Monday, February 7, 2011

**JP** Pumpkin (Kadoo) worth more than Human Life - Says Mullah's Brand of Islam



السلام علیکم

خدارا بیدار ھوں ! اور دیکھیں کہ یہ ملا پاکستان کو جہالت کے کن اندھیروں کی طرف دکھیل رھے ہیں۔

یہ وڑیو ہی نہیں بلکہ لمحہ فکریہ بھی ھے۔

Wake-up ! Mullahs are taking Pakistan towards Darkness of Ignorance. This is not just a video link. Rather it is an eye Opening Wake-up Call.

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcDIlIRupqY

Please forward this WAKE-UP Call to all of your contacts.




--
saqibtaimoor@yahoo.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

**JP** Good Wife / Good Husband



VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL
ADD MORE PHOTOS
This online album has 3 photos and will be available on SkyDrive until 05/08/2011.

**JP** DAILY QURAN AND HADITH 7TH FEBRUARY 2011


IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH" 
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,



 



 



-- 



Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

**JP** BEWARE OF 14-FEB Valentine's



 Dear Brother
 
 plz find attached file.
 

Regards

 

Irfan Ahmad


**JP** Madinay Hum Be Jay Gay

http://i53.tinypic.com/azc26c.jpg 

http://i45.tinypic.com/6e0umf.jpg 

http://i53.tinypic.com/2cyijhy.jpg 

http://i56.tinypic.com/oig70x.jpg 

http://i55.tinypic.com/105vf2u.jpg 

http://i52.tinypic.com/2dmhaf7.jpg 

http://i54.tinypic.com/wja1dy.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/zkkb9c.jpg   http://i52.tinypic.com/zkkb9c.jpg   http://i52.tinypic.com/zkkb9c.jpg  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

FW: **JP** FW: Happiness Depends Upon Ourselves

Walaikum Salam,

 

Thank you so much brother for appreciating my mail.

Best regards,

 

From: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com [mailto:joinpakistan@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sadam hussain
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:25 PM
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: **JP** FW: Happiness Depends Upon Ourselves

 

wonderfull dil se slaam to u.by

 


From: rashidahmed@jeraisy.com
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: **JP** FW: Happiness Depends Upon Ourselves
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:12:43 +0300

 


Happiness Depends Upon Ourselves

 

Happiness depends upon ourselves.

Happiness is not a destination.

It is a method of life.

You cannot always have happiness,

But you can always give happiness.

Happiness is not a matter of events;

It depends upon the tides of the mind.

Everything exists in limited quantity - especially happiness.

Action may not always bring happiness;

But there is no happiness without action.

 

Happiness is not having what you want.

It is wanting what you have.

Happiness resides not in possessions and not in gold,

The feeling of happiness dwells in the soul.

To be happy, we must not be too

Concerned with others.

Some pursue happiness, others create it.

Non $top Entertainment only at Funzug! Click to Join 4 Free!

Happiness is not something

You postpone for the future;

It is something you design

For the present.

Some cause happiness wherever they go;

Others whenever they go.

Let us be grateful to people who make us happy,

They are the charming gardeners

Who make our souls blossom.

Happiness held is the seed.

Happiness shared is the flower.

Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.

 

--

 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

How it should have been done

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETrr-XHBjE&feature=related

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Who’s Afraid of a Free Society?

"Thus Americans tolerate much government predation because they have bought into the myth that state intervention may be an irritant, but the alternative of a free society would be far worse. They have been conditioned to believe that despite whatever occasional corruption they may observe in politics, the government by and large has their well-being at heart. Schoolchildren in particular learn a version of history worthy of Pravda. Governments, they are convinced, abolished child labor, gave people good wages and decent working conditions; protect them from bad food, drugs, airplanes, and consumer products; have cleaned their air and water; and have done countless other things to improve their well-being. They truly cannot imagine how anyone who isn't a stooge for industry could think differently, or how free people acting in the absence of compulsion and threats of violence -- which is what government activity amounts to -- might have figured out a way to solve these problems. The history of regulation is, in this fact-free version of events, a tale of righteous crusaders winning victories for the public against grasping and selfish private interests who care nothing for the common good."

Who's Afraid of a Free Society?
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Today is the release date for my new book, Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse. It could just as easily have been called Everything Needs to Be Abolished, and Here's Why.

The book does two things. First, it lays bare the true fiscal position of the U.S. government, and shows why some kind of default is not merely possible but inevitable. But this is not a book full of numbers about the impending collapse. The collapse is merely the jumping-off point. By far the more central part of the book is this: the critical first step for reversing this mess and checking the seemingly unstoppable federal advance is to stick a dagger through the heart of the myths by which government has secured the confidence and consent of the people.

We know these myths by heart. Government acts on behalf of the public good. It keeps us safe. It protects us against monopolies. It provides indispensable services we could not provide for ourselves. Without it, America would be populated by illiterates, half of us would be dead from quack medicine or exploding consumer products, and the other half would lead a feudal existence under the iron fist of private firms that worked them to the bone for a dollar a week.

Thus Americans tolerate much government predation because they have bought into the myth that state intervention may be an irritant, but the alternative of a free society would be far worse. They have been conditioned to believe that despite whatever occasional corruption they may observe in politics, the government by and large has their well-being at heart. Schoolchildren in particular learn a version of history worthy of Pravda. Governments, they are convinced, abolished child labor, gave people good wages and decent working conditions; protect them from bad food, drugs, airplanes, and consumer products; have cleaned their air and water; and have done countless other things to improve their well-being. They truly cannot imagine how anyone who isn't a stooge for industry could think differently, or how free people acting in the absence of compulsion and threats of violence -- which is what government activity amounts to -- might have figured out a way to solve these problems. The history of regulation is, in this fact-free version of events, a tale of righteous crusaders winning victories for the public against grasping and selfish private interests who care nothing for the common good.

