All posts by teapartyadmin

Why Indiana must Pass a Freedom of Conscience and Religion Bill

Why Indiana must Pass a Freedom of Conscience and Religion Bill

By Monica Boyer from Warsaw and Kosciusko Silent No More

I wrote an article explaining the need for an Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  I released a blog today explaining why we need this, and how we support it.  I also am attaching a legal brief for you.

The common misconception is that this is only about marriage.  It is not.  Right here in Warsaw, we are dealing with a city ordinance that if passed, would chase the Amish away. I am intentionally steering the conversation away from marriage.  I know it’s a hot topic and we can use it but sparingly. This bill is so much bigger.

Make sure you watch the video in the blog. It will bring you to tears. I actually had a note exchange with them today.  We probably don’t agree with much of anything politically or spiritually, but we do agree about freedom. They were two of the kindest ladies I’ve ever spoken to.

Please make sure you pray for Senator Schneider.  He is a very courageous man for carrying this.  The only way it will be heard is if Senator Long allows it to come to the floor.  The official bill is not posted yet, but as soon as it is, I will send you a copy.   Please let me know if I can answer any questions. If I don’t know the answer we have attorneys that will get us the answers.  Remember… its all about FREEDOM.

Here is the link:  Why Indiana MUST pass a Freedom of Conscience and Religion Bill.

freedom of conscience

Why Indiana MUST pass a Freedom of Conscience and Rel…
If you read the news this week, when Senator Scott Schneider announced his intention to file the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (you will also hear it entitled…

View on www.monicaboyer.com

I’ll be updating the Indiana Coalition to protect Religious Freedom Facebook page with any updates.

https://www.facebook.com/INCoalition4religiousfreedom

Legal Brief  Indiana RFRA Memo

With Firm Reliance on Divine Providence…

Monica Boyer
Kosciusko Silent NO More
Author of “Not on My Watch”
www.monicaboyer.com 

Welcome to TotCare: Obama’s preschool takeover

Michelle Malkin   – Guest Columnist

http://michellemalkin.com/

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round, just like the endless cycles of big, bad government programs to federalize preschool and daycare.

On Wednesday, the White House Summit on Early Education will unveil nearly $1 billion in new “investments” to “expand access to high-quality early childhood education to every child in America” from “birth and continuing to age 5.” It’s a retread of President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union school-spending plan, which was a repackaging of his 2011 Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge program.

Those Obama initiatives are knockoffs of moldy-old Democratic policy chestnuts, such as former Vice President Al Gore’s push to fund preschool for all 3-year-olds at a cost to taxpayers of at least $50 billion over 10 years, left-wing actor/director Rob Reiner’s “I Am Your Child” campaign for universal preschool and child care, and Hillary Clinton’s various “It Takes a Village” schemes to expand Head Start from womb to work. With age comes fiefdom.

How could anybody be against tax-subsidized Pre-K for all, you say? Let me count the ways.

Every one of these Big Babysitter boondoggles rests on “progressive” junk science. The Obama White House asserts that “studies show that for every dollar we invest in early childhood education, we see a rate of return of $7 or more.” Balderdash. This discredited claim rests on results of the tiny Perry Preschool Project in Michigan, run at a cost of $19,000 per child more than a half-century ago, and a similar program in North Carolina called the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project.

As David Armor of the libertarian Cato Institute noted in a thorough review of the scientific literature this fall, the “groups studied were very small, they came from single communities several decades ago, and both programs were far more intensive than the programs being contemplated today.”

More recent research by the Brookings Institution’s Russ Whitehurst found that the vaunted academic benefits of full-time Pre-K in Georgia and Oklahoma “have had, at best, only small impacts on later academic achievement.” In fact, Georgia elementary school students’ test scores are mediocre, and Oklahoma test scores have been on the decline for the past decade. A 2010 Department of Health and Human Services report, which assessed approximately 5,000 3- and 4-year-olds who were randomly assigned to either a control group or a group that had access to the federal Head Start program, concluded that “at the end of kindergarten and first grade … the Head Start children and the control group children were at the same level on many of the measures studied.”

In 2012, government researchers reported “little evidence of systematic differences in children’s elementary school experiences through 3rd grade, between children provided access to Head Start and their counterparts in the control group.” The federal investments in early childhood programs keep ballooning, yet the educational impacts are dubious at best.

