The political platform of Ron Paul is the ONLY constitutionally based ideology that will save America's future for our children and grandchildren. May his presidential campaign be a beacon for us Freedom Lovers for decades to come.
]]>I watched this documentary on BYU Television on the 4th, as I do every year at this time. It is such a great movie, go buy it for your family library!
You can watch it live on BYU tv on July 11th, or watch it streamed from the internet.
]]>Drug Companies paying doctors?
]]>
The political platform of Ron Paul is the ONLY constitutionally based ideology that will save America's future for our children and grandchildren. May his presidential campaign be a beacon for us Freedom Lovers for decades to come.
]]>"Some say complacency in the industry about the threat the Internet posed is to blame for the current quagmire."
Sniff, sniff.....
Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford have failed to disclose millions in payments from Big Pharma, an Iowa senator charges
"Grassley serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. In early June, he released information alleging a group of Harvard psychiatrists received more than $4 million from drug companies that they didn't report to the university. On June 23, he singled out another prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Alan Schatzberg of Stanford, saying the university should have demanded more stringent disclosure from its faculty member.
The senator alleged in the Congressional Record that Schatzberg failed to report to Stanford some payments from 2000 to 2006 from Eli Lilly (LLY) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) for consulting and other services. Grassley also chastised Schatzberg for not fully informing the university about the value of his personal stake in a drug development company he co-founded—although the psychiatrist appears to have followed Stanford's disclosure rules.
"I am concerned that Stanford might not have been able to adequately monitor the degree of Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts of interest," Grassley said in a June 23 letter to Stanford President John Hennessy that was published in the Congressional Record. The senator suggested the university reexamine its disclosure policies.
Concerned about the influence of drug industry money on patient care, Grassley began investigating physicians at research universities across the country last year. The senator believes his findings will help generate support for a bill he is co-sponsoring that would require drug and medical device companies to report any payment to a physician exceeding $500. Doctors' names and details about the payments would be posted on a Web site. "The public relies on the advice of doctors and leading researchers," Grassley said in an e-mail to BusinessWeek. "The public has a right to know about financial relationships between those doctors and the drug companies who make the pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors."
Amen and Amen.
Controversy over a Pfizer antismoking drug is fueling debate about whether patients should be told of corporate ties
QUOTE:
"In January and then again in May 2008, Pfizer added warnings to Chantix's label saying patients should be watched for unusual psychiatric symptoms such as suicidal thoughts. The company says in an e-mail that it sought to give doctors "more direct guidance" on using the drug.
On May 21, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit group in Horsham, Pa., released a paper based on 3,063 reports of "adverse events" submitted to the FDA by people taking Chantix. Among the findings: 227 had suicidal thoughts or behaviors, and 525 said they had acted with hostility or aggression. Pfizer has sent a Chantix team on the road to speak to financial analysts and journalists. Still, some Wall Street analysts fear that the FDA will require Pfizer to add a "black box"—one of the strictest warnings that can appear on a label—to draw more attention to side effects.
Steinberg says he might revert to prescribing more patches and gum if Chantix acquires a black box. But for now he adds: "If someone is doing well for six months, and they say, 'I think if I stop [taking Chantix] I might relapse to smoking,' I would feel comfortable continuing that medication."
Yet another drug with psychiatric side effects.
Bleech!!
]]>
"Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are "anti-choice."
For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats' "energy" policies.
Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.
...Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!
We'd be gushing oil now -- except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.
Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.
The other party -- plus John McCain -- ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!
They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices."
Really good insights....
]]>Here is a replay of a montage I made for my mother.
]]>
Paul told me they had a blast!
Good Morning America posted the video and story that ran on sunday morning on their web site. Go check out this link to see the story. And the Comments.
Here is the comment I left on the site:
"PS: I don't have time to respond to any more comments by Dr. Tuteur."