But let's suppose that the federal government has in fact been an enemy of the people's welfare, and that the progress in our living standards has occurred quite in spite of its efforts. It pits individuals, firms, industries, regions, races, and age groups against each other in a zero-sum game of mutual plunder. It takes credit for improvements in material conditions that we in fact owe to the private sector, while refusing to accept responsibility for the countless failures and social ills to which its own programs have given rise. Rather than bringing about the "public good," whatever that means, it governs us through a series of fiefdoms seeking bigger budgets and more power. Despite the veneer of public-interest rhetoric by which it camouflages its real nature, it is a mere parasite on productive activity and a net minus in the story of human welfare.

Now if this is a more accurate depiction of the federal government, we are likely to have a different view of the consequences of the coming fiscal collapse. So an institution that has seized our wealth, held back the rise in our standard of living, and deceived schoolchildren into honoring it as the source of all progress, will have to be cut back? What's the catch? This is no calamity to be deplored. It is an opportunity to be seized. The primary purpose of the book, therefore, is to demonstrate that we would not only survive but even flourish in the absence of countless institutions we are routinely told we could not live without.

And with the exception of the final chapter, that's what the rest of the book does. I wanted it to be a relentless presentation, such that even a skeptical reader would have to be impressed by the sheer number and force of the arguments.

Some of the topics covered include:
  • Could we survive without the welfare state?
  • Was the Industrial Revolution a disaster for workers, and evidence of the wickedness of the free market?
  • The market vs. global poverty
  • How the market, in spite (not because) of government, leads to higher living standards for everyone
  • How the market leads to improved working conditions and does away with child labor
  • Federal education programs: a critique
  • Doesn't Sweden prove a large welfare state is compatible with lasting prosperity?
  • If government shrinks, won't big business fill the void and oppress the public via predatory pricing?
  • Why it's impossible to design a wealth redistribution program that does not cause net harm
  • The truth about "affordable housing" programs
  • Iceland and the financial crisis: a case study of free markets run amok?
  • California energy "deregulation" – proof that free markets don't work?
  • Is the Savings & Loan (S&L) crisis evidence of the failure of free markets?
  • The real record of Sarbanes-Oxley
  • OSHA and workplace safety
  • The FDA
  • Don't we need to make an exception for government science funding?
  • A primer on the War on Drugs
  • Obamacare: the problems and the solution
  • Why "stimulus" programs make things worse
  • How prudential regulation contributed to the financial crisis
  • Are some firms "too big to fail"?
  • Did the "repeal" of Glass-Steagall contribute to the financial crisis?
  • The real story of "deregulation" and the financial crisis
  • Is Paul Krugman right to absolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of blame?
  • The Pentagon's impact on the U.S. economy
  • Has the Federal Reserve really made the U.S. economy more stable, as so many proponents try to claim?
  • What caused the bank panics of the nineteenth century? Are they evidence of the need for a central bank?
  • The separation of money and state
  • Do we need the Fed to protect us from deflation?
  • Regulation as an anti-competitive device
  • Possible approaches: agorism, jury nullification, Free State Project, and more

One of the goals in writing my books has been to help get people up to speed on important issues as efficiently (and, I hope, enjoyably) as possible. (In fact, much of what I write comes down to this: what do I wish I myself had known 20 years ago, so that I wouldn't have had to come by all this information so laboriously on my own?) That way people can more easily prepare themselves to answer many of the most common objections to their position they are likely to encounter.

That's what I'm trying to do in Rollback as well. The propaganda with which we are flooded regarding how indispensable the political class is – why, they are selflessly devoted to "public service"! – is unworthy of a fifth-grader. We would not die instantly in the absence of the Joe Bidens and Mitch McConnells. We would flourish. And here's the proof.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods163.html

Fwd: News Alert: AOL to Buy The Huffington Post in $315 Million Deal

    Just what we need - they two deserve each other - schlock meet schlock

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: News Alert: AOL to Buy The Huffington Post in $315 Million Deal
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:06:57 -0500
From: NYTimes.com News Alert <nytdirect@nytimes.com>
Reply-To: nytdirect@nytimes.com
To: rhomp2002@EARTHLINK.NET


Breaking News Alert The New York Times Mon, February 07, 2011 -- 12:05 AM ET -----  AOL to Buy The Huffington Post in $315 Million Deal  The Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.  The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and were expected to announce the deal Monday morning. The deal will allow AOL to greatly expand its news gathering and original content creation, areas that its chief executive, Tim Armstrong, views as vital to reversing a decade-long decline.  Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html?emc=na   About This E-Mail You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news alerts from NYTimes.com.  To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines or other newsletters, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/email  NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Ave. New York, NY 10018  Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company    

The Constitution Is on Life-Support


The Constitution Is on Life-Support
by Gary North

"This is a republic, not a democracy. Let's keep it that way!"

When I was a teenager, that was a popular saying in conservative circles. Conservative circles in 1958 were very few and very far between. The movement lacked slogans. Every fringe movement needs a few slogans. Slogans are like secret handshakes in a club. They identify one's true colors to those in the know.

That slogan was misleading then, and it is misleading today.

America is an oligarchy of lawyers and the businessmen who hire them.

In no other nation do five lawyers determine what is lawful and what is not. This supreme authority of five people is both a symbol and the legal foundation of the political system that rules 310 million Americans. Yet we are so used to it that we give it no thought. We assume that this is normative: "the way things are 'sposed to be." Yet it is neither normative nor Constitutional. It is merely traditional.

On July 9, 1986, CBS television ran a show titled The Burger Years. It was an interview with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger. It was the most important interview ever granted by a sitting Chief Justice. It was conducted by the former public relations spokesman for Lyndon Johnson, Bill Moyers, who by 1986 had become a respected media figure, a Voice of Disinterested Authority – the only Establishment survivor of the sinking of the U.S.S. Lyndon. In that interview, this exchange occurred.

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: Constitutional cases – constitutional jurisprudence is open to the Court to change its position in view of changing conditions. And it has done so.

