She Said What?

Technorati Tags: guns,second amendment,Angelina Jolie,Hollywood,freedom,knowledge is power,Bill of Rights,common sense,individual rights

Sacrificing Freedoms

Video:  Sacrificing Freedoms

Technorati Tags: TheBlaze,Beck,Glenn Beck,freedom,sacrificing freedom,Constitution,politics,terrorism,survival,Bill of Rights,individual freedoms,manipulation of the public

Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves – Video

Video:  Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves [Short Version]

Bet you didn’t hear this on the evening news!!

Technorati Tags: NRA,Black Conservatives,freed slaves,watch the other hand,re-written history,history,wake-up America,stand-up America,truth,Second Amemdment,Star Parker

"Eat Mor Chikin" while Rahm eats crow!

Threats to Chick-fil-A 'height of stupidity'

Legal team warns city officials, like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who promise trouble for restaurants:  “Make My Day”

Rahm Now Clarifies His Chick-fil-A Stance… Like His Former Boss Spends a Lot of Time Walking Off-the Cuff Comments Back

Free Chick-Fil-A Coupons Save w/ Top Chick-Fil-A Coupons! Free Chick-Fil-A Coupons.

Sign Petition Supporting Chick-fil-A, freedom of speech and freedom of religion HERE

The issue before us is not an anti-gay issue.  It is a pro-freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue.  Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against gays.  But Chick-Fil-A is a private company whose owner stand-up for their Christian beliefs.  Hello, this is America where that is allowed.  And America is still the land of the free, governed by a Bill of Rights and Constitution, where the majority of people are Christians.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said he believes in the natural, biblical view of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

How, in America, could that viewpoint possibly be considered controversial or discriminatory?

Have our nation’s values and culture collapsed that far?

Apparently, liberal politicians like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel think so. Upon hearing of Cathy’s stand, radical pro-homosexual organizations and sympathizers immediately began calling for boycotts, “kiss-ins,” and other types of protests against the family-friendly national chain of restaurants.

Then, government officials from major U.S. cities like Chicago and Boston said they plan to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening new restaurants in their jurisdictions.

Demanding a public apology from Cathy, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno said that he will deny Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the “Cradle of Liberty.”

Never one to “let a good crisis go to waste,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit. Emanuel’s statement that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values” was both legally ignorant and ill-advised. Emanuel, the former Chief of Staff at the Obama White House, surely knows that viewpoint discrimination violates federal Civil Rights statutes!

++These threats of action and discrimination against Chick-fil-A because of the viewpoint of its owner are not only illegal – they are toxic to every business and businessman in America!

To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately-owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous.

Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle. If this discrimination is challenged in court – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino will be eating crow, and in large portions! Even the ACLU condemned the knee-jerk announcements by ultraliberal Mayors Emanuel and Menino!

These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance.

Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists. They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.

A legal team that specializes in religious and civil rights and the Constitution says city officials who are promising to punish Chick-fil-A restaurants for the religious beliefs followed by their chief are asking for trouble.

“These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance,” said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel.

“Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists. They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad,” he said.

The issue has turned into a firestorm over the last couple of days. Among the results? The Henson Co., creator of the Muppets characters, said it no longer would work with Chick-fil-A. The mayor of Boston publicly bashed the restaurant chain. Chicago officials said they would not want the company to operate in their wards. And “kiss-in” protests were announced in front of company outlets on college campuses.

Boston’s mayor reconsiders his position on Chick-fil-A expansion in his city.

All brought on by advocates for homosexual behavior because Dan Cathy, whose father, Truett Cathy, founded the $4 billion-plus a year business, gave an interview to the Baptist Press.

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy said.

In a separate radio interview, Dan Cathy said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about.”

Earlier today, Billy Graham, the longtime dean of Christian leaders in the United States, expressed his support for the Cathy family

“I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith,” he said in a statement released by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

“I’ve known their family for many years and have watched them grow Chick-fil-A into one of the best businesses in America while never compromising their values. Chick-fil-A serves each of its customers with excellence, and treats everyone like a neighbor. It’s easy to see why Chick-fil-A has become so popular across America,” he said.

Liberty Counsel noted the city officials who are on thin ice include Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, who “said that he will deny Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the ‘Cradle of Liberty.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit.”

“There is absolutely no evidence that Chick-fil-A has discriminated against anyone,” Staver continued. “The intolerance displayed by these government officials ought to serve as a wakeup call to the majority of Americans who support the commonsense understanding of natural marriage.

“If given the chance, these intolerant officials would silence anyone who supports natural marriage. They have placed extreme ideology over freedom,” Staver said.

“To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous. Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle,” Staver said.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

But as WND reported, hundreds of thousands of people across America are pledging to support Chick-fil-A restaurants.