Then there’s the alarming encroachment of data miners into the lives of parents and their young children. As I’ve reported previously, Common Core-aligned assessment systems such as Teaching Strategies Gold in Colorado and California’s “Desired Results Developmental Profile” are stockpiling massive amounts of information on preschoolers’ social, emotional, physical, language and cognitive development. The collection of data and accompanying assessment inevitably dictate the content in the classroom. TS Gold, which integrates its results into the vast network of statewide longitudinal data systems, raked in $30 million in federal Race to the Top subsidies in 2012. The latest round of Obama’s “Preschool Development Grants” and “Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership Awards” require applicants to plug into this insatiable data machine, as well as “linking” and “partnering” with a plethora of other government programs.

After attending TS Gold training sessions last year, Cindee Will, principal of the James Irwin Charter Academy in Colorado Springs, calculated that compliance, not including taking and uploading photos of students as required, would soak up at least 16.5 hours of kindergarten class time per week or 640 hours a year of instruction in class. Test administration four times a year for an average of 25 students, she told me, would mean “150 hours per year or 2.5 months: one quarter of our time. And this equation is done with the knowledge that our K program is a half-day program!”

As you might imagine, the administrative and financial burdens on small, privately run part-time preschool programs would be even more onerous. Fatal. And exactly as planned.

Think ObamaCare is bad? Well, welcome to TotCare. The goal of the educational central planners, you see, is the elimination of competition. The fact is that the vast majority of Pre-K kids are already happily enrolled in early childhood programs outside of Fed Ed’s clutches. The “problem” isn’t most families’ lack of access to preschool. It’s Washington’s lack of access to your kids for their institutionalized warehousing, data mining and pedagogical propaganda schemes. The Nanny State’s ceaseless quest for control keeps creepily rolling along.

Salaries

Can’t you hear students telling their teachers they want to be welfare recipients when they grow up?

THE WORK ETHIC WE INHERITED GROWING UP HAS FALLEN PREY TO THE ‘WELFARE’ SYSTEM

The Cato Institute released an updated 2013 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states. According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home than it is to earn an honest day’s pay. Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13 per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary, all for doing nothing.

Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:

1.   Hawaii: $60,590 $29.13/hr

2.   District of Columbia : $50,820 $24.43/hr

3.   Massachusetts: $50,540 $24.30/hr

4.   Connecticut: $44,370 $21.33/hr

5.   New York: $43,700 $21.01/hr

6.   New Jersey: $43,450 $20.89/hr

7.   Rhode Island: $43,330 $20.83/hr

8.   Vermont: $42,350 $20.36/hr

9.   New Hampshire: $39,750 $19.11/hr

10.   Maryland: $38,160 $18.35/hr

11.   California: $37,160 $17.87/hr

12.   Oregon: $34,300 $16.49/hr

13.   Wyoming: $32,620 $15.68/hr

14.   Nevada: $29,820 $14.34/hr

15.   Minnesota: $29,350 $14.11/hr

16.   Delaware: $29,220 $14.05/hr

17.   Washington: $28,840 $13.87/hr

18.   North Dakota: $28,830 $13.86/hr

19.   Pennsylvania: $28,670 $13.78/hr

20.   New Mexico: $27,900 $13.41/hr

21.   Montana: $26,930 $12.95/hr

22.   South Dakota: $26,610 $12.79/hr

23.   Kansas : $26,490 $12.74/hr

24.   Michigan: $26,430 $12.71/hr

25.   Alaska: $26,400 $12.69/hr

26.   Ohio: $26,200 $12.60/hr

27.   North Carolina: $25,760 $12.38/hr

28.   West Virginia: $24,900 $11.97/hr

29.   Alabama: $23,310 $11.21/hr

30.   Indiana: $22,900 $11.01/hr

31.   Missouri: $22,800 $10.96/hr

32.   Oklahoma: $22,480 $10.81/hr

33.   Louisiana: $22,250 $10.70/hr

34.   South Carolina:$21,910 $10.53/hr

As a point of reference the average Middle Class annual income today is $50,000, down from $54,000 at the beginning of the Great Recession. Hawaii, DC, and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average working folks earn there. Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job. Time for a drastic change. America is virtually bankrupt.

Note that California is $18.50 an hour. Are we Nuts or what? How do we un-do this type of stupidity . This is crazy!

Salary of the sitting US President $400,000

Salary of retired US Presidents $180,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of a sitting US Vice President $230,700

Salary of a retired US Vice President $174,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate….$174,000

Salary of Speaker of the House ….$223,500 FOR LIFE!

Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400 FOR LIFE!

Average Salary of a teacher .. $40,065

Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN.. $38,000

Think about this.  I think we found where the cuts should be made!

Wake UP America!

 

Wild Pigs – A Reminder For All

A thought to  remember, Marx said, “Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will  have no freedom and no one would have noticed.”

There was a  chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in  the class.

One day while the  class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange  student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back  hurt.  The professor asked the young man what was the  matter.

The student told  him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting  communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his  country’s government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of  his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange  question.

He asked: “Do you  know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor  thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.  The young man  said that it was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place  in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to  come every day to eat the free food. 

“When they are used  to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they  are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the  corn again and you put up another side of the fence.

“They get used to  that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of  the fence up with a gate in the last side.

“The pigs, which  are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free  corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild  pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. 

They are  so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for  themselves, so they accept their captivity.”

The young man then  told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America . The  government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading  the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy  subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare entitlements,  medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a  little at a time.

One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can  never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

If you see that all  of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of  democracy in America , you might want to share this with your  friends.

God help us all when the gate slams shut!

Could non-citizens decide the November election?

Could non-citizens decide the November election?

Washington Post      By Jesse Richman and David Earnest

October 24, 2014

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.

Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.

Obama administration scraps quarantine regulations

Posted 4/1/2010 8:53 PM  By Alison Young, USA TODAY

The Obama administration has quietly scrapped plans to enact sweeping new federal quarantine regulations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention touted four years ago as critical to protecting Americans from dangerous diseases spread by travelers.

The regulations, proposed in 2005 during the Bush administration amid fears of avian flu, would have given the federal government additional powers to detain sick airline passengers and those exposed to certain diseases. They also would have expanded requirements for airlines to report ill passengers to the CDC and mandated that airlines collect and maintain contact information for fliers in case they later needed to be traced as part of an investigation into an outbreak.

Airline and civil liberties groups, which had opposed the rules, praised their withdrawal.

The Air Transport Association had decried them as imposing “unprecedented” regulations on airlines at costs they couldn’t afford. “We think that the CDC was right to withdraw the proposed rule,” association spokeswoman Elizabeth Merida said Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union had objected to potential passenger privacy rights violations and the proposal’s “provisional quarantine” rule. That rule would have allowed the CDC to detain people involuntarily for three business days if the agency believed they had certain diseases: pandemic flu, infectious tuberculosis, plague, cholera, SARS, smallpox, yellow fever, diphtheria or viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola.

“The fact that they’re backing away from this very coercive style of quarantine is good news,” said ACLU legislative counsel Christopher Calabrese, who was unaware the proposed rules had been withdrawn.

CDC officials had stressed the rules would only be used in rare circumstances when someone posed a threat and refused to cooperate. The new rules, they noted at the time, added legal protections and appeals for those subject to quarantines.

CDC spokeswoman Christine Pearson said in a statement Thursday that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s parent agency, withdrew the proposed regulations after discussion across the government made it clear that “further revision and reconsideration is necessary to update the regulations.”

HHS and the CDC are crafting new regulations that will incorporate public health lessons learned since 2005, Pearson said in the statement. She did not elaborate and referred questions to HHS. HHS spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said late Thursday the department had no further comment.

Last June, after the H1N1, or swine flu, pandemic emerged, the White House Office of Management and Budget received the final rules for review, records show. HHS withdrew the proposed regulations Jan. 20 — after more than four years of refining them and reviewing public comments.

Jennifer Nuzzo, at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Center for Biosecurity, said the rapid worldwide spread of swine flu showed flaws in the proposed regulations’ premise.

“They probably learned during H1N1 that this hope of preventing diseases from entering the country by stationing people at airports is unrealistic,” she said.

In 2007, after an Atlanta man with drug-resistant tuberculosis drew international attention to the potential risks posed by infected air travelers, CDC Director Julie Gerberding testified before Congress that the proposed regulations would improve the agency’s ability to identify exposed passengers quickly. Gerberding, now president of Merck Vaccines, was unavailable for comment Thursday.

Even in the Bush administration, some were skeptical of the CDC’s 2005 proposal, said Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009. “There were a lot of questions about how plausible it was to treat airports as a place where you could stop and inspect and quarantine people,” Baker said Thursday.

Ebola Hits America

By Judson Phillips,  Washington Times , October 1, 2014

Barack Obama may be the only one in America surprised that the deadly Ebola virus has arrived in America.