MOYERS: And what does it take for the Court to reverse itself?
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: Five votes.

This may sound cynical. It was not cynical. It was a forthright statement of judicial principle. Five people decide the meaning and applicability of the foundational document of American civil government. At any time, one of these five can change his or her mind, or be replaced on the court by someone who does not share this view. Then the Constitution is reinterpreted, and whatever was lawful before becomes unlawful, or vice versa.

When the court is divided 5 to 4, one vote decides what is lawful: the swing vote.

This is called republican government if you are a conservative Republican, and democratic government if you are a liberal Democrat. Every movement needs a few defining slogans. The more widely they are believed, the less accurate they are.


OBAMACARE

The House passed a bill repealing Obamacare, as expected. The Senate voted it down, 51 to 47, as expected.

Each side is jockeying for position in preparation for the elections of 2012. They know that. The press knows that.

Senator Mikulski of Maryland spoke for the extreme Left of the Democrats in the Senate, as she has for a quarter century. She was elected to the Senate in 1986, two months after Burger retired and four months after he gave his interview. Here is her assessment of the Republicans' strategy. She identified it as "one more hollow, symbolic, pander-to-the-masses amendment."

Who are the masses? Voters. Lots and lots of voters. For the moment, that is a threat to the Democrats in the Senate. They have less than two years to change the minds of the masses.

Yet all this may turn out to be a sideshow. The real rulers of America have begun to choose sides. Two Federal judges have said the law is unconstitutional. Two have said that it is constitutional.

The Florida challenge to the law was brought by 26 states. The government's attorneys argued that states do not have legal standing to bring the case before a Federal court. It was a weak defense.

Congress is divided: House vs. Senate. States are divided: 26 to (presumably) 24. The Federal district courts are divided: 2 to 2.

So, we are headed for a showdown in the halls of the United States Supreme Court. A 5 to 4 decision is a real possibility. If the Court rules that the section of the law that has been declared unconstitutional by the judge in Florida – the section on the mandatory purchase of health insurance – then the whole law is gutted. It loses its teeth. At that point, it's dead for two years. Then the outcome will be decided by Congress in 2013, when Republicans may have the Senate and the Presidency.

In a 5 to 4 decision, it's one man-one vote: the deciding vote.

If it is declared constitutional, and Ms. Kagan votes in favor, then a lawyer who served as an Obama administration lawyer is the swing vote. If she recuses herself, as the Wall Street Journal says she should, then a 4 to 4 decision will create havoc. In two Federal districts, parts of the law cannot be enforced. There may be more district courts invalidating the section on mandatory purchase, if more cases are introduced, which looks certain.

Republican government? Hardly. Democratic government? Hardly. Judicial oligarchy? Exactly!


IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE

The United States Constitution is a short document. Its language can be understood by a careful reader. Its grammar is heavy on capital letters, but who cares?

In Article III, Section 2, on the powers of the Federal judiciary, we read this:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only three areas, two of which are arcane. In all other areas, its jurisdiction is delegated by Congress.

Does this mean that Congress – without the consent of the President – can remove the Court's jurisdiction? Yes. Are there any limits on this? Yes. "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." Any others? No.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the Obamacare case in the Florida District Court. States brought suit. Congress cannot touch that authority. But such cases are rare.

Then why doesn't Congress get its way when the Court overturns a law? Because of tradition. In the Republican Party-dominated period of Reconstruction, Congress did remove the Court's jurisdiction over a case involving the military rule over the South. The case was Ex parte McCardle (1869). Wikipedia's account is accurate.
During the Civil War Reconstruction, William McCardle, a newspaper publisher and professional soldier in the Confederate Army reaching the rank of sergeant, published some "incendiary" articles which advocated opposition to the Reconstruction laws enacted by the Republican Congress. He was jailed by a military commander under the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, a law passed by the United States Congress. Mr. McCardle invoked habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. The judge sent him back into custody, finding the military actions legal under Congress's law. He appealed to the Supreme Court under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, which granted appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to review denial of habeas petitions. After the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress suspended the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case, exercising the powers granted to Congress under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution.

If ever there has been a Constitutional case that has not made it into the American history textbooks, it is this one. This case makes it clear that Congress is in charge. If Congress wants to keep the Court's nose out of Congressional business, it can tell the Court to fly the proverbial kite.

Yet Congress refuses to do this. Congress passes laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Members justify this by means of this excuse: "If it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can say so." Congress has delegated to the Court original jurisdiction over everything: county laws, state laws, and Federal laws. Only in the case of treaties, over which the House has no jurisdiction, does the Court keep its hands off laws.

How did this come about? How was the judicial sovereignty of Congress removed completely by the Supreme Court? Because of the lawyers' guild. The law schools teach the doctrine of judicial sovereignty. This has mandated the teaching of the Court's original jurisdiction as unbounded. This extends to nine unelected representatives of the legal guild the power to overrule the masses, meaning a majority of the voters.

The Constitution says that the Congress has original jurisdiction. The lawyers say otherwise. The textbooks do not raise the issue. This includes textbooks in Constitutional law.

The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the right to interpret the Constitution. For about a century, the Supreme Court has operationally ignored the Constitution's clear teaching regarding original jurisdiction. The Constitution has been allowed to die, section by section, according to "changing conditions," to quote Chief Justice Burger. The Court cuts off life support to those sections that interfere with the opinion of five members at any given time.

The Constitution is called a "living document," meaning an evolving document, meaning a document that five people on the Supreme Court get to make up as they go along, which they do. This living document is on life-support. It exists mainly for the convenience of the lawyers' guild. They know how to make it pay.


ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY

For as long as I can remember, the Republican faithful have told conservatives to vote for the Party's middle-of-the-roader Presidential candidate. Here is the fall-back argument: "He will get to appoint Supreme Court justices." This argument recognizes the intensely political nature of the Supreme Court. The Court interferes with everything, including politics. But it is not limited to politics. It is not limited at all, according to the Court.