A Facebook campaign has been launched by Gov. Mike Huckabee seeking to build support for the chicken-sandwich chain famous for closing its stores on Sundays so employees can attend church if they choose.

Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, invited Americans to join him Wednesday, Aug. 1, for a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” Some supporters are advocating showing support every Wednesday.

He noted the company now is a $4 billion a year effort with more than 1,600 stores.

“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A, pushing for a boycott because the Cathy family has contributed to traditional marriage organizations. The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A is nothing short of economic bullying. In the name of ‘tolerance,’ there is an effort being mounted to put pressure on people to stop eating at Chick-fil-A. Even worse is the vilification of the company and its employees. The Christian world view of Dan Cathy is being met with intolerance and vicious hate speech,” Huckabee’s announcement said.

“I ask you to join me in speaking out to your constituency via Facebook, Twitter, email, broadcast, etc., to make Wednesday, August 1 ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.’ No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1.”

John Hayward at Human Events said the attacks are reaching unhealthy levels.

“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game,” he said.

Chick-fil-A appears to have taken itself off the soapbox, at least for now, with a corporate statement that said: “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

Related:

Can it be un-American to be a Christian? 

Rahm Emanuel chickens out on Chick-fil-A ban

'The View' Co-Hosts Defend Chick-Fil-A After Chicago Alderman Announces Ban

Biggest name in Christianity defends Chick-fil-A

Liberty Action Counsel Stands with Chick-Fil-A

See what the biggest companies in the nation are doing to promote homosexuality.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and Former Obama Chief of Staff): Chick-Fil-A should be banished for Christian marriage beliefs

• God You Think You Know The Bible Well? Test Yourself With Our Trivia Game www.BibleTriviaTime.com
• Chick-Fil-A Franchise Find out about owning a franchise. Get the info you need fast & free! www.FindaFranchise.com

 

Announcing the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1 

July 26, 2012
Christian-owned Chick-fil-A has come under assault once again, this time because CEO Dan Cathy recently affirmed his personal view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.

The "Big Gay" machine has ramped up an un-relenting and vicious public attack against Chick-fil-A. Homosexual activists are spewing hate-filled bigotry and intolerance toward the company in unprecedented fashion.
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is our way of showing our support for a company whose leaders believe in marriage as that of one man, one woman. http://66.210.221.105/index.html
Join millions of others in showing support for Chick-fil-A by visiting your local Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1, 2012. The plan is simple. At least once on August 1, eat a meal at Chick-fil-A and politely let the staff and management know you appreciate the company's Christian value system.

Let us know you're supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day by signing up today! We'll let Chick-fil-A know to expect record sales on August 1! http://66.210.221.105/index.html

"Eat Mor Chikin" while Rahm eats crow!

Thanks to patriotic Americans of all stripes from Billy Graham to the ladies of The View, Chick –Fil-A’s media coverage and sales are up!

Technorati Tags: Bill of Rights,Freedom of Speech,Freedom of Relgion,privately owned companies,freedom,Christianity,Chick-fil-A,religion,gay marriage,traditional marriage,individual freedoms,The View,Billy Graham,Liberty Counsel,Mike Huckabee,judeo-Christian values

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

By Peter Ferrara  -  Forbes

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added).

President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.

The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.

And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:

“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”

As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows all about Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.

President Obama further assailed any Supreme Court decision ruling his Obamacare health care takeover unconstitutional as “judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Alexander Hamilton disagreed over 200 years ago in Federalist 78, writing, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .”

Or, as the Wall Street Journal explained on Monday:

“Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.”

The Journal added, “Far from seeking an activist ruling, the Obamacare plaintiffs aren’t asking the Court to overturn even a single commerce clause precedent.”

In my role as General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, I filed 3 amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the Obamacare litigation. I also filed amicus briefs in the lower federal courts in the cases in Virginia and Florida.

The reason that at least 5 Justices are going to find the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional is that it is contrary to the fundamental federalism architecture of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. All other powers of government are reserved for the states, including the broad authority labeled the “police power.” That is the power to compel individuals to take specific actions for the public good, such as actions for the public health like vaccinations or quarantines, or obtaining car insurance, or attending school. Notice that all such laws are adopted at the state or local level. (Any federal laws compelling action are based on specific delegated powers other than the Commerce Clause, like those providing for national defense, or taxation).

The power to compel the purchase of health insurance for the public good, as in Obamacare’s individual mandate, is a function of the police power reserved to the states, and denied to the federal government by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents. If the federal government is now to hold a national police power, then the constitutional framework of federalism, with limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and the remaining powers of government retained by the states, would be obliterated.

