Free Republic

My purpose in posting this is to arm people with the truth as soon as the lies start circulating. this non-story, like the Bush National Guard story, will be constantly recirculated if Hunter begins to move upwards in the polls. I am glad that there are posts that further trash the story. Daily Kos already made reference to this story when Hunter announced his presidential exploratory committee. No slur on a conservative is so old and debunked as to render it unusable by the left. Rather than wait until it is surfaced again, I thought it a good idea to arm those who are interested in Duncan Hunter (and I am one of them) with the truth.

Bill clinton was at less than 1 percent in the polls two years out from election day. Duncan Hunter has already struck a chord with the conservative base-- witness what happened with the straw poll in Arizona and strong on the border. They are afraid he might catch fire with the base and want to scare them off.

Of course-- Daily Kos not knowing anything about either law or economics-- sees an issue here because it never occurs to Daily Kos that if the house were really worth what people claimed it was worth the Resolution Trust corporation would not own it. RTC was, essentially, standing in the place of the lender. Houses go back to lenders when the market value of the house is less than the mortgage. Duncan Hunter appears to be a man who worked his way up to where he is. It appears that what he did was buy a foreclosure and renovate it. Lots of people who can't afford expensive houses do that. Nothing wrong but the lefties will try to make something of it because they are not interested in truth but in winning.

Actually-- he says it was carbon dioxide, which is not poisonous. It is heavier than other components of air and can, in the rare event of its being released in concentrated form, displace the oxygen in the air thus causing suffocation. It happened at Lake Nyo in the Cameroons recently and, to my own knowledge, happened in the United States near a lake I once camped at-- Horseshoe lake near Mammoth Lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains-- I don't think anyone was killed in Mammoth Lakes but a geologist lost consciousness because the carbon dioxide, which was being emitted from the mountain was concentrated and cut down the oxygen content of the air-- as to why it was the first born only who were killed, the film's thesis is that in Egyptian culture first born males were given favored treatment and one aspect of that was being allowed to sleep on beds on the first floor while others slept on roofs. Because the carbon dioxide is heavy it only kills those animals and persons closer to the ground. Those sleeping higher up are spared. Far from being a challenge to faith, this program is meant to prove that bibilically described events really did happen. How often has something perfectly explainable in natural terms occurred at a time that was so propitious that you have exclaimed, It's like a miracle-- it has happened to me, more than once. Do you not see the hand of God in such events? I do. On the deepest level. That level that says , without thinking, Thank God.

You guys are missing the point. This is an opening salvo in the war to promote election fraud in November. This article is an attack on all of the election procedures in place for decades which retrict the opportunity to commit election fraud. The article is an attack on purging the voter lists of names of people who haven't voted in eight years. Almost every state has some variation of that law, based on the presumption that such people have likely moved or died. See my blog for more details on election fraud. This is a serious issue http://www.susansalisbury.squarespace.com/politics/

yes indeed, this is the very same Bishop Bruno who sued St. James Newport Beach, All Saints, Long Beach and St. David's North Hollywood. He didn't just lose. Under California's anti-slapp statute, the diocese was ordered to pay the attorneys fees incurred by St. James Newport Beach et. al. Which was a lot of money. Bruno has got to stop this or he is going to bankrupt the L. A. Diocese. This has all come about because Bruno performed a ceremony blessing a same sex relationship. And then he wonders why the more orthodox find him not leadership material.

I looked at his website and he looks, maybe, a little extreme.

Actually, I think that during WWII no one ever seriously challenged the President's authority to -- well-- do whatever he thought was right like, for example, interning millions of American citizens in camps based on their ancestry. Now, let's see, what's more invasive of my rights? Eavesdropping ? Internment? Hmmmmm.

I voted. Have you?

According to a story in the India times, the use of DDT in India has been much reduced because of the DDT scare stories and it is forbidden for agricultural use there.

DR Roger Bate, a scholar with the NGO Africa Fighting Malaria was in Delhi recently for the promotion of his book, 'When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story'. In an interview with Sauvik Chakraverti, he advocates increased rather than lowered use of DDT for malaria control.
Why are you advocating the use of DDT in your book?
Malaria kills over one million people every year, many of them children, and the number of deaths is increasing, predominantly in developing countries like India.
Many methods of protection against the disease have been devised. These methods are designed to try to prevent infection, but one of the most effective methods, and definitely the cheapest, is to spray inside houses and buildings with insecticides (such as DDT) to repel, irritate and kill the mosquito that carries the malaria parasite.
Yet, despite a surge in malaria incidence, DDT production is decreasing, and its use is limited to those few countries that still have stockpiles or whose governments produce it. India and China are the only remaining producers.
DDT may have saved lives, but doesn't it harm the environment and kill people?
Given the current debate about DDT in the West, it is important to remember that DDT helped eradicate malaria from the US and Europe.

DDT was also used in agriculture during the 1950s and 1960s and it was this liberal use, and its subsequent accumulation up the food chain, that raised concerns about harm to wildlife.

These concerns led to bans on the agricultural use of DDT in the west. Other countries, such as India and much of Africa, continued to use DDT because they still had to control diseases.

There has never been a scientifically peer-reviewed study that has shown any harm to human beings from DDT. Given that billions of people have been exposed to it, there should be substantial evidence of harm, rather than simply allegations of green alarmists.
Can the Indian government ensure that there is no harm from DDT to the environment?
It is illegal to use DDT in agriculture in India (it is produced only for malaria control). Efforts should be made to ensure that the illegal usage is kept to a minimum.
But DDT should be used for malaria control even if illegal use occurs. According to official estimates, there were 3 million malaria cases in India last year.

