much as 75 percent, according to experts -- is conducted on unregulated dark markets, as opposed to trading on regulated markets, including the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The Federal Trade Commission concluded last year that retail price gouging is not only hard to define but is virtually nonexistent, whereas "price gouging" on the commodity markets is very real. Insufficient or nonexistent US oversight has given profiteering traders and hedge funds the wiggle room they need to distort prices for personal profit -- at the expense of the American consumer.
A Senate committee investigation into the multi-billion-dollar collapse of hedge fund giant Amaranth Advisors, LLC in September 2006 illustrates the profound effect one company can have on rising energy prices.
That summer, Amaranth controlled 100,000 contracts -- roughly 5 percent of the entire US annual consumption of natural gas. When the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange platform upon which they held their positions ordered them to liquidate, Amaranth traders simply moved positions to the electronic InterContinental Exchange, which is unregulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Shortly thereafter, Amaranth's market holdings collapsed when the market turned against them, and the extraordinarily high natural gas prices -- a direct result of Amaranth's control of the market -- plummeted.
As Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's chairman, said last week, Amaranth "simply wanted to speculate and hopefully make a lot of money . . . they took users and consumers of natural gas along for the ride." And it is these consumers who paid the highest price.
The energy commodity markets perform an essential economic function if they are transparent, accountable, and subject to the rule of law. But as Dr. Michael Greenberger, former CFTC enforcement officer and professor of law at the University of Maryland, said in testimony this month, "failure to regulate these markets properly has distorted and sabotaged free market principles [and] cut those markets off from the moorings of economic fundamentals."
A bill called the "Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act" would close this loophole and bring accountability to the dark markets. Congress should pass this bill, put an end to the real "price gouging," and tell commodity market profiteers to stop playing with their constituents' wallets.
*** James Collura is vice president for government affairs at The New England Fuel Institute.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/17/
how_traders_gamble_with_your_energy_dollars/
Seven years ago, Enron lobbyists sought to free their new experiment in electronic trading, "Enron Online," from oversight by the principle regulator of energy futures and derivatives, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
They managed to drop a loophole into an appropriations bill that has effectively exempted all electronic over-the-counter energy commodity markets from US regulation.
Before this bill was passed, crude oil was under $25 per barrel and motorists enjoyed affordable gasoline.
Since then, energy commodity traders and hedge funds have poured billions of dollars into these "dark markets."
According to a bipartisan report published by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, excessive speculation may be responsible for as much as $20-$25 of a barrel of crude oil.
Between 50 cents to $1 per gallon of gasoline may be a direct result of irrational and unethical behavior in the commodity markets.
Enron may be long gone, but its legacy remains.
Few Americans realize the extent to which futures trading on dark markets determines the price they pay for energy. Daily trading has an immediate impact on the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, and other fuels.
A large majority of futures trading -- as much as 75 percent, according to experts -- is conducted on unregulated dark markets, as opposed to trading on regulated markets, including the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The Federal Trade Commission concluded last year that retail price gouging is not only hard to define but is virtually nonexistent, whereas "price gouging" on the commodity markets is very real. Insufficient or nonexistent US oversight has given profiteering traders and hedge funds the wiggle room they need to distort prices for personal profit -- at the expense of the American consumer.
A Senate committee investigation into the multi-billion-dollar collapse of hedge fund giant Amaranth Advisors, LLC in September 2006 illustrates the profound effect one company can have on rising energy prices.
That summer, Amaranth controlled 100,000 contracts -- roughly 5 percent of the entire US annual consumption of natural gas. When the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange platform upon which they held their positions ordered them to liquidate, Amaranth traders simply moved positions to the electronic InterContinental Exchange, which is unregulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Shortly thereafter, Amaranth's market holdings collapsed when the market turned against them, and the extraordinarily high natural gas prices -- a direct result of Amaranth's control of the market -- plummeted.
As Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's chairman, said last week, Amaranth "simply wanted to speculate and hopefully make a lot of money . . . they took users and consumers of natural gas along for the ride." And it is these consumers who paid the highest price.
The energy commodity markets perform an essential economic function if they are transparent, accountable, and subject to the rule of law. But as Dr. Michael Greenberger, former CFTC enforcement officer and professor of law at the University of Maryland, said in testimony this month, "failure to regulate these markets properly has distorted and sabotaged free market principles [and] cut those markets off from the moorings of economic fundamentals."