On Tuesday, authorities announced that a man in Dallas was diagnosed with the Ebola virus. Despite the protestations of the Obama regime that it was very unlikely Ebola would ever show up in America, it is here.

This is not a great shock since the regime has done everything but invite an Ebola patient to parade down Wall Street at high noon on a busy weekday. The regime allowed sick doctors to be brought into America, and allowed a ship with a possible case of Ebola to dock at New Orleans. The regime has not stopped easy access from the Ebola hot zone to America.

It is almost like they want the disease here.

Hospital officials refused to identify the nationality of the Ebola patient but said he had been in Liberia. Right now, there are 200,000 outstanding visas that have been given to people from Western African nations that compose the Ebola hotzone.

Why haven’t these visas been cancelled immediately?

Ebola is a disease that has up to a 90 percent mortality rate. In plain English, depending on the circumstances, nine out of ten people who contract Ebola will die. Some virologists are saying 5 million people will die from Ebola before this outbreak burns itself out.

Why isn’t America protecting itself against this disease?

The bright lights at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim Ebola is not an airborne disease. They claim it can only be transferred by contact with bodily fluids.

Really?

Doctors in Western Africa are coming down with Ebola. When they are dealing with Ebola patients, they don bio hazmat suits. These suits are supposed to block the transmission of the disease by fluids. If these doctors who are taking every precaution to prevent infection are still being infected, what does that say?

It says either the doctors don’t know everything about that disease or it is more easily communicable than the government is telling us.

The main weapon in the war against Ebola is isolation. Put an Ebola patient in a secured area where hopefully the infection cannot escape.

But all of this goes back to the first question.

Why are we allowing Ebola anywhere near the United States?

If the Obama regime were serious about combating Ebola, the best, most effective way to do that is to exclude non-Americans from coming to the United States if they have been in the Ebola hot zone area. For Americans who are coming from Western Africa, there is only one answer.

That is to quarantine them until the incubation period for Ebola has passed.

Perhaps that is not fair to them, but spreading Ebola to millions of Americans isn’t fair either.

The cold, hard truth is our government is not prepared for a pandemic. The government is not prepared for a major Ebola outbreak here in the United States.

An outbreak is still preventable.

The real question here is why doesn’t the Obama regime want to take the simple steps necessary to prevent an Ebola outbreak in America?

Ebola Victims Without Symptoms Can Still Be Contagious

Posted By Jerome R. Corsi On 10/08/2014 @ 8:05 pm In Health,Politics,U.S.,World |

NEW YORK – A group of German medical doctors in a peer-reviewed medical journal article published by Oxford University Press have challenged a key assumption regarding the Ebola virus repeatedly asserted by Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

The researchers found that a patient showing no symptoms of the disease can still transmit a virus like Ebola by air if droplets containing the virus are transmitted to another person by a sneeze or cough.

As WND reported Tuesday, the World Health Organization has admitted that “wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or who vomits violently could transmit the Ebola virus over a short distance to another nearby person.”

WHO said it could happen when “virus-laden heavy droplets are directly propelled, by coughing or sneezing onto the mucus membranes or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person.”

Still, WHO added a qualification, insisting the transmission of Ebola by sneezing or coughing is not within its definition of airborne transmission.

News broke Wednesday morning that the first person diagnosed with Ebola in the U.S., Thomas Eric Duncan, had died in Dallas. The victim’s home neighborhood in the Liberian capital, meanwhile, remained under quarantine.

Later Wednesday, a Texas sheriff’s deputy was rushed to the hospital in Frisco, Texas, with Ebola symptoms after delivering a quarantine notice to the apartment where Duncan was staying.

WND reported Wednesday Liberia is preventing journalists from reporting Ebola-related stories from health care centers in the country unless they obtain written permission from the government. The news came as the World Health Organization issued a statement warning that the officially reported decline in new cases in Liberia over the past three weeks “is unlikely to be genuine,” because problems with data gathering continue.

What do YOU think? What is your reaction to death of Dallas Ebola victim? Sound off in today’s WND poll

‘Not easily detected’

The German physicians, led by Dr. Timm H. Westhoff of the Department of Nephrology at the Carité Campus Benjamin Franklin in Berlin, noted in a virology blog published Feb. 12, 2009, that acute viral infections such as Ebola hemorrhagic fever may cause little or no clinical symptoms in a so-called “inapparent infection” yet may be contagious.

