Celebrate a special Valentine’s Day – Say ‘I love you’ through the language of flowers

Valentine’s Day is the traditional day for expressing feelings of love to a spouse or lover; and, today many people use the day to express their love and devotion to anyone who is special. Roses are the supreme being in the flower world, used to express love, with red…

Supreme Court and Pharmaceutical Terrorism

The Supreme Court showed the world today that there is nothing supreme or noble about it and that it is as corrupt and cruel as most other governmental institutions. In a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled for Wyeth, saying they could not be sued for vaccine damages. Wyeth is now owned by Pfizer Inc. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits in state courts seeking damages for a child’s injuries or death from a vaccine’s side effects. The trial case was a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered seizures as an infant after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine in 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday the 22nd of February 2011 sustaining the federal law that shielded vaccine manufacturers from desperate parents who seek damages for serious health problems suffered by their children. Today’s children are hit with more shots in a day then most of us were hit with in our entire childhood. No doubt certain pharmaceutical madmen fantasize having a permanent tubular hookup with every child receiving constant (24/7) chemical injection and the Supreme Court would obviously go along with that. Pharmaceutical terrorism and medical madness is alive and well in this world of ours and is part of the backbone of our modern civilization and the legal system has totally bought into it even though they understand nothing about medicine and the consequence of supporting the madness of pharmaceutical companies. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is a law that was adopted by Congress that created a special program to handle disputes in an effort to ensure a stable vaccine supply — by shielding companies from most lawsuits. The federal program, involving what is known as the vaccine court, has awarded more than $1.8 billion for vaccine injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989. It is funded by a tax on vaccines. The 1.8 billion dollars awarded is proof positive that vaccines are not safe. And everyone knows that the government employs an army of lawyers to make it as difficult as possible for parents and their lawyers to win their cases. A careful study of pharmaceutical terrorism entails taking a trip into the darkest places that exist in humanity and it is no accident that when we make the journey we find ourselves in places where doctors and scientists work together as they did in Nazi Germany. This subject takes us to the bottom cellars of hell, into the deepest and darkest dungeon, into a place and into a type of person that defiles the very nature of beauty and love, a place where all human heart is lost. The Nazi doctors offer us a view of monsters that have remained invisible, dressed as they are eternally in three-piece suits or white lab coats. And now we have the Supreme Court of the United States in on the terror supporting laws that support and protect vaccine companies. Let’s face it, our children’s lives have been ruined. Have you ever lived with a family that has a child with thimerosal-induced autism? It’s not pretty. Not only do many of these children have no lives but they also live in a daily hell that many cannot even begin to imagine. They can’t sleep. They can’t communicate. They bang their heads and roll up in pain. Many have eating disorders or cannot tolerate most foods. And many are easy targets of sexual predators. – Lori McIlwain There is a direct line of continuity that can be traced between a group of men and companies that arose to the heights of industrial power years before Hitler, men and companies who existed and supported the rise of Nazi Germany and who continued on to the present day in comfortable corporate luxury and power. (The personnel, infrastructure and technology of companies like Bayer, for example, have flowed on continuously through three incarnations of corporate name and structure.) Bayer experimental drugs were tested on Auschwitz prisoners. One of the SS doctors at Auschwitz, Dr. Helmut Vetter, a longtime Bayer employee, was involved in the testing of Bayer experimental vaccines and medicines on inmates. He was later executed for giving inmates fatal injections. “I have thrown myself into my work wholeheartedly,” he wrote to his bosses at Bayer headquarters, “especially as I have the opportunity to test our new preparations. I feel like I am in paradise.” When John D. Rockefeller interlocked his American-based international empire with that of I.G. Farben in 1928 “there was created the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known.” Not only has that cartel survived through the years, it has grown and prospered. Eustace Mullins described very well the roots of this nightmare and how John D. Rockefeller, with the help of the American Medical Association and government officials, gained control of America’s “health” care industry in the early part of this century. “Educating” medical students was instrumental in their plan. Mullins writes: “Rockefeller’s Education Board has spent more than $100 million to gain control of the nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs.” Heroin, originally created by I.G. Farben, is outlawed in 1924 as a prescription drug in the United States. On the day of our birth doctors and nurses, with the willing acceptance and surrender of our parents, plunge cold steel into our flesh and inject a foreign fluid laced with poison and other modified genetic materials that assaults our immune and other critical systems of our bodies. Babies cry when their basic needs are frustrated, they cry when they are in need and when they are attacked and hurt. According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S.A. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent before the implementation of mass vaccine programs. – Harold Buttram MD The Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 I.G. Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. Amazingly however, by 1951 all of them had already been released, continuing to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved the I.G. Farben into Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. Today each of the three daughters of the I.G. Farben is 20 times as big as the I.G. Farben mother was at its height in 1944, the last year of the Second World War. More importantly, for almost three decades after the Second World War, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (now Aventis) each filled its highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. In 1998, the pharmaceutical giant, Bayer, conducted pesticide experiments on humans in what was called the Inveresk trials. Three years later the company behind the tests stands accused of breaking the Nuremberg Code. The Sunday Herald in England reported that subjects were given a single dose of a substance called azinphos-methyl (AM) and then observed for seven days. Mandatory vaccine programs are “A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they force individuals to have medical treatment against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.” – Jane Orient, M.D.