A bill called the "Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act" would close this loophole and bring accountability to the dark markets. Congress should pass this bill, put an end to the real "price gouging," and tell commodity market profiteers to stop playing with their constituents' wallets.
*** James Collura is vice president for government affairs at The New England Fuel Institute.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/17/
how_traders_gamble_with_your_energy_dollars/
UN Condones Dyncorp Sex Crimes & Sex Slavery
A senior United Nations official is demanding that her colleagues involved in the sex trade in Bosnia should be stripped of their immunity and prosecuted.
Madeleine Rees, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bosnia, has broken ranks to demand that UN officials, international peacekeepers and police who are involved in sex crimes be brought to justice in their home countries.
Speaking exclusively to Scotland on Sunday, the British lawyer has also launched an outspoken attack on her former boss. She accuses Jacques Paul Klein, the former head of the UN Mission in Bosnia, of not taking UN complicity in the country’s burgeoning sex trade seriously enough.
In recent years there has been a massive increase in the trafficking of women in Bosnia, including girls as young as 12. The women are taken from their homes in eastern Europe by organised criminal gangs and brought to Bosnia, where they are forced into prostitution.
The trade in these so-called ‘sex slaves’ hardly existed until the mid-1990s.
It was fuelled by the arrival of tens of thousands of predominantly male UN personnel in the wake of the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord by Bosnia, Croatia and Yugoslavia in 1995.
Rees said: "Visiting brothels where women have been gang-raped into submission, into slavery, is not part of the UN’s mandate.
"Without an enforceable code of conduct, immunity often means impunity. We should look at ways of waiving that immunity.
"I would be very happy to see the possibility of prosecutions for rape or assault in the UK. There is no question this should happen."
Rees, who has served in Bosnia since 1998, said she had encountered stiff opposition from western officials in her attempts to tackle the trafficking of women.
" They don’t want to know about it," she said.
"There is this whole ‘boys will be boys’ attitude about men visiting brothels. There’s a culture inside the UN where you can’t criticise it. That goes all the way to the top."
Referring to Klein, she added: "He doesn’t take this issue at all seriously."
Last year, Rees testified in support of Kathryn Bolkovac, a UN police officer who was sacked for exposing the sexual abuse of women and children in Bosnia by her colleagues.
Bolkovac’s former employer DynCorp, an American security firm which supplied staff to the UN, was forced to pay £110,000 in compensation.
The chairman of the British employment tribunal which heard the case described DynCorp as "callous, spiteful and vindictive".
Bolkovac had revealed UN peacekeepers went to nightclubs where young girls were forced to dance naked and have sex with customers, and that UN personnel and international aid workers were linked to prostitution rings in the Balkans. At the time, Rees described it as "the biggest cover-up I have ever seen", adding that she believed 30% of those visiting Bosnia’s brothels were UN personnel, peacekeepers or aid workers.
DynCorp insists it has the highest ethical standards of business "and encourages employees to speak openly".
However, Rees said the private defence contractors, whose British office is based in Salisbury, should be banned from the country.
"DynCorp... should not be allowed anywhere near Bosnia," she said.
In January, a 500 strong European Union police force replaced the UN’s 1,800 member multinational International Police Task Force (IPTF).
Dedicated anti-trafficking teams were formed and assigned to raid nightclubs across Bosnia suspected of operating forced prostitution rackets.
Rees said the counter-trafficking efforts had mostly been a failure. "They were basically for show and completely amateurish," she said.
Referring to the EU police force, Rees added: "They are still very much on probation. These men must understand that going into brothels is illegal in Bosnia. The sex is not consensual if the woman is a 13-year-old girl trafficked from Moldova."
Although there have been many cases of police officers being sent home in disgrace for their involvement in the sex trade, the UN can only remove them from service and is powerless to prosecute them. It is up to member countries to take any further action.
Rees said: "People will say the UN is not practising what it preaches. It is double standards, and it looks like western imperialism. Brothel raids find UN police inside, and then no one is prosecuted. The UK is prosecuting no one.
"If you send people home, countries get wild. But if you don’t enforce the rules, you can’t serve in the United Nations."
Human Rights Watch is equally downbeat in its assessment.
A spokesman for the organisation said: "Foreign nationals serving in Bosnia enjoy almost complete immunity. It was assumed countries would prosecute and discipline their citizens upon their return home from for crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This has rarely happened in practice."
Soldiers from S-FOR, or Stabilisation Force, Bosnia’s 18,000 strong Nato-led peacekeeping force, were granted "immunity from personal arrest or detention" by the November 1995 Dayton Treaty which authorised their deployment.