It is my humble opinion that party pooper Dr. Amy Tutor, the bloggin' doc with a personality disorder and ax to grind against home birth, is a paid hack for pharmacuetical companies. As a blogging doctor she advocates a 39 week c-section as the best birth choice for babes and mothers. Anyone with half a brain knows that major surgery is far more risky for mom and babe than a natural vaginal birth.
And hey, she has the Big Pharma funded study to back up her claim - so you nasty, wasty home birthers just shut up, because nothing you will ever say will ever ever ever change her mind or get her to accept that family centered birth has anything at all, ever, to offer to a husband and wife relationship or help bond the family with the new child.
Only thing to do with someone like her is to blow her a big fat raspberry as you orgasmically push your baby out into his/her fathers hands. She is the killjoy of the homebirth movement. I debated her all last summer. But Dr. Crappen pulled the debate hosted on his blog.
The Salon debate was fun and my personal favorite, the unassisted childbirth debate hosted at the Washington Post.
What rockin good times we had last summer! She just magically appears any time someone mentions home birth on the internet.....What a busy beaver!
Check out this thread to see more about Dr. Amy!
Posted by:
JennyMHatch 8:25 PM
Lately Ben and I have been playing alot of Monopoly. He loves it and we have both enjoyed the leisure hours spent playing this fun Capitalistic board game.
These past few days I have been pondering the recent document TMZ published from the American Medical Association.
The OB's currently enjoy a near monopoly with birth in America. And the usual suspects are claiming that AMA resolution 205 on Home Deliveries statement is NOT a step towards criminalizing home birth. It says:
"RESOLVED, That our AMA develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the AAP and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers."
Now, I don't know what all of you think "model legislation" implys, but to me it leans towards outlawing or banning/criminalizing homebirth and homebirthing mothers.
Or making the rules of engagement so tightly conformed that only a woman between the ages of 34 and 35 who has already sucessfully given birth to four children vaginally in the hospital, who only gains 23 pounds during her pregnancy, who has an ambulance waiting in the driveway, who goes into labor at midnight at week 39 of gestation, and lives within four minutes of a NICU (with pre paid doctor standing by), and who pays out of pocket four thousand dollars to the MEDwife who has been trained, credentialed, and sanitized by the AMA, will be allowed to give birth at home.
So for the twelve women in America who meet the criteria outlined.....You Go GIRLS!!! Have your babies at home. The American Medical Association says you can if, and only IF you meet their "model legislation" rules of engagement.
The rest of us, who have previous c-section scars, who have bled out after a birth, who have been troubled with post partum emotional illness, and/or who dare to go past our due dates with a ten month gestator well, sorry Mama, you are NOT WORTHY to give birth at home, because we have RISKED YOU OUT!! Too bad...so sad. Now conform to our rules or we will take your baby away, lock you up in jail, and rip your family apart...because hey, we are the Gods of Modern Medicine and we know what is best for you and your family!!!
Barf!! Gag, Gag...
More bloggers weigh in on this topic:
]]> Hawthor
Hatch Family one week after Benjamins Home Birth!
Jenny and Ben three hours after our Home Birth. I felt GREAT!!!
To help class members understand the meaning of the sacrament and to encourage them to partake of the sacrament worthily.
Suggested Lesson Development
We Must Remember the Importance of the Sacrament
Discussion
Write In Remembrance on the chalkboard, and tell class members that it is the title of the lesson.
• What do you think the topic of the lesson is?
Allow class members a few guesses about the topic of the lesson. If after a few tries they have not given the correct answer, tell them that the lesson is about the sacrament.
Display the pictures Blessing the Sacrament and Passing the Sacrament.
Quotation and discussion
State that many of us have partaken of the sacrament hundreds of times in our lives. When something is repeated this often we sometimes forget its importance.
Read the following statement by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:
“With so very much at stake, [the sacrament] should be taken more seriously than it sometimes is. It should be a powerful, reverent, reflective moment. It should encourage spiritual feelings and impressions. As such it should not be rushed. It is not something to ‘get over’ so that the real purpose of a sacrament meeting can be pursued. This is the real purpose of the meeting. And everything that is said or sung or prayed in those services should be consistent with the grandeur of this sacred ordinance” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1995, 89; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 68).