But one expert says the actual numbers may be as many as 20 million cases, and many of these in urban areas.
Greens argue that we must abandon DDT because there might be the chance of irreversible harm to wildlife.

But the death of a child is equally irreversible and surely far more tragic — except perhaps to militant environmentalists. Furthermore, malaria will probably have an enormous economic impact in India.
Malaria has reduced the wealth of parts of Africa by over a third over the past 35 years. The impact in India will not be as high, because DDT has been used, but as rates are increasing because of poor management and reduced use of DDT (down by 30 per cent from 1997) the impact is still likely to be substantial.
For example, South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996 and has seen a massive increase of malaria.
What do you suggest should happen in the future?
Before the malaria mosquito re-establishes itself in all the urban areas of India, a concerted DDT spray programme should be initiated.
This will save lives and send a message to the international health community that DDT use should not be abandoned.
India is one of the most powerful countries in the developing world and by promoting DDT use it sets an example, which will directly benefit other developing countries without the political muscle to argue against western eco-imperialism.
And as the only major producer of DDT, India should be helping these countries by exporting DDT, especially to Africa.
There are many African States, from Angola to Zimbabwe who should be eager to buy. But if India continues to reduce its production and use of DDT it will cost lives and perpetuate poverty in India and Africa.

I was concerned about malaria because my grandson just returned from India covered by mosquito bites. I read the John Stossel article and googled ddt and came across this article and this quote. Children are far more vulnerable to malaria than adults. DDT is the only known cheap effective way to fight malaria. How many children have died because we won't fund ddt and how many have suffered. And was this the intended effect by WHO?

The posse comitatus act is an act which seeks to assure that there will never be a military takeover of the United States by a sitting president. That is the law which complicated the president's ability to act in New Orleans without the request of the Governor or the Mayor. Because of the complete breakdown of law and order in New Orleans, federal troops would, of necessity, have been enforcing the laws. This article was written a while ago , long before Hurricane Katrina, but it warns us not to sacrifice an important principle because of a governor and mayor who couldn't get their acts together.

so you are a misogynist are you? Not planning to have any children? Note to Loyalist-- it takes 1man +1 woman to have a child. God arranged that also. St. Paul tells you to love your wife should you be so fortuante as to have one.

My point is not that we should amend the constitution, and, for that matter, I could have referred to the amendment requiring states to allow 18 year olds to vote. Some of the people who voted on that amendment are still around also. My point is not that the constitution should be amended but that judges who are looking for penumbras and hidden rights and what the framers would have done if they lived today are themselves, singlehandedly or with the help of the Supreme court, amending the constitution by their decisions. And unless you think that writing bad decisions is a high crime or misdemeanor. The exact language is "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This language applies to federal judges who sit for life under the current system. Now you can argue that article III of the constitution which provides, in part that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." adds another category, good behavior. If you allow bad decisions to become the standard for good behavior, then the independence of the judiciary is abolished.

Are you saying that none of the legislators who sat in Michigan in 1992 are still alive? Who are the framers? I say they are the people who voted for the measures that become part of the constitution. I haven't conducted a study but I bet that some of the people who voted (rather yea or nay)in the Michigan legislature are still alive. So you are right, I didn't research exactly how this measure was introduced and passed but I did see that it didn't pass and become a part of the constitution until 13 years ago. My point is exactly right. If you want to change the constitution AMEND it. Don't have individual judges or even 9 supremes decide that they see something in the constitution which was never there.

The constitution was last amended in 1992. That means that people sitting in the congress today, like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and robert Byrd, are framers of the constitution. This fact has importance in the "original intent" versus judicial activism debate. If people want the constitution changed, they can amend it if they have enough votes. It is not unrealistic to demand that the constitution be amended only by the method provided in the document, it is difficult (and should be) but not impossible. It was done as recently as 1992. The reason the left wants to appoint activist judges who will discern new meanings never put there is that they don't have the votes to change the constitution. Thus, the urge to judicial activism is clearly anti-democratic and seeks to impose judicial tyranny on the people.

This is a group of singing lawyers who have a pretty funny take on their own profession including a single someone who shall remain nameless ( to protect him from , well, whatever) sent me called Jet Plane in which they capture all the woes of modern jet travel, well at least the part where you are trying to get out of the airport. Road warriors will appreciate it this. Their website has samples of their tunes. Take a break! Enjoy!

We cannot win this fight without the help of disability rights organizations like Not Dead Yet. We cannot give up now.

I have set out my thoughts at greater length on my website, but you really need to go to the links and understand the plan of these people to get the American public to go along.

Let me add a new perspective: First, people in hospices are supposedly terminal. Terri and many brain injured adults are NOT terminal. Second, many of these profoundly disabled people can be cared for in residential settings at a much lower cost than is incurred now. They do not need and most do not want to be in hospital settings. The problem is that we have set up insurance and other medical funding systems that will pay for their care ONLY in expensive medical care settings. I only learned about this because I had a client who was struggling to keep an adult residential facility for brain injured adults open. There is NO public money to provide neighborhood residential care (which is less expensive) but Medicare money to pay for medical-- i.e . hospice and hospital and convalescent care settings. So taking care of people with feeding tubes is not necessarily that expensive. Even respirators and other types of assisted living can take place at home with non medical caregivers. The problem is we have never had a real societal discussion about his issue and have left it to the people who want to kill off the problem to pose this false dilemma