S-FOR troops are banned from attending brothels but Rees said the marketing strategy of suspected new brothels opening near S-FOR bases makes it clear who they are catering for.
"Outside the Russians’ base, there is a brothel called Odessa," she explained. By the Americans’, its Texas or Philadelphia. There’s even an El Cid near the Spanish base. While there are foreign troops in Bosnia, there will be always demand for trafficked women."
Last night, Jan Oskar Solnes, spokesman for the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, said: "Its correct we have diplomatic immunity, but I imagine any incident [of sexual misconduct] would be a personal rather than professional matter.
"We have a zero tolerance approach to this issue and anyone involved will be removed from the mission."
Kirsten Haupt, spokeswoman for the United Nations Liaison Office (UNLO) in Bosnia, dismissed Rees’s claim that Jacques Paul Klein had not taken the illegal sex trade seriously.
She said: " All cases have been thoroughly investigated. We have sent a number of officers home. There is absolutely no toleration of a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude here."
Klein left Bosnia on February 1 and is no longer working for the UN. He is understood to be on holiday in the United States, and could not be contacted by Scotland on Sunday.
Yesterday, a spokesman for DynCorp said: "We do not make it a practice to comment on opinions.
"However, we are familiar with previous public statements Ms Rees has made about involuntary servitude and DynCorp continues to share her concerns for women held against their will in Bosnia, just as we condemn all human rights abuses anywhere in the world."
Bosnia sex trade shames UN
DOMINIC HIPKINS IN ZAGREB
THE SCOTSMAN
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=160672003
OTHER RELATED STORIES:
Sins of the peacekeepers
UN forces are supposed to help rebuild war-ravaged
communities. But, as Magin McKenna reports, these
workers are also pouring money into a flourishing
trade in illegal brothels, rape and trafficking in
women
http://www.sundayherald.com/print25914
'Boys will be boys'
It has become a tragic inevitability that whenever
international peacekeepers are sent to bring law and
order to a war torn country, a vast and exploitative
sex industry, allegedly follows close behind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2043794.stm
UN police accused of involvement in prostitution in
Bosnia
http://www.midhnottsol.org/fow/r034.html
UN Whistleblower Says Fired for Sex Claims
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/general/2002/0626sex.htm
Forced Prostitution: UN Police are 'Part of the
Problem'
http://k.mihalec.tripod.com/current/UNTrade.htm
Teenagers ´used for sex by UN in Bosnia´
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml&sShee\
t=/news/2002/04/25/ixworld.html
A human rights investigator who claims she was sacked
for exposing the sexual abuse of Bosnian women by her
United Nations colleagues, told a tribunal yesterday
that girls as young as 15 were offered for sex.
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/apr02/hed4913.shtml
Madeleine Rees, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bosnia, has broken ranks to demand that UN officials, international peacekeepers and police who are involved in sex crimes be brought to justice in their home countries.
Speaking exclusively to Scotland on Sunday, the British lawyer has also launched an outspoken attack on her former boss. She accuses Jacques Paul Klein, the former head of the UN Mission in Bosnia, of not taking UN complicity in the country’s burgeoning sex trade seriously enough.
In recent years there has been a massive increase in the trafficking of women in Bosnia, including girls as young as 12. The women are taken from their homes in eastern Europe by organised criminal gangs and brought to Bosnia, where they are forced into prostitution.
The trade in these so-called ‘sex slaves’ hardly existed until the mid-1990s.
It was fuelled by the arrival of tens of thousands of predominantly male UN personnel in the wake of the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord by Bosnia, Croatia and Yugoslavia in 1995.
Rees said: "Visiting brothels where women have been gang-raped into submission, into slavery, is not part of the UN’s mandate.
"Without an enforceable code of conduct, immunity often means impunity. We should look at ways of waiving that immunity.
"I would be very happy to see the possibility of prosecutions for rape or assault in the UK. There is no question this should happen."
Rees, who has served in Bosnia since 1998, said she had encountered stiff opposition from western officials in her attempts to tackle the trafficking of women.
" They don’t want to know about it," she said.
"There is this whole ‘boys will be boys’ attitude about men visiting brothels. There’s a culture inside the UN where you can’t criticise it. That goes all the way to the top."
Referring to Klein, she added: "He doesn’t take this issue at all seriously."