The Court has claimed original jurisdiction over every area of American life. It has therefore declared sovereignty. Because there are no bounds to this sovereignty operationally, this is absolute sovereignty.

In England, this same claim is made by Parliament. The courts cannot override Parliament. Neither can the king. The result is pretty much what it has been in the United States: the extension of government power.

I am not saying that the Supreme Court has been at odds with the general opinions of voters most of the time. As the humorous literary character Mr. Dooley said over a century ago, "No matter whether the country follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns." But the arrangement by which the voters exercise a final say over the government is not the textbook version. The voters extend their control through the lawyers' guild, which filters it – spins it, basically.

There was a reason why Puritan Massachusetts made it illegal to collect a fee for representing someone else in court. In a classic paragraph by Daniel Wait Howe's The Puritan Republic in New England (1899), we read:
That the profession had become almost extinct during the commonwealth period appears from a letter written by Edward Randolph to Mr. Povey in 1687, wherein he says: "I have wrote you of the want we have of two or three honest attorneys (if any such thing in nature). We have but two, one is West's creature, come with him from New York, and drives all before him. He also takes extravagant fees, and for want of more, the country can not avoid coming to him, so that we had better be quite without them than not to have more."

In 1663, the legislature, called (then as now) the General Court, made it illegal for a lawyer serving in an inferior court to serve in the General Court. In 1673, it became legal to represent others for a fee, but fees were regulated by the government. There were no lawyers who earned a full-time living. Yet by 1700, merchants and lawyers had replaced ministers as the leaders of Massachusetts politics. The lawyers triumphed ever after. Why? Because Americans are a litigious people.

It was not just Massachusetts. Virginia expelled all lawyers from the colony in 1658.

Decade by decade, generation by generation, lawyers have become the interpreters of the American way of life. Voters cannot conceive of a legal system not dominated by lawyers. The goal of every self-conscious group is to control the law schools. Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and a handful of others have provided the political leadership of the country for well over a century. They set the limits of political discourse.

I have waited ever since 1962 for a conservative or a libertarian to write a textbook on the history of American Constitutional law. It has not appeared. Similarly, I have waited since 1958 for a detailed, documented study of Roosevelt's revolutionary New Deal and his wartime policies, which covers both domestic policy and foreign affairs. Until these two books appear, the conservative movement will remain a fringe movement.

Roosevelt had only one major political defeat as President, when he attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1938. The very word "pack" indicates that he lost. Congress rebelled. The great irony was this: Roosevelt clearly had Constitutional grounds for doing this. There is no set number of justices. But he transgressed the legal guild's tradition, and he was thwarted. That tradition, not the Constitution, is sovereign.

The Court after 1938 started handing down decisions in favor of Roosevelt's New Deal, especially after his election to a third term in 1940. The Supreme Court follows the election returns.


CONCLUSION

There are conservative voters who still believe that taking control of Congress and the Presidency will lead to a transformation of the nation. This places far too much trust in national politics.

The political system is rigged by lawyers. It always has been. Until the major law schools adopt the principles of limited civil government and the strict construction of the Constitution -- itself a lawyers' document that was illegally passed, according to the original Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) -- the conservative movement will remain on the sidelines.

Because Congress will not exercise its Constitutional authority, we should not expect deliverance by Congress. Congress is not in charge. The Constitution is sovereign in name only.

The Constitution begins with a declaration of sovereignty, point one of the covenant model: "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This Preamble could not be clearer. The Framers presented the document for ratification in such a form that the entire population acting corporately through the states would gain formal credit for the document.

What is the meaning of "we the people"? I asked that question of Warren Burger. He had written that these are the document's most important words. On September 26, 1988, he wrote his reply. It was a six-word reply: "They are the key words conceptually." He underlined conceptually.

Legally, the words mean nothing. For propaganda purposes, they mean that the rubes will sit there and accept what five people tell them they may or may not legally do.

www.garynorth.com

Kleptocrats at Work


Kleptocrats at Work
by Paul Craig Roberts

Kleptocracy is as old as government. Exotic car broker Michael Sheehan discovered an amazing case nine years ago when he was invited to purchase rare Ferraris and McLaren F1s from a Brunei collection. He writes about it in the current issue of Sports Car Market.

Brunei is a family-owned oil Sultanate of 400,000 people located on the island of Borneo in southeast Asia. A brother of the sultan was finance minister until 1997, when the Asian financial crisis hit Brunei. The Arthur Anderson accounting firm was called in to audit the books. The accountants found that between 1983 and 1998 $40 billion had disappeared and that the finance minister himself had personally spent $14.8 billion.

The finance minister had a collection of 2,500 exotic cars, 500 properties, five yachts, and nine world-class aircraft. He had managed to spend $900,000,000 in the London jeweler Asprey, apparently guaranteeing the old age retirements of a number of attractive women who consort with kleptocrats.

The finance minister was allowed to keep 500 of the cars, but he had to turn in the rest of his loot – to no avail as we shall see.

Sheehan went to Brunei to view the cars. From his general description of the collection, I estimate that the finance minister had paid six figures for the least expensive car in the collection. Many cost much more. McLaren F1s cost $1,000,000 new. They are more valuable now. In October 2008 one sold at a London auction for $4,100,000. Many of the cars were custom built. Some of the high-speed Ferraris "were coated in radar-absorbent matt-black coatings and fitted with infrared cameras for night driving." Easily more than one billion dollars of Brunei's oil revenues had found their way into the finance minister's car collection.

Sheehan reports that the cars were stored in about 12 buildings "surrounded by a high wall topped with razor wire and with a bomb-proof front gate" and patrolled by "armed Gurkhas with very serious German shepherds." The security was for naught, because "the air conditioning was off, but the tropical sun was not." Years of heat and humidity had destroyed the cars. The storage facilities had become a car tomb.