Obama’s health care scheme ruled unconstitutional

(NaturalNews) U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson dealt a severe blow to Obamacare today, ruling that the government’s attempt to force citizens to buy health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision puts the enforceability of Obama’s health care system in doubt. Obama’s health plan was designed around a “minimum essential coverage provision” that seeks to force every American to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. This is essentially a Big Brother commerce requirement where the government dictates that private citizens must purchase a product or service even if they don’t wish to. It also forces followers of natural medicine to buy into a system of drugs-and-surgery conventional medicine even if they have no intention of ever using it. The Constitution limits the power of federal government The United States Constitution, which is the document that grants the federal government powers, did not grant the federal government any right to force citizens to purchase certain products or services. Obama’s health care insurance mandate, therefore, was an overreaching effort on the part of the federal government to dictate the purchasing decisions of private citizens in order to achieve a political goal. Citizens who refused to comply with this requirement to purchase health insurance were to be punished by none other than the IRS. Fines would be issued to citizens beginning in 2014 if they failed to prove to the IRS that they had purchased health insurance. Thus, Obama’s health care system put the IRS in charge of enforcing an unconstitutional mandate that private citizens buy something they did not want nor need . This is what Judge Henry Hudson found to be unconstitutional. He found that the essential coverage provision “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” Tenth Amendment protections He’s right, of course. There is no such power granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, if a specific power was never granted to the federal government, then that power remains with the States or the people. Since the Constitution never granted the federal government the power to dictate that private citizens purchase health insurance — and in fact Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and other founding fathers would have been horrified by such a power grab — that power remains solely with the States and the people. What will the US Supreme Court rule? With this ruling in place, the constitutionality of Obamacare will now likely move to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, is the body that interprets the Constitution and decides whether modern-day laws are allowed under its provisions. If the justices of the Supreme Court actually abide by the Constitution, they must agree with Judge Henry Hudson and strike down the minimum essential coverage provision of Obama’s health care law. But if they choose to betray the Constitution and the People, they may decide in favor of Obamacare and thereby ratchet up the power of Big Government to control the private lives and purchasing decisions of American citizens. The Supreme Court has not always respected the language of the Constitution, of course, so it’s not yet certain how the court will rule on this subject. Most likely, the more conservative members of the Court will rule it unconstitutional. Conventional health care is so bad that you have to threaten people if they don’t buy it It is especially enlightening that the U.S. health care system is such an utter failure that the government must force citizens to buy into it under the threat of IRS penalties. If health care based on conventional drugs and surgery actually worked, you wouldn’t have to threaten the citizens with punishment if they chose not to use it. The only reason IRS agents have to be used to bully people into buying health insurance is because our modern sick-care system doesn’t work. Obama’s dictatorial approach to health care mirrors the health care system itself, in fact: Oppressive, punitive, widely hated and ridiculously ineffective. Instead of forcing people to buy into a system that’s already broken, Obama would serve the interests of the American people far better by ending the medical racket monopoly currently being operated by Big Pharma, the FDA, the quack medical journals and corrupt doctors, and instead legalizing healing by embracing health freedom and the world of natural medicine. It is quite fascinating that even in a system where natural medicine isn’t covered by insurance, and where natural therapies are widely discredited by the FDA, the AMA and most conventional doctors, record numbers of people seek out natural therapies anyway because they are more affordable, more effective, safer and more readily compatible with human biology. The FDA and Big Government don’t want people to have a choice in the matter, you see. They want to force everyone to buy into the failed pharmaceutical system that enriches the drug companies, even while keeping the U.S. population suffering from record rates of degenerative disease. That’s why we call it a “sick care” system. It’s not about health. It’s about making money off a diseased population while denying them access to natural treatments and cures that could save this nation from medical bankruptcy. Sadly, the US Supreme Court won’t be ruling on all that. They’re only concerned with whether Obama’s attempt to force people to buy a product they don’t want and don’t need is allowed under the US Constitution. And the answer should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the Constitution: No such powers were ever granted to the federal government. To force the American people to buy into this broken, corrupt system of quackery and fraud is not merely unconstitutional; it is immoral and an affront to freedom. Obamacare is, at its core, un-American; and it demonstrates a deep-rooted hatred for freedom. Sources for this story include: Court case: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