Last year, Rees testified in support of Kathryn Bolkovac, a UN police officer who was sacked for exposing the sexual abuse of women and children in Bosnia by her colleagues.
Bolkovac’s former employer DynCorp, an American security firm which supplied staff to the UN, was forced to pay £110,000 in compensation.
The chairman of the British employment tribunal which heard the case described DynCorp as "callous, spiteful and vindictive".
Bolkovac had revealed UN peacekeepers went to nightclubs where young girls were forced to dance naked and have sex with customers, and that UN personnel and international aid workers were linked to prostitution rings in the Balkans. At the time, Rees described it as "the biggest cover-up I have ever seen", adding that she believed 30% of those visiting Bosnia’s brothels were UN personnel, peacekeepers or aid workers.
DynCorp insists it has the highest ethical standards of business "and encourages employees to speak openly".
However, Rees said the private defence contractors, whose British office is based in Salisbury, should be banned from the country.
"DynCorp... should not be allowed anywhere near Bosnia," she said.
In January, a 500 strong European Union police force replaced the UN’s 1,800 member multinational International Police Task Force (IPTF).
Dedicated anti-trafficking teams were formed and assigned to raid nightclubs across Bosnia suspected of operating forced prostitution rackets.
Rees said the counter-trafficking efforts had mostly been a failure. "They were basically for show and completely amateurish," she said.
Referring to the EU police force, Rees added: "They are still very much on probation. These men must understand that going into brothels is illegal in Bosnia. The sex is not consensual if the woman is a 13-year-old girl trafficked from Moldova."
Although there have been many cases of police officers being sent home in disgrace for their involvement in the sex trade, the UN can only remove them from service and is powerless to prosecute them. It is up to member countries to take any further action.
Rees said: "People will say the UN is not practising what it preaches. It is double standards, and it looks like western imperialism. Brothel raids find UN police inside, and then no one is prosecuted. The UK is prosecuting no one.
"If you send people home, countries get wild. But if you don’t enforce the rules, you can’t serve in the United Nations."
Human Rights Watch is equally downbeat in its assessment.
A spokesman for the organisation said: "Foreign nationals serving in Bosnia enjoy almost complete immunity. It was assumed countries would prosecute and discipline their citizens upon their return home from for crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This has rarely happened in practice."
Soldiers from S-FOR, or Stabilisation Force, Bosnia’s 18,000 strong Nato-led peacekeeping force, were granted "immunity from personal arrest or detention" by the November 1995 Dayton Treaty which authorised their deployment.
S-FOR troops are banned from attending brothels but Rees said the marketing strategy of suspected new brothels opening near S-FOR bases makes it clear who they are catering for.
"Outside the Russians’ base, there is a brothel called Odessa," she explained. By the Americans’, its Texas or Philadelphia. There’s even an El Cid near the Spanish base. While there are foreign troops in Bosnia, there will be always demand for trafficked women."
Last night, Jan Oskar Solnes, spokesman for the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, said: "Its correct we have diplomatic immunity, but I imagine any incident [of sexual misconduct] would be a personal rather than professional matter.
"We have a zero tolerance approach to this issue and anyone involved will be removed from the mission."
Kirsten Haupt, spokeswoman for the United Nations Liaison Office (UNLO) in Bosnia, dismissed Rees’s claim that Jacques Paul Klein had not taken the illegal sex trade seriously.
She said: " All cases have been thoroughly investigated. We have sent a number of officers home. There is absolutely no toleration of a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude here."
Klein left Bosnia on February 1 and is no longer working for the UN. He is understood to be on holiday in the United States, and could not be contacted by Scotland on Sunday.
Yesterday, a spokesman for DynCorp said: "We do not make it a practice to comment on opinions.
"However, we are familiar with previous public statements Ms Rees has made about involuntary servitude and DynCorp continues to share her concerns for women held against their will in Bosnia, just as we condemn all human rights abuses anywhere in the world."