That is why the Supreme Court held in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), “We always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power.” The Court added, “the principle that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers, while reserving a generalized police power to the States, is deeply ingrained in our constitutional history.” The Court explained in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) that Congress may not exercise its enumerated powers in a way that “infring[es] upon th[at] core of state sovereignty.” The Court in Morrison rejected the argument that women who are sexually assaulted would need medical care provides a sufficient interstate commerce connection under the Commerce Clause.

As Justice Kennedy explained in United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010), “the precepts of federalism embodied in the Constitution inform which powers are properly exercised by the National Government in the first place.” The Court added in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991), “[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers [and] withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation.”

The Obama Administration tried to shoe horn the individual mandate into the federal enumerated power of the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Their argument boiled down to the claim that millions of people choosing to not buy health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce. But every economic decision, when aggregated across the whole market, substantially affects interstate commerce in this way, including decisions not to do something. So that would leave the Commerce Clause eating up the whole Constitution and its most fundamental doctrine that the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. Federal power would then be without limit, contrary to the whole concept of the federal government in the Constitution.

That is why the Court kept asking the government for a principle that would limit its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and its failure to come up with one is fatal to the government’s case. All prior cases under the Commerce Clause were based on the principle that some action had been taken that the federal government could then regulate as interstate commerce. To hold that inaction could be regulated as well as itself substantially affecting interstate commerce would break through any limitation on the power, and so was not what was intended. That would also again tear down the Constitution’s fundamental federalism architecture and any distinction between limited federal and plenary state power.

That is why the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) rejected the notion of unlimited Commerce Clause power, holding that it will strike down regulation under the Commerce Clause which leaves no principled limit to federal power under the Clause. The Court said, “the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated and that there will never be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” Justice Kennedy added, “[T]he federal balance is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or another level of Government has tipped the scales too far.”

Once the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional on these grounds, as it will, the question becomes whether the whole Obamacare Act must be struck down as unconstitutional as a result. The law does not include a traditional severability clause providing that if one of provision of the Act is found unconstitutional, the rest of the law should stand.

Consequently, the question becomes whether the remaining parts of the Obamacare law can still remain fully operative and function as Congress intended, and whether Congress would have passed the Act without the individual mandate. The answer in both cases is indisputably no.

Obama’s lawyers themselves have repeatedly argued in courts all over the country that the Obamacare law cannot function without the individual mandate. That is because of the Act’s regulatory requirements for guaranteed issue and community rating. The Act requires all insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions and issue health insurance to everyone that applies, no matter how sick they are when they first apply or how costly they may be to cover. Moreover, the insurers can only charge them the same, standard, market rates as everyone else.

Under these regulatory requirements, younger and healthier people delay buying insurance, knowing they are guaranteed coverage at standard rates after they become sick. Sick people show up applying for an insurer’s health coverage for the first time with very costly illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, which the insurer must then cover and pay for, out of the same standard premiums as everyone else pays. This means the insurer’s covered risk pool includes more costly sick people and fewer less costly healthy people, so the costs per person covered soar. The insurer then has to raise rates sharply for everyone just to be sure to have enough money to pay all of the policy’s benefits.

Those higher rates encourage even more healthy people to drop their insurance, leaving the remaining pool even sicker and more costly on average, which requires even higher premiums, resulting in a financial death spiral for the insurers and the insurance market.

If regulation required fire insurers to issue policies to people whose houses were already on fire at standard rates, the fire insurance pool would include only all burned down houses, which would obviously be dysfunctional.

The Obamacare law tries to counter this problem by adopting the individual and employer mandates, seeking to require everyone to be covered and contributing to the pool at all times. Without these mandates, the government itself has repeatedly argued, those who would remain uninsured would substantially affect the interstate market for health insurance, by allowing the remaining regulatory requirements to cause soaring health insurance premiums through the above process and ultimately a financial death spiral.

That financial death spiral would cause the costs of other provisions of Obamacare to soar, such as the subsidies for purchase of health insurance on the Exchanges, which would be even more costly than expected, and the costs for the Medicaid expansion, where more people would qualify given the decline of private insurance.

Indeed, Obamacare itself in its very statutory language recognized the essential role of the individual mandate in the statute’s overall framework, saying in Section 1501(a)(2)(I):

“[I]f there were no [individual mandate], many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care….The [individual mandate] is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions can be sold.”

As the court said in Alaska Airlines v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (1987), “Congress could not have intended a constitutionally flawed provision to be severed from the remainder of the statute if the balance of the legislation is incapable of functioning independently….” Moreover, the Court also recognized that in the absence of a statutory severance clause the entire statute must be struck down if Congress would not have enacted the statute without the unconstitutional provision.

