Sep 27 2014

Nurses go to Court to Avoid Getting Flu Shot…What Do They Know That We Aren’t Being Told?

flu-shots 500x200The Massachusetts Nurses Association sued Brigham and Women’s Hospital this week, seeking to block a policy not yet in effect that would require nurses to get flu shots if they want to keep working there.

The action in Suffolk Superior Court comes as state public health officials are leaning on hospitals to improve the influenza vaccination rate among health care workers, which varied in hospitals from 62 percent to 99 percent during the most recent flu season.

The Brigham instituted the mandate in hope of matching the success of other teaching hospitals in Boston, most of which vaccinate more than 90 percent of employees, she said.

The Massachusetts Nurses Association, the union representing 3,200 nurses at the Brigham, said in its lawsuit that the hospital’s mandate, which could lead to the firing of employees who refuse vaccination, violates a state regulation that explicitly bars hospitals from requiring employees to the receive vaccine if they don’t want it, regardless of the reason.

Most of the U.S. public is unaware that a U.S. citizen, by law, cannot sue a pharmaceutical company for damages resulting from vaccines. Congress gave them total legal immunity in 1986, and that law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. There is a special “vaccine court” called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that is funded through a tax on vaccines. If you are injured or killed by a vaccine, you must hire an attorney and fight tax-funded government attorneys to seek damages, as you cannot sue the drug manufacturers. It takes years to reach a settlement, with the longest case being settled after 11 years. Therefore, the reported cases probably only represents a tiny fraction of the actual number of people harmed or killed by vaccines, since it is so difficult to fight the government in court to win a settlement.

SOURCES: Boston Globe, Health Impact News.

Google Adsense

Sep 26 2014

Connecticut Despots Still Using Sandy Hook To Demand Even More Power and Control…For the Children.

school-resource-officers 500x200

In spite of the fact that Adam Lanza spent the vast majority of his educational life in government schools, Connecticut Bureaucrats are now demanding that more scrutiny and control must be given them over homeschooling in the state, because Lanza spend a short bit of time being homeschooled.

According to the Connecticut Post, the commission states, “[T]ighter scrutiny of homeschoolers may be needed to prevent an incident such as the December 2012 slaughter of 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.”

The Post reports that the murders were carried out by Adam Lanza, “a disturbed 20-year-old who had been homeschooled by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom he also shot to death on the morning of his murder spree.”

In fact, Lanza, according to a variety of reports, experienced most of his education in public schools.

Under the Connecticut Children’s Behavioral Health Plan draft proposal, homeschooled children with behavioral and emotional disabilities would be required to have individualized education plans approved by the special education director of the local public school district. Continued homeschooling of these children would only be approved if the students were documented as having made “adequate progress” in their plans as part of mandatory annual reports to the special education directors in their public school districts.

Of course the problem is that many anti-homeschool judges use any and every excuse to force family to place their children in government schools. This would simply add fuel to that unconstitutional fire.


Sep 26 2014

The Power of Limits


Sep 23 2014

Dr. Ben Carson…


Sep 23 2014



Sep 23 2014

Don’t forget!


Sep 22 2014

November can’t come soon enough…


Sep 19 2014

Who makes what…


Sep 18 2014

Facing a Reputation for Bad Security…New Apple OS Locks Your Phone and Throws Away the Key

iOS8 500x200

Apple said Wednesday night that it is making it impossible for the company to turn over data from most iPhones or iPads to police — even when they have a search warrant — taking a hard new line as tech companies attempt to blunt allegations that they have too readily participated in government efforts to collect user information.

The move, announced with the publication of a new privacy policy tied to the release of Apple’s latest mobile operating system, iOS 8, amounts to an engineering solution to a legal quandary: Rather than comply with binding court orders, Apple has reworked its latest encryption in a way that prevents the company — or anyone but the device’s owner — from gaining access to the vast troves of user data typically stored on smartphones or tablet computers.

The key is the encryption that Apple mobile devices automatically put in place when a user selects a passcode, making it difficult for anyone who lacks that passcode to access the information within, including photos, e-mails and recordings. Apple once maintained the ability to unlock some content on devices for legally binding police requests but will no longer do so for iOS 8, it said in the new privacy policy.

“Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data,” Apple said on its Web site. “So it’s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”

Read the full article at the Washington Post.

Of course my solution to Apple’s crappy security and butt-ugly OS was to dump my iPhone and get a Samsung Galaxy Note 3. Never been happier.