“A well-known example is poliovirus: over 90% are without infections,” Westhoff and his colleagues continued. “During an inapparent infection, sufficient virus replication occurs in the host to induce antiviral antibodies, but not enough to cause disease. Such infections are important for the spread of infection, because they are not easily detected.”

Westhoff and his colleagues then made the key point that individuals with an inapparent infection, showing no symptoms, can yet spread diseases such as polio.

“During the height of the polio epidemic in the United States, the quarantine of paralyzed patients had no effect on the spread of the disease, because 99 percent of the infected individuals had no symptoms and were leading normal lives spreading infection.”

Westhoff and his colleagues also discussed the risk of spreading Ebola by sneezing or coughing.

“An example of a classic acute infection is uncomplicated influenza,” the medical doctors noted. “Virus particles are inhaled in droplets produced by sneezing or coughing, and begin replicating in ciliated columnar epithelial cells of the respiratory tract. As new infectious virions are produced, they spread to neighboring cells.”

The point was clear: “Inapparent infections probably are important features of pathogens that are well-adapted to their hosts. They replicate sufficiently to endure the spread to new hosts, but not enough to damage the host and prevent transmission.”

Westhoff and his associates conclude: “Acute viral infections are responsible for epidemics of disease involving millions of individuals each year, such as influenza and measles. When vaccines are not available, acute infections are difficult to control – most are complete by the time the patient feels ill, and the virus has already spread to another host.”

The German physicians published in 2008 the fundamental medical research that formed the basis for their blog comments, demonstrating kidney-transplant patients could carry the norovirus infection that is common in cases of acute gastroenteritis, even if the patient was asymptomatic.

Westhoff’s 2008 study provided “the first evidence” that norovirus, typically a self-limiting disease of short duration, can cause chronic infection in renal transplant recipients,” even when there are no symptoms of acute gastroenteritis evident in the patient.

Dr. Norman M. Balog, D.O., a board-certified family doctor practicing in Silver Spring, Maryland, brought the research of the German medical team to the attention of WND as evidence that the CDC’s Frieden could not prove his assertion air travel was safe as long as a person infected with Ebola were not showing symptoms. An infected person can go as long as 21 days in an incubation period before being infected.

“Dr. Freiden is either completely uninformed of this research,” Balog explained to WND in an exclusive telephone interview, “or he is deliberately lying because he does not want to panic the general public.”

Balog pointed out that asymptomatic carriers of diseases infecting others is a phenomenon that has been widely documented in virology studies for decades.

“There’s a good potential that on any given day a person you may shake hands with will have Strep Group A Streptococcus that causes sore throats,” he pointed out. “Shaking hands you take the risk you are going to get the Streptococcus virus, even if the person you shook hands with looked perfectly well.”

Balog explained to WND much of the fundamental research on Ebola, including the conditions under which asymptomatic carriers of the disease can infect others, has yet to be conducted and reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.

“Dr. Freiden and the CDC have been reassuring the American public from the beginning of the current outbreak that we can contain and control Ebola, no problem; but the first assurances were three continents ago,” he pointed out. “Now we have Ebola in the United States and in Spain. Where is Ebola going to show up next?”

Balog was critical of the steps taken so far by the CDC to contain the Ebola outbreak.

“Ebola is spreading a lot faster than anybody expected,” he said.

“But even today we are not stopping people from West Africa from boarding international air flights; health officials in Dallas did not put up a fence around Duncan’s apartment complex; and it took several days before Dallas health authorities found anyone qualified to clean up the vomit outside Duncan’s apartment. And then the workers just washed the vomit down into the town storm drains.”

Balog pointed out the medical literature on virology commonly says asymptomatic but infected individuals can spread a disease to others before showing any signs of being sick.

“We have medical models that say a person is capable of secreting a virus like Ebola in bodily fluids before the person displays symptoms of the disease,” he stressed, “and that medical evidence is simply being ignored by Dr. Frieden and the CDC when the public is told repeatedly it’s OK to let Ebola-infected people fly as long as they don’t have a fever.”

Why Wind Energy is a Bad Idea

In a casual conversation, I was asked why wind energy is a bad idea. Once again, I realized that a one or two-word answer could not convey a readily understandable and accurate picture of wind energy.

This article will try to provide such an answer in a few hundred words, where one or two won’t suffice.

There are essentially four reasons why wind energy is a bad idea.

  • It is unreliable
  • It is very, very expensive
  • It produces electricity when it isn’t needed
  • It has environmental issues

Read more….