Consequently, the loss of the individual mandate so centrally affects the entire structure of the Act that without it the entire structure must fall. Trying to determine what could be salvaged would embroil the Court in rewriting the statutory policy and framework to govern one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy, which is obviously not a judicial function.

The only other foreseeable outcome is for the liberals on the Court to agree to go along with a ruling declaring the mandate unconstitutional if the Court will just decide to hold back on deciding severability to give Congress the chance to figure out how it wants to fix it. But Congress could just pass a whole new law in any event if the Court just strikes down the whole thing, which based on its precedents is exactly what it should do.

But liberals should not despair. There is broad bipartisan agreement on alternative means of covering the uninsured with a health care safety net, which would not be expensive if done right, and addressing health costs through market competition and incentives, which altogether could well actually reduce federal spending sharply. The end result would be a much better bill that satisfies all desirable social goals. But that would still require a different President, because Obama’s anti-market, left wing, ideology would not allow him to accept that desirable result.

Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth! and at Ask Marion

To Google, Facebook, Twitter…. Or Not? - Perhaps Time to Assess Your Use and Membership? - Updated

Google

Many of you may have received the email below…

Dear Google user,

We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

One policy, one Google experience

Easy to work across Google

Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.

Tailored for you

If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster.

Easy to share and collaborate

When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.

Protecting your privacy hasn't changed

Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).

Understand how Google uses your data

If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow

Got questions?
We got answers.

Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.)

Notice of Change

March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information.

Many people are thinking of leaving Google and its tentacle services because this is just another consolidated grouping of information for Big Brother to monitor us and Google, like facebook, and others turn all their (your) information to the government.

Remaining with them or changing is something everyone should consider!

Here some really helpful links.  If you want to close your account, from what I read, they will delete everything… at least that is what they claim… guess we will see if they really do or if if you information ends up in digital space forever:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

The continuing onslaught against individual freedoms and the intrusion of government into our lives has inspired computer room like this one…

Additional Information:

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can't opt out

Global Search - Cuil!
http://www.cuil.pt/
Search
Is not powered by google, and not hosted in USA.
Every .com is.
http://www.cuil.pt/
Use Scroogle - very cool.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Read about it here:
www.scroogle.org
https://ixquick.com/
USE https://ixquick.com/ FOR PRIVACY
www.startpage.com
I've been using duckduckgo.com recently instead of Google and I like it.
www.duckduckgo.com
and their privacy policy[link to donttrack.us]
http://freenetproject.org/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288017

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But I work in a web agency and EVERY single one of the sites we produce uses google hosted code. Its mainly for analytic data for our customers. If you've ever seen google analytic data and understand that 100% of our sites (and I'm sure its almost 100% of any other agency's sites) use this code... that means the scope of this is so huge I can't think straight! Google can very easily track people's web usage through this analytic code.

It doesn't matter if you are on a google made site or not, if the use google hosted code then they know!

Heck even GLP uses it. If you know how to view source look at the bottom of this site.
https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/

Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html

Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday it is planning to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But, say consumer advocates, the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user, for instance, may not want Google to use your social network to alert estranged friends — or your boss — that you are around the corner at a bar.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in interviews that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that was encouraged by regulators.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Center for Digital Democracy. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass): “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad Federal Trade Commission investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online search to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman at the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

More on this story:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search

Google updates social-networking name policy

European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’

A couple of comments that I thought were interesting.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288156

Google has been doing this all along as does Apple, MS and so on. Limit or don't use their services in your first line of defense. If not possible then learn all you can about your device and take FULL control of it, flash it, root it, kernel secure it and spank those apps and daemons who are like little children leaking sensitive info about you to these data collectors without your knowledge.

Don't forget to learn to really disable gps, mic and your cam when necessary cause they are bugged. At this point you will be half way secure and well on your way to freedom. However there is a whole another world of hidden service, exploit and leak potentials within your device that are publically unspoken of and that you will need to discover over time.

Last piece of advice, learn to game the algorithm that is at all times trying to predict who you are and what your next move is.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29289587   (Did you know could block a website this way?)
I just went to my internet options and blocked www.google.com signed out of you tube and tried signing back in, got a notice, you have disabled your cookies please turn them back on..But it is not March 1, yet is it?

Facebook

Look at timing with Google’s announcement—perhaps time to flee them both!

Facebook Timeline Mandatory For All Users - With Just 7 Days To 'Clean Up'

Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.

The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.

From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.

As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.

Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'

'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.

'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'

Timeline has been criticized for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.

The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.

'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.

'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'

Mark Zuckerberg described timeline as letting you 'tell the whole story of your life on a single page'.

The redesigned pages have a more magazine-like photo-heavy feel, with a large 'cover photo' at