Sheehan concluded that most of the cars were in such a state of ruin that only a few of the cars had sufficiently high inherent values to support commercially viable restorations. The best use of the rest, Sheehan decided, would be to turn them into an artificial ocean reef.

The careless waste is shocking and even more so to car buffs who consider many of the ruined cars to be artistic masterpieces. This is the kind of opulent waste that we associate with family-owned countries. But before we Americans start feeling superior, consider that the U.S. government puts the Brunei finance minister to shame.

On January 29, 2002, CBS Evening News reported that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion, yes, $2,300 billion. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted, "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." "We know it is gone," said Jim Minnery of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, "but we don't know what they spent it on."

Reported thefts from Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction aid rival Brunei's missing billions. Pallets of cash stacked high have been flown out of Afghanistan in plain view. The stories of corruption and missing funds are so numerous that they are no longer reported.

The U.S. Congress, at President Obama's request, recently passed the largest military spending bill of all time in behalf of the share prices of the military/security complex, while many of the 50 states teeter on bankruptcy and default on pensions and municipal bonds and slash education, medical, and other services. For "our" government in Washington, it is a no-brainer that the profits of the military-security complex take every precedence over every need of the American people.

If the Brunei finance minister's billion-dollar car collection becomes an artificial reef, it will foster marine life. In contrast, Dick Cheney seriously damaged, perhaps for many years to come, the Gulf of Mexico, because Cheney believed a few extra bucks for the oil companies were more important than safety standards. The missing safety standards have cost British Petroleum $20 billion in clean-up and restitution costs.

U.S. taxpayers are paying the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security

$56,336,000,000 this year to porno-scan and grope them and otherwise invade their privacy, while millions of Americans are foreclosed out of their homes.

How are the priorities of the U.S. government superior to those of the Brunei finance minister? When it comes to waste and corruption, lies and deception, the U.S. government has no equal.

http://vdare.com/roberts/110206_kleptocrats.htm

Ron Paul to Ask Fed Why After Trillions in Free Money, Unemployment Is Still Sky High

Ron Paul to Ask Fed Why After Trillions in Free Money, Unemployment Is Still Sky High
by Tyler Durden
ZeroHedge

While everyone is relishing the Fed's third and only mandate these days, namely to send the Russell 2000 to 36,000 and cotton limit up to infinity and beyond, while everyone else is terrified to short stock in advance of what increasingly appears like near certain additional quantitative easing, congressman Ron Paul has announced that the first Monetary Policy subcommittee meeting will focus on one of those two now forgotten Fed mandates, that of creating jobs.

Of course, the answer to all of these problems is simple: no debt ceiling raise. If the Fed can't monetize any more debt and make the Primary Dealers ever richer (now that the PD ranks have just been expanded from 18 to 20 to include SocGen and derivative (!) trader MF Global, and its CEO Jon Corzine) from commissions on indirect debt monetization, its power is gone. But that will mean doing something far less theatrical than a few hearings, and far more responsible: such as preventing rampaging inflation across America (see cotton chart posted previously).

Paul Announces Subcommittee Hearing On The Federal Reserve's Impact on Unemployment

Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Ron Paul announced today the Subcommittee will meet for a hearing to examine the impact of Federal Reserve policies on job creation and the unemployment rate. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 9th at 10 am in room 2128 Rayburn.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul said, "I'm very pleased to hold our first subcommittee hearing in the new Congress on a topic that could not be more critical, namely unemployment. Despite enormous amounts of monetary and credit expansion by the Federal Reserve in recent years, the nation's unemployment picture remains bleak. While many focus on the impact of fiscal policies on employment, the effect of monetary policy often goes unexamined. In my view we are now experiencing the bust that inevitably results from the misallocation of capital and human resources in a period of artificially cheap credit. It is important to understand the Federal Reserve's role in creating today's unemployment crisis, while also highlighting that high unemployment and low economic growth can persist even in the face of tremendous monetary inflation."

The Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented action to provide liquidity to financial markets and some U.S. corporations; however, unemployment remains above 9 percent. The hearing, entitled Can Monetary Policy Really Create Jobs?, will focus on the Fed's recent actions, the likelihood those actions will reduce unemployment, and the critical role of the private sector in job creation.

While the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress believe increased government spending will improve the nation's economy, Republicans on the Financial Services Committee know economic growth depends on providing the private sector, especially small businesses, with the certainty they need to create jobs. The Fed's policies, as well as the Obama administration's unsustainable debt and spending, continue to prevent small business owners from growing and hiring because of continued uncertainty over new taxes, higher interest rates, and the expanding role of government in the economy.

On November 3, 2010, the Federal Reserve announced that it planned to purchase $600 billion in long-term Treasuries (dubbed "QE2"). This is the second time since the 2008 financial crisis that the Federal Reserve has engaged in quantitative easing. The latest round of quantitative easing, along with the Fed's action to bailout financial companies, has added trillions of dollars to the government balance sheet.

Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge.

Re: The poor are not getting poorer

On Feb 6, 3:06 pm, Wes <wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> it's a morality thing actually,

What may be morality to you, is ethics to someone else.

> more people are willing to have more
> people working for them for less than it takes to make a living, i
> call it ungainfull employment.

Not exactly.
Productivity rates have continually increased over many years, meaning
less people are needed to produce the same amount they would have
before.

> we don't need more jobs we need the
> jobs we have to actually pay our bills so we don't turn to socialism
> to supply our needs.

We do need more jobs because the population is always increasing and
there are many people not employed and out of work for quite a long
time.
Socialism to supply needs?
You use it to supply the military's wants and needs all the time.

What does your Bible say about that?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Five False Predictions of the AIDS Establishment


Five False Predictions of the AIDS Establishment
by Liam Scheff

1. We're All At Risk:

In 1987, the fear-and-death hyperbole machine that is the engine of 'public health' pandemania was in such ferocious motion, that Oprah Winfrey issued this warning:

"Research studies now project that one in five – listen to me, hard to believe – one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That's by 1990. One in five." Although Americans have grown larger, not thinner, Oprah has never apologized for her wild-eyed hyperbole. But the mainstream has, issuing warnings in the press that "the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared," and that worldwide AIDS numbers are over-inflated, needing to be halved or more, because the AIDS public relations machine has created a "House of Numbers."