Bosnia sex trade shames UN
DOMINIC HIPKINS IN ZAGREB
THE SCOTSMAN
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=160672003
OTHER RELATED STORIES:
Sins of the peacekeepers
UN forces are supposed to help rebuild war-ravaged
communities. But, as Magin McKenna reports, these
workers are also pouring money into a flourishing
trade in illegal brothels, rape and trafficking in
women
http://www.sundayherald.com/print25914
'Boys will be boys'
It has become a tragic inevitability that whenever
international peacekeepers are sent to bring law and
order to a war torn country, a vast and exploitative
sex industry, allegedly follows close behind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2043794.stm
UN police accused of involvement in prostitution in
Bosnia
http://www.midhnottsol.org/fow/r034.html
UN Whistleblower Says Fired for Sex Claims
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/general/2002/0626sex.htm
Forced Prostitution: UN Police are 'Part of the
Problem'
http://k.mihalec.tripod.com/current/UNTrade.htm
Teenagers ´used for sex by UN in Bosnia´
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml&sShee\
t=/news/2002/04/25/ixworld.html
A human rights investigator who claims she was sacked
for exposing the sexual abuse of Bosnian women by her
United Nations colleagues, told a tribunal yesterday
that girls as young as 15 were offered for sex.
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/apr02/hed4913.shtml
Bush's Dept.of Justice (sic) Kills 4th Amendment
(4-2-08) Bush administration memo says Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations within U.S.
A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Unionlawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."
The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency.
"The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project.
"The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties, and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law."
The Bush administration has never argued publicly that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations within the nation's borders. The memo released yesterday publicizes this argument for the first time.
The ACLU has been aware of the Justice Department's October 2001 memo since last year, but until now, its contents were unknown. The Justice Department informed the ACLU of the memo's existence as a result of a FOIA lawsuit seeking information concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department acknowledged the existence of "a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC's views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity." Until now, however, almost nothing was known about the memo's contents – except that it was related to a request for information about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU has challenged the withholding of the October 2001 memo and the issue is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The memo released to the ACLU yesterday cites the October 2001 memo but takes its argument even further. Relying on the earlier memo, the March 2003 memo argues that the president has authority as Commander-in-Chief to bypass not only the Fourth Amendment but the central due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as well.
"This memo makes a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorneywith the ACLU. "That it was issued by the Justice Department, whose job it is to uphold the law, makes it even more unconscionable."
The March 2003 memo was declassified in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations in June 2004 to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU has been fighting for the release of the March 2003 Yoo memo since filing the lawsuit. A few weeks ago, after the court ordered additional briefing on whether the Defense Department could continue to withhold the memo, the government reluctantly agreed to conduct a declassification review by March 31. The Defense Department released this memo after conducting the review.
The 2003 Department of Justice memo can be found online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34745res20030314.html
Documents relating to the ACLU's NSA FOIA lawsuit are available online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30022res20060207.html
To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit related the abuse of prisoner in U.S. custody abroad. These documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34757prs20080402.html
A newly disclosed secret memo authored by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in March 2003 that asserts President Bush has unlimited power to order brutal interrogations of detainees also reveals a radical interpretation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The memo, declassified yesterday as the result of an American Civil Liberties Unionlawsuit, cites a still-secret DOJ memo from 2001 that found that the "Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."
The October 2001 memo was almost certainly meant to provide a legal basis for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, which President Bush launched the same month the memo was issued. As a component of the Department of Defense, the NSA is a military agency.
"The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project.
"The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties, and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law."
The Bush administration has never argued publicly that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations within the nation's borders. The memo released yesterday publicizes this argument for the first time.
The ACLU has been aware of the Justice Department's October 2001 memo since last year, but until now, its contents were unknown. The Justice Department informed the ACLU of the memo's existence as a result of a FOIA lawsuit seeking information concerning the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department acknowledged the existence of "a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC's views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity." Until now, however, almost nothing was known about the memo's contents – except that it was related to a request for information about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU has challenged the withholding of the October 2001 memo and the issue is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The memo released to the ACLU yesterday cites the October 2001 memo but takes its argument even further. Relying on the earlier memo, the March 2003 memo argues that the president has authority as Commander-in-Chief to bypass not only the Fourth Amendment but the central due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as well.
"This memo makes a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorneywith the ACLU. "That it was issued by the Justice Department, whose job it is to uphold the law, makes it even more unconscionable."
The March 2003 memo was declassified in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations in June 2004 to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU has been fighting for the release of the March 2003 Yoo memo since filing the lawsuit. A few weeks ago, after the court ordered additional briefing on whether the Defense Department could continue to withhold the memo, the government reluctantly agreed to conduct a declassification review by March 31. The Defense Department released this memo after conducting the review.
The 2003 Department of Justice memo can be found online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34745res20030314.html
Documents relating to the ACLU's NSA FOIA lawsuit are available online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/30022res20060207.html
To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit related the abuse of prisoner in U.S. custody abroad. These documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/34757prs20080402.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)