Landmark case could allow injured persons to once again sue vaccine makers

(NaturalNews) Vaccines are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimer’s disease to intestinal problems like ulcerative colitis and Chron’s disease — and everything in between. And a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since 1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law. Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new “legal” system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special “vaccine court” that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted. The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the “vaccine courts” can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated. But all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz’s say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life. The case was first rejected in “vaccine court” when just a month before the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil courts, the Bruesewitz’s were told that the case was automatically invalid because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz’s favor, will set a new precedent whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of law. The illegitimacy of ‘vaccine court’ Much like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “tax courts”, “vaccine courts” have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives. There are a few cases where “vaccine courts” have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected by “vaccine court” and, even though plaintiffs can then take the case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of the federal Vaccine Act. Even though $154 million was paid in 2010 for “vaccine court” cases, that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even pay such settlements. Vaccine companies don’t even injury settlements, the public does! Of the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in “vaccine courts”, not a single one of them is paid for by the vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get off scot-free! So not only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products. It’s time to end the vaccine racket Proponents of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary to protect them from “undue” litigation. But that is precisely what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting up special “vaccine courts” that bypass due process is tyranny in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable. Because of “vaccine courts”, the idea that vaccines are in any way related to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous studies and research data continue to suggest a connection (http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html). And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing. Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/health/12vaccine.html?_r=1&ref=health http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/supreme-court-vaccine-immunity-13439/

Feds raid Amish dairy and threaten action over raw milk sales

(NaturalNews) The U.S. government gestapo is at it again in its crusade against raw milk. Recently, the jackboots swarmed a Pennsylvania Amish man’s private dairy farm for the second time, falsely accusing him of violating the ridiculous prohibition on selling raw milk across state lines. Farmer Dan Allgyer’s farm was raided by the same agents who paid him a visit back in February, telling him both times that they were there for an “inspection”. Just like last time, the agents drove flagrantly past “No Trespassing” and “Private Property”, this time arriving around 4:30 a.m. when Allgyer’s family was still asleep and as he was preparing to milk his cows. The group began to interrogate Allgyer, and served him a warrant claiming they had “credible evidence” that he was involved in interstate commerce involving raw milk. According to Allgyer’s personal account, upon being questioned as to why the agents were at the farm so early when the warrant clearly stated that it was valid only at “reasonable times during ordinary business hours”, one of them retorted that “ordinary business hours for agriculture start at 5 a.m.” After scouring farm equipment and taking a bunch of pictures, the agents eventually left. But the next morning, Allgyer received an overnight, urgent letter from officials about “regulatory action” that would be taken if he failed to take “corrective action”. Some people might not know this, but according to the precedent set by the Wickard v. Filburn case , practically everything can now be considered to affect “interstate commerce” and thus fall under federal jurisdiction. In the little-known case, then President Franklin Roosevelt coerced the Supreme Court into supporting certain New Deal proposals that revolutionized the definition of “interstate commerce”. Wickard v. Filburn had to do with a farmer who was growing too much wheat during a time when there were wheat quotas. To make a long story short, the courts established that even growing your own wheat and feeding it to your cattle falls under the banner of “interstate commerce” because there is the potential to affect interstate commerce. It is under this faulty premise that federal and state agents are challenging Farmer Allgyer and others who may be selling raw milk products directly to consumers. Though Allgyer is running a private farm, federal agents are operating on illegitimate precedent by accusing him of being involved in interstate commerce. For more information about the case and to help fight federal government tyranny against food freedom, please visit the following link: http://www.nicfa.com Sources for this story include: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=144557 http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/fda-agents-invade-amish-farm-in-pa/ http://www.conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn

Obama’s USDA to deceive Americans over GM crops

(NaturalNews) The Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA) is attempting to downplay the risks of genetically modified alfalfa, a crop previously banned by numerous federal courts. In 2007, a federal court rejected the Bush USDA’s approval of alfalfa plants genetically engineered for resistance to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup. The court ruled that the USDA had not properly considered the risks posed by the crop. These risks included the possibility that the genetically modified (GM) crops could swap genetic material with related species, thus contaminating neighboring fields or producing non-agricultural “super weeds.” Monsanto continues to appeal the decision, even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against it twice. The case is now pending consideration by the Supreme Court. Alfalfa is the first perennial crop to be genetically modified. Because it does not die after a year but can regenerate itself from even its roots, the risk of genetic contamination is higher than even that from GM annual crops, which have already been documented to spread beyond the fields they are planted in. “Widespread [GM] contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.,” said Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. After Obama appointed former Monsanto executive Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, the agency released a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that continues to play down these risks. Yet even the Monsanto-friendly EIS acknowledges that “acute toxicity … was observed” in mice that consumed GM alfalfa. It also admits that residues of Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide are toxic. “Based on upper estimates of exposure … infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate residues,” the statement reads. Since the introduction of Roundup Ready GM crops 13 years ago, herbicide use has increased by 383 million pounds. Sources for this story include: www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/obama-usda-poised-to-take_b_432185.html.