2. AIDS is an Incurable Disease:

AIDS is, in fact, what it always was – a variety of different illnesses manifesting very differently in different people and populations. It's been no 'one size fits all' diagnosis. It has proven best-treatable by a multilateral approach – a combination of nutritional , pharmaceutical, and lifestyle interventions which have done best to leave the harder, sanctified "AIDS Drugs" behind. Notably, those who jumped on the FDA-approved bandwagon, with high-dose AZT, or those who "hit early and hit hard" with drug "cocktails," died fastest, and died horribly, poisoned by the pharmaceutical establishment.

3. AIDS Is a Sexually Transmitted Disease:

From 1987 to 1997, a team of researchers in Northern California at the University of California, Berkeley, conducted the longest study on heterosexual transmission on record. They studied 175 sexually-active long-term couples, one person in each twosome testing HIV positive, one HIV negative. The pairs entered the study having every kind of sex imaginable, up, down, front and back, with a majority not using condoms. Over six years, they were encouraged to use latex, but a large percentage continue not to. The results?

At the end of the study, of the 175 negative partners, a very low number had converted from HIV negative to HIV positive, despite regular sexual exposure to their positive partner. A very low number, indeed….In fact, the number was so low, that Wikipedia, the guardian of all populist junk science, has censored "The Padian Study," as it's known, from its "AIDS" and "HIV" pages. The number? Zero. No one, nobody, not a single person who tested negative became positive, despite years of sex with a positive partner. This is a heck of a thing for a presumed "STD," and has more to do with the realities of HIV testing than the mainstream cares to admit…

4. HIV Testing Stops the Spread of AIDS:

"AIDS" has, through the constant loosening of official definitions and expansion of symptoms and illnesses, been turned into a brand-name worldwide for any disease of poverty, drug abuse, pharmaceutical poisoning or environmental intoxication. "AIDS" functions as a blanket term laid heavily on the backs of limited but massive populations, mostly in Africa, who suffer endemic poverty, and all that accompany it – dangerously polluted water, no food, and chronic bacterial and parasitic infection. But the AIDS industry has not stopped the call for more and more toxic drugs, given to people who don't even have enough food to keep down, or clean water to swallow with. These are the very people who are considered "at risk" for AIDS, therefore they are most heavily targeted for HIV testing internationally. "AIDS" prefigures HIV testing, and HIV testing is problematic…

5. HIV Tests are Ethical and Accurate, and Everybody Should Take One:

The medical literature accumulated over 25 years of antibody and genetic testing "for HIV" have revealed that HIV tests are good at one thing: Testing for every disease, non-disease, medical condition and non-medical condition on the planet. These tests come up positive for flu vaccination, alcoholism, drug use, parasitic infection and pregnancy; for "reasons that are unclear," and for cross-reaction with the materials in the test kit themselves. After 25 years, the tests still have "no gold reference standard," that is, they refer to no particular particle, and they find no particular set of antibodies or genetic material, despite the massive public relations of the pharma-machine that has grown in South Africa and North America to promote their use. HIV tests, in a word, stink. They're unethical, they give a death sentence without cause, and because they are targeted at populations assumed to have "AIDS," they CAUSE the spread of "HIV," by giving false results to populations already in crisis.

But despite these insurmountable failures, the AIDS machine rages on, waging war on critics and patients alike.

Here's what you can do to stop it: Talk about it. Promote open discussion of the definition of AIDS and the critical appraisal of HIV testing. And most of all, be kind to people given the false "HIV positive" diagnosis – given the opportunity, many can recover through a variety of means, once the medical infrastructure stops telling them that they're doomed to die "no matter what," just because of a lousy test result.

The Discoverer of HIV Speaks Out


The Discoverer of HIV Speaks Out
by James Foye

The new film House Of Numbers (reviewed by me here) contains excerpts of interviews with almost everyone of significance in the debate about whether or not HIV causes severe immune deficiency (aka AIDS). In a true scientific debate, the defenders of AIDS orthodoxy would jump at every chance to engage in debate with HIV skeptics, in the hope of either clearly refuting their arguments, or else learning something from them. But instead their mantra is:

"We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes."

Some of the people interviewed by filmmaker Brent Leung didn't realize that his final product was not going to be a one-sided rehash of the nonsense that has been fed to us for the last 25 years by the AIDS establishment, but rather would feature both sides of the story. They therefore regret their participation in the film, and are trying to explain away the comments they made and to portray Mr. Leung as being deceptive. But, had he stormed into their offices telling them that he had doubts about HIV, by their own admission, they wouldn't have given him the time of day. In any event, is there one question they would have answered differently had they then granted an interview? The answer, one must presume, must be "No." So what difference does it make?

[]
Cheryl Nagel at the Rethinking AIDS conference in Oakland, California, November 2009. Cheryl, who appears in the movie House Of Numbers, carries a copy of my recent review of the film with her in her purse wherever she goes, so she is always ready to show it to people. Without the intervention of Peter Duesberg her daughter Lindsey would not be alive today, but instead would be dead of AZT poisoning.

Particularly problematical for the orthodoxy is the interview with Luc Montagnier, the French scientist who discovered HIV (if you accept that he discovered something). You can watch this interview today on YouTube. The most interesting part of the exchange goes like this:

Montagnier "We can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system."

Leung "If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?"

Montagnier "Yes."

Montagnier goes on to say that a neglected point in battling sickness in Africa is that nutrition and hygiene are very important, and people are only thinking of drugs and vaccines.