• Why is the sacrament more important than the announcements, talks, and hymns at sacrament meeting?
• Why do we partake of the sacrament each week?
Write class members’ responses on the chalkboard.
Have class members think back to the last time they partook of the sacrament. Ask them to think silently about the answers to the following questions:
• What are some of the things you thought about the last time you partook of the sacrament? Did those thoughts help you draw nearer to the Savior, or did they distract you from the real purpose of the sacrament?
We Partake of the Sacrament to Remember the Savior’s Atonement
Scripture discussion
• Why would a lesson about the sacrament be called “In Remembrance”?
Have class members read and mark Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, 79.
• What does the sacramental bread represent? What does the sacramental water represent? Why is it important to remember the body and blood of the Savior?
Note to the teacher
If class members ask questions about the use of the word wine in verse 77, explain that when Joseph Smith received the revelation found in section 20, wine was used in the sacramental service. Later the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that water should be used (see D&C 27:1–4).
Quotation
Display the picture Jesus Praying in Gethsemane.
Testify that Heavenly Father loved us enough to send his Son to atone for our sins. Share the following statement by Elder Melvin J. Ballard, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, to show how the sacrament reminds us of that love and to show why we should remember the Savior’s Atonement when we partake of the sacrament:
“It is written in the scriptures that God so loved the world that he gave his Only Begotten Son to die for the world, that whosoever believeth on him … and keepeth his commandments, shall be saved. But this [sacrifice] did not cost us very much—freely given are all these glorious privileges. …
“… While we give nothing, perhaps, for this atonement and this sacrifice, nevertheless, it has cost someone something, and I love to contemplate what it cost our Father in heaven to give us the gift of his beloved Son, … who so loved the world that he laid his life down to redeem the world, to save us and to feed us spiritually while we walk in this life, and prepare us to go and dwell with him in the eternal worlds. …
“Our Father in heaven … loved his Son Jesus Christ, … for [he] had with him his Son, our Redeemer, in the eternal worlds, faithful and true for ages. … God heard the cry of his Son in that moment of great grief and agony, in the garden when … he cried out: ‘Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me.’ …
“… He saw that Son condemned, he saw him drag the cross through the streets of Jerusalem and faint under its load. … He saw [Jesus’] body stretched out upon the wooden cross, he saw the cruel nails driven through hands and feet, and the blows that broke the skin, tore the flesh … and let out the life’s blood of his Son. …
“In that hour I think I can see our dear Father, … his great heart almost breaking for the love that he had for his Son. Oh, in that moment when he might have saved his Son, I thank him and praise him that he did not fail us, for he had not only the love of his Son in mind, but he had love for us, and I rejoice that he did not interfere, and that his love for us made it possible for him to endure to look upon the sufferings of his Son and give him finally to us, our Savior and our Redeemer. …
“… My brethren and sisters, … if I only knew how essential it was … that I should receive the spiritual life that comes from that Son, I am sure I would always be present at the sacrament table to do honor to the gift that has come unto us” (“The Sacramental Covenant,” Improvement Era, Oct. 1919, 1028–31).
We Partake of the Sacrament to Renew Our Covenants
Discussion
• People often say that when we partake of the sacrament we “renew our covenants.” What does this mean?
Make sure class members understand that renew means to make new again and that covenants are promises between us and our Heavenly Father. Explain that the sacrament gives us the chance to renew the covenants we made when we were baptized.
Chalkboard and scripture discussion
• According to Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, 79, what promises do we make when we partake of the sacrament?
Erase the chalkboard. On the left-hand side, list the promises class members mention. Answers should include the following:
We promise to:
1. Take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ.
2. Always remember him.
3. Keep his commandments.
Refer to lesson 13, in which you discussed the baptismal covenant, and have class members review Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
• What aspects of this verse are like the promises on the chalkboard?