Sep 17 2014

Obama finally takes action against Ebola…WHO responds by claiming there’s now no hope


Private charity groups like Samaritan’s Purse and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have been on the front lines of the Ebola fight, and for months, they were calling for the United States to act. Instead, they received minimal help from the government of China, and the CDC focused its efforts on keeping Ebola out of the United States.

Finally President Obama announced that he would be sending 3,000 troops to Liberia to help develop medical infrastructure to treat those affected. The White House has also asked Congress for $88 million to invest in the development of new drugs to fight Ebola.

But now the World Health Organization has declared that the official death toll for West Africa’s Ebola outbreak is 2,288 as of September 9, with more than 1,000 deaths located in Liberia. The nation’s largest newspaper has declared the battle lost, and an Ebola expert says five million could die.

The Liberian Observer, located in the capital, Monrovia, led its news coverage Monday with the headline “The Fight Is Lost,” showcasing an image of workers in HAZMAT suits carrying what appear to be dead bodies. The article showcases a number of opinions by experts who believe the time to contain the virus has long passed, and now humanity must wait for the virus to “burn itself out.”

In other words, as we in America have gotten used to saying, “Thanks for nothing, Obama.”



Sep 15 2014

Why Dems Don’t Fear Unfair Laws Backfiring On Them

courts law judges 500x200

The New York Times is going after the Koch Brothers once again. No news there, of course. But it’s worth noting that the Times has found a new angle to pursue—or should we say, a new club with which to cudgel the Kochs—namely, the legal curlicues of campaign finance. Liberals, no doubt, will be cheering for the Times, but they ought to be careful, because two can play at this game.

Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

Conservatives have long decried the left’s drive to “criminalize” politics as a means to achieve ideological ends. Last month’s politically-motivated grand jury indictment of Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry even drew the ire of some on the left, such as President Barack Obama’s chief political strategist David Axelrod, who dismissed the charges as being “pretty sketchy.”

For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.

Still, some progressives seem intent on pushing the criminalization of political differences to score short-term political advantage without considering long-term consequences. Indeed, the left’s rush to deem corporate money in political thought as legally actionable is one progressives would do well to quash.

Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat.

Case in point: progressive New York Times op-ed writer Thomas B. Edsall’s banal and one-sided screed against Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, those reliable boogeymen of liberal nightmares. In a breathless Wednesday piece titled “Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers and the End of Political Transparency,” Edsall served up heaping doses of phony outrage over the perfectly legal practice of conservative 501 (c)(4) social welfare organizations receiving anonymous donations.

The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.

Right-leaning individuals expressing their political views in today’s post-IRS conservative targeting scandal have just cause to use anonymity as “a shield from the tyranny” of the Obama administration and as a means to protect themselves from “retaliation… at the hand of an intolerant” Internal Revenue Service.

But one day, under a different administration, so, too, might liberal activists.

Sorry to break the news to you, but it looks as if the New York Times is explaining exactly how they plan on not allowing it to backfire.


Sep 10 2014

Maintaining Power


Sep 4 2014

Robert Heinlein…


Sep 2 2014

I’m With George…


Aug 30 2014

Is there a microchip implant in your future?

Mark-of-the-Beast 500x200

From Fox News

Microchip implants like the ones pet owners use to track their dogs and cats could become commonplace in humans in the next decade. Experts are divided on whether they’re appropriate for people, but the implants could offer several advantages. For soldiers and journalists in war zones, an implant could be the difference between life and death. A tracker could also help law enforcement quickly locate a kidnapped child.

“In the long run, chip implants could make it less intrusive than some emerging ID systems which rely on physical biometrics (like your fingerprints or unique eye pattern),” says Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, author of the book “Distraction Addiction” and visiting scholar at Stanford’s University’s Peace Innovation Lab.

“This should be a matter of individual choice, but fighting crime should be much easier using chips,” adds sci-fi author Larry Niven, who predicted chip implants in the ’70s. Niven said he supports chip implantation for security reasons, provided it is an opt-in measure.

At least it’s better than having a barcode stitched onto our foreheads.

I don’t really see the difference. A magnetic barcode tattooed in your forehead would just make the problem visible. Since when are problems removed by hiding them?

The glee with which Fox News reports this is extremely disturbing. Liberals are drooling over the possibility of forcing this on people, and Fox News thinks that’s exciting?