The significance of such comments coming from, of all people, the man who supposedly discovered the HIV virus, cannot be overstated. To understand why, you must understand that the whole problem of HIV boils down to one very simple concept: people get sick – why? If five gay men in California get sick enough to die, then what made them sick? Did they destroy their immune systems with a decade of hard drug use and nightly visits to the bathhouses? Or, was it an exotic new deadly retrovirus, something not previously known to exist among humans?

In sub-Saharan Africa, a land where malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis, and diarrhea (due to unsanitary water) are not uncommon, and in many places modern health care is not available, why do people get sick? Is it the retrovirus?

In North America why did so many people get sick and die in the years following 1987 when AZT was approved? Was it because AZT inhibits DNA synthesis and in high dosages inevitably leads to death? Or was it the retrovirus?

The simplest answer is the best answer; where there are obvious explanations for why people get sick, we don't need to invent a new one. But the simple and the obvious can't be patented. You can't build a multi-hundred-billion dollar taxpayer-funded industry on it. So the retrovirus it is.

[]
Professor Luc Montagnier being interviewed by Brent Leung for House Of Numbers.

Montagnier's comments call for some damage control, and over at Inside House of Numbers, a website devoted to debunking Leung's movie, we get some. Let's look at the page entitled Montagnier: No Denial. (Though this particular page is anonymous, the site is affiliated with AIDSTruth.org, so presumably it was written by one of their regular contributors.) In response to this criticism, Brent Leung has released an extended, unedited version of this portion of the interview. Whereas the original clip (linked to above) is about one minute, this one is four minutes. You can now view this longer clip here.

Having just watched the new clip myself, I would like to go through several points made in the "rebuttal":

"Unedited footage of Luc Montagnier's interview with Brent Leung is not available, so there is as yet no way to identify the context for his short clips. He speaks a total of 212 words in the film, on several different subjects, and is led by Leung on the question of whether nutrition can prevent HIV seroconversion."

In the longer clip, Montagnier speaks at greater length about his central point, that there should be less focus on drugs and vaccines in Africa, and more on nutrition, hygiene, and clean water. It is clear that nothing he is saying is being taken out of context, and Leung is not "leading" him in any way. And why would someone of Montagnier's experience allow himself to be led by an interviewer anyway? He's not some sixteen-year-old kid in a room full of bad cops trying to get him to confess to a bogus shoplifting rap. He can handle himself just fine.

"It is likely that Montagnier was discussing the ways that people with relatively strong immune systems might also be relatively resistant to becoming infected with the virus."

True, because he still believes HIV is transmissible and causes AIDS. See my comments below. But that's not all he says!

"This is an important scientific question because, as is well known, the sexual transmission of HIV is inefficient…"

That is the understatement of the century.

" …and some people are known to be particularly resistant to acquiring the virus (cohorts of exposed-uninfected sex workers are the subject of several research programs)."

Yes, we must make some adjustments to our Ptolemaic theory of HIV to hold us until Copernicus gets here. How can we explain uninfected sex workers? It can't be the obvious, that HIV is not sexually transmitted. New studies will be necessary. They will be filed alongside the old ones.

"But it is clear that in November 2009, well after he was sucker-punched by Leung, Montagnier still states clearly that AIDS is caused by HIV, which damages T-cells, a key element of the immune system, although he again states that co-factors play a role in infection and disease progression."

He wasn't sucker-punched. And there's no doubt that Montagnier still believes HIV causes AIDS; as the discoverer of HIV, he's pretty much married to that proposition. But that doesn't stop him from seeing something that should be more obvious to everyone else, that nutrition and hygiene play an important role in not getting sick. Since he still believes in HIV, he is attempting to reconcile the two – staying healthy must somehow ward off HIV.

"Montagnier does not spontaneously say in the film that a healthy diet will clear the virus."

Yes, he does, though he doesn't phrase it exactly like that. And in fact, he says it three times. Check out 0:36–0:51, 1:34–1:38, and 3:10–3:18 of the new clip.

"It is also well known that Montagnier's command of English is imperfect, and that he sometimes does not explain his thinking very clearly in this language."

This is utter nonsense. At no time in the new clip does he ask Leung to repeat himself or clarify a question. He uses words like "oxidative, "equilibrated," "antioxidants," and "occidental" (which he then follows with "western," realizing some viewers might not know what "occidental" means!) His grammar is nearly perfect; I noticed only one or two minor mistakes. He knows exactly what he is saying. He even says at the end of the clip that "…this is a message which may be different from what you've heard before, no?" He knows full well that what he is saying does not follow the party line.

It's very important for the high priests of HIV to prevent any doubt from entering the temple. If one tenet of their religion is debunked, that opens the door to questioning the others. The religion of HIV maintains that HIV and HIV alone causes AIDS. If other things make people sick, sick enough to die, then it begs the question, why do we need HIV at all? Montagnier is becoming like the heretic who still believes in the deity, but refuses to precisely follow the canonical script. It may be necessary to kick him out of the church:

"But perhaps Montagnier does believe what Leung made him out to say. In that case, he would be wrong.  Montagnier entertains other ideas that most scientists consider to be eccentric and with a dubious basis, as for example the experiments on "resonance emission of low-frequency electromagnetic waves through high-water dilutions of DNA" mentioned here.  For an excellent dissection of this idea, please see Andy Lewis' October 20, 2009, blog post on Quackometer: "Why I Am Nominating Luc Montagnier for an IgNobel Prize" for research "that could not and should not be replicated."

Think of it – the very man who discovered HIV, kicked out of the temple!

On this World AIDS Day, my hope is that both sides, HIV believers and HIV skeptics, can suspend their personal judgment of Luc Montagnier for a moment and instead take his words about the importance of nutrition and hygiene to heart. If we can help Africans to focus on those issues, rather than feed them toxic drugs, we may be able to save some lives. And that's what really matters.

House of Numbers should be in theaters in January of 2010. Be sure and check out the film's website for updates.