1. Take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ: “Willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ.”
2. Always remember him: “Having a determination to serve him to the end.”
3. Keep his commandments: “Truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ.”
• What is promised to us if we keep the covenants we have made? (See D&C 20:77.)
On the right-hand side of the chalkboard, write Always have his Spirit to be with us.
Referring to the list on the chalkboard, ask the following questions:
• How will our lives change if we remember Jesus in everything we do?
• Why is obedience to the commandments necessary for us to have the Holy Ghost with us? Why do we need his constant companionship?
We Must Partake of the Sacrament Worthily
Scripture discussion
Tell class members that when Jesus visited the Nephites after his Resurrection, he taught them about the sacrament. Have class members read 3 Nephi 18:1–11 and mark words they think are important.
• Which words did you mark? Why are those words important?
• How many times is the word filled used in these eleven verses? (Four times.) In what way do you think those who partook of the sacrament were filled? (See 3 Nephi 20:8–9. They were filled with the Spirit.) How can we prepare to be filled spiritually when we partake of the sacrament? How can we make partaking of the sacrament each week a more meaningful experience?
• Why did Jesus call the disciples “blessed” after they had partaken of the sacrament? (See 3 Nephi 18:10.)
Point out that he called them blessed because by taking the sacrament they had witnessed that they were willing to keep the commandments. We make the same commitment when we partake of the sacrament, and we will also be blessed for keeping that commitment.
Explain that the Apostle Paul talked about the importance of partaking of the sacrament worthily. Point out that being worthy to partake of the sacrament does not mean being perfect. To partake of the sacrament worthily, we must be doing our very best to keep the covenants we have made—to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ, always remember him, and keep the commandments.
Have class members read and mark 1 Corinthians 11:28–30.
• What are the consequences of partaking of the sacrament unworthily? In what ways might partaking of the sacrament unworthily make us “weak and sickly”?
• What did Paul say we should do to ensure that we partake of the sacrament worthily? How can we “examine [ourselves]” spiritually?
Quotation
Read the following statement that Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles made to the youth of the Church:
“My dear young friends, I encourage you to take time each week to be by yourself, away from television and the crowd. Have your scriptures with you, and as you read, ponder, and pray, take an honest look at your life. Evaluate where you stand with the promises you have made with Heavenly Father. If you have a problem, talk it over with the Lord in earnest and humble prayer. Counsel with your parents; they will help you. Your bishop and your Young Men and Young Women adult leaders will help. They love you and want you to be at peace with yourself so you can partake of the sacrament worthily each week. When all is said and done, however, only you know if you are living true to your covenants made with God” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1993, 7; or Ensign, May 1993, 8).
Testimony
Remind class members that the sacrament gives us the chance to review and remake the covenants we made at baptism. Bear your testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and express your gratitude for the sacrament.
Encourage class members to partake of the sacrament worthily and to think about the Savior while partaking of the sacrament.
]]>Homeschoolers' fate hangs on hearing results
Court's earlier opinion said parents don't have right to teach children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 20, 2008
6:11 pm Eastern
"The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in the Rachel L. case, the startling ruling released in February in which the judges concluded there was no constitutional or statutory provision for parents to homeschool their children.
The case immediately sparked nationwide outrage, up to the White House and Congress, which approved a resolution calling for a rehearing, and the court panel's judges eventually scheduled new arguments in the dispute, effectively overturning their own earlier ruling.
Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, is to argue the legality of homeschooling under both state law and constitutional law as a representative of the private Christian school that provided the overarching program in which the family participated.
An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their future also will be argued by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who represents the father in the case, along with the Alliance Defense Fund.]]> The Home School Legal Defense Association, the nation's premiere homeschooling advocacy organization, also has been assisting in preparation of the arguments, which will be in addition to the arguments from the various components of California's education industry, education agencies and teachers' unions.
"We are looking forward to this opportunity to defend the thousands of families who are making sacrifices to teach their children at home. The state should be applauding, not threatening, these families," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI."We hope that the court reverses its decision and restores homeschool freedom to California," said Michael Farris, chairman of the HSLDA.
In 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of parents to oversee the education of their children, stating, "The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations," according to Liberty Counsel, which also is working on the case.
The court's earlier opinion originated with a juvenile case, but concluded that parents without mandatory credentials from state agencies and teachers' unions do not have the right to school their children at home.
Liberty Counsel filed a brief on behalf of 19 members of Congress providing an overview of education laws in all 50 states.
In another brief, filed on behalf of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. argued that there's no need to dig into state constitutional issues regarding homeschooling since state laws already provide for that choice for parents.
"Here, this court need not reach any constitutional issues because this petition can be decided entirely on statutory grounds," the brief said. "The Education Code provides a broad statutory basis for homeschooling in California, setting forth three different avenues through which parents may legally homeschool their children."
The brief said the trial court in the case at hand "addressed only the constitutional issues, it never considered the preliminary question of whether the parents had met the statutory requirements for homeschooling under the Education Act."
WND broke the story in February when the original decision was released, and has reported on the various briefs as they have been filed.
Since the case originated with a juvenile court proceeding, some of the arguments and briefs have remained confidential, because of the standard for handling juvenile proceedings. Other briefs have been released publicly.
"HSLDA has also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in conjunction with Focus on the Family and Family Protection Ministries to show the benefits of a home education. These arguments draw on the extensive development of homeschooling and the successful track record of parents educating their children at home," the organization said.
The original opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge H. Walt Croskey and said: "We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence. … We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"
Homeschool advocates immediately expressed concern the original ruling would leave parents who educate their children at home liable criminally as well as open to civil charges for child neglect that could create the potential for fines, court-ordered counseling or even loss of custody.
The original California opinion arose from a dependency case brought in juvenile court. In the process, attorneys assigned by the court to the family's two younger children sought a court order for them to be enrolled in a public or qualifying private school.
The district court denied the request citing parental rights, but the appellate court overturned the decision and granted the attorneys' request. The appeals court concluded the parents held neither a statutory right nor a constitutional right to provide homeschooling to their own children.
QUOTE:
"Well, well, well. Look who’s censoring the Internet. It’s Andrew Cuomo, attorney general of the Empire State. On June 11, Cuomo announced an agreement with three of the nation’s largest Internet service providers — Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon — to block access to child pornography and eliminate such content from their networks wherever possible. Negotiations are ongoing with two other, as yet unnamed, service providers.
....Culture has consequences. Kristol was right when he argued that “Bearbaiting and cockfighting are prohibited only in part out of compassion for the animals; the main reason is that such spectacles were felt to debase and brutalize the citizenry who flocked to witness them.” We do, as Kristol held, have a proper concern with the way people entertain themselves in public. I would go further and suggest that viewing child porn — even in private — should be as difficult as we can make it. Censor away Mr. Attorney General — and broaden your net."
I could not agree more....only thing left to do with these child porn smut merchants is to castrate, lock em up, and throw away the key....
"On the heels of shocking revelations that top psychiatric researcher Dr. Joseph Biederman secretly took $1.6 million from drug companies while conducting psychotropic drug experiments on children, it has been learned that Dr. Biederman is now one of the key collaborators behind the latest efforts to discredit St. John's Wort. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and widely reported in the mainstream media, Dr. Biederman and fellow cohorts "concluded" that the St. John's Wort herb is useless in treating ADHD in children.
What's astonishing about this study, as you'll learn in this article, is that all the children used in the study were given inactive forms of the St. John's Wort herb where the active ingredients had been oxidized and rendered useless! In other words, this clinical trial, which was widely reported in the mainstream media with headlines like "St. John's Wort Found Useless!" didn't test the herb's active ingredients at all! It sort of makes you wonder about the agenda of the people running the study, doesn't it?"
Why am I NOT surprised???