Questioning HIV/AIDS, Human-Caused Global Warming, and Other Orthodoxies in the Biomedical Sciences


Questioning HIV/AIDS, Human-Caused Global Warming, and Other Orthodoxies in the Biomedical Sciences
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
March 4, 2008

Six paradigms in the biomedical and climate sciences have become established orthodoxies. Some of them, like HIV/AIDS and the lipid hypothesis of coronary artery disease have achieved the status of dogma. Nevertheless, skeptics have raised valid questions about them. With the real cause, truth, or more probable hypothesis for the disease or phenomenon in question added, along with selected references, they are:

Cholesterol and saturated fats cause coronary artery disease (the lipid hypothesis)

Coronary atherosclerosis is an inflammatory response to arterial injury. Things that can injure the inner lining (endothelium) of coronary arteries include chronic stress, smoking, and a lack of physical exercise.

Injurious nutritional causes include excessive consumption of sugar (and white flour), Omega-6 polyunsaturated vegetable oils (which promote inflammation), and any amount of trans fatty acids. Cholesterol and saturated fats are innocent.

Nutrient deficiencies that predispose to vessel injury include insufficient intake of Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins (particularly B6, B12, C and E), amino acids (particularly arginine and L-carnitine), minerals (selenium, magnesium, iodine, copper), and other free radical-quenching antioxidants (alpha lipoic acid and coenzyme Q10) and flavonoids (plant phenols).

Increased iron and homocysteine blood levels and microbial infection (Chlamydia pneumoniae) play a causative role in atherosclerosis. Impaired nitric oxide release, and depletion, also plays a role (nitric oxide relaxes blood vessels and blocks the release of inflammatory cytokines).

Uffe Ravnskov. The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the fallacy that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease (2000), 304 pages, 350 references.
Anthony Colpo. The Great Cholesterol Con: Why everything you've been told about cholesterol, diet and heart disease is wrong! (2006), 348 pages, 1,400 references.
Mary Enig and Sally Fallon. The Oiling of America. Nexus Magazine, Dec 1998­Jan 1999 and Feb­Mar 1999 issues. (Also posted on the Weston A. Price Foundation website.)

Genetic mutations cause cancer

The real cause is aneuploidy, an abnormal number and/or structure of chromosomes, in concert with replicative telomere (the caps on the ends of chromosomes) erosion and epigenetic maturation arrest of tissue stem cells (due to methylation of DNA).

Peter Duesberg. Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer. Scientific American, May 2007, pg 53­59.

Reinhard Stindl. Defining the steps that lead to cancer: Replicative telomere erosion, aneuploidy and an epigenetic maturation arrest of tissue stem cells. Medical Hypotheses (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.01.010 (in press, corrected proof available online February 27, 2008).
Harvey Bialy. Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg (2004).
See my article, "A Modern-Day Copernicus: Peter H. Duesberg" (2006).

Human activity is causing global warming through increased CO2 emissions

Variations in solar intensity and the sun's magnetic effect on celestial cosmic rays cause global warming (and cooling), not CO2 emissions, natural or human-generated.

Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (2007), 256 pages. You can be sure Al Gore won't read this book.
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007), 276 pages. He won't read this one either.
Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas. Lessons and limits of climate history: Was the 20th century climate unusual? George C. Marshall Institute, April 17, 2003.
See my articles,

"Solar and Celestial Causes of Global Warming" (2007).
"Toro! Toro! Michael Crichton" (2005).
" Finding Truth in Phoenix" (2003).

HIV causes AIDS

The real cause: Lifestyle (receptive anal intercourse), heavy duty recreational drugs (cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines), anti-viral chemotherapy, and nutrition. In the West, 98 percent of AIDS cases occur in gay men and IV drug users.

Henry Bauer. The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (2007). Dr. Bauer is a professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech. This is perhaps the best single reference to date questioning the HIV/AIDS theory.

Duesberg P, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: Recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. Journal of Bioscience 2003;28:383­412.
See my articles,
"A Modern-Day Copernicus: Peter H. Duesberg" (2006)
" Finding Truth in Phoenix" (2003)

The linear no-threshold hypothesis

This hypothesis says that the damaging effects of toxins are dose-dependent in a linear fashion down to zero. Even a tiny amount of a toxin, such as radiation or cigarette smoke, will harm some people. The real truth is: Low doses of a toxin can be beneficial, based on the phenomenon of hormesis ­ "a dose response phenomenon whereby a substance that in a high dose inhibits, or is toxic to, a biological process will, in a much smaller dose, stimulate (or protect) that same process." Radiation in small doses stimulates immune system defenses, prevents oxidative DNA damage, and prevents and suppresses cancer.

Scott BR, Sanders CL, Mitchel RE, Boreham DR. CT scans may reduce rather than increase the risk of cancer. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 2008;13(1,Spring):9­11.
Ed Hiserodt. Underexposed: What if radiation is actually good for you? (2005).

Calabrese DJ. Historical blunders: How toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cellular and Molecular Biology 2005;51:643­654.
See my article, "Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are good for you" (2004).
The membrane-pump theory of cell physiology

This theory says that cells are aqueous solutions enclosed by a cell membrane, which contains energy-consuming ion pumps.

A competing, revolutionary, and perhaps more accurate hypothesis for the structure of cells is the Association-Induction hypothesis. Gerald Pollack and Gilbert Ling posit in this hypothesis that the three main components of a living cell ­ proteins, water, and potassium ions ­ are structured together in a gel-like matrix, where the cell's water is organized into layers alongside proteins. Cell function does not depend on the integrity of the cell membrane, and membrane "pumps" and "channels" are not what they seem.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a product of this view of cell physiology.

Gerald Pollack. Cells, gels and the engines of life. (2001).

Gilbert Ling. Life at the cell and below-cell level: The hidden history of a fundamental revolution in biology. (2001).

Scientists who question these paradigms are denied grants by peer review study panels. The reviewers enforce these state-sanctioned orthodoxies by rejecting applications for funding research that challenges them. I review this subject in The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation?, published in the Journal of Information Ethics 2007;16(1, Spring 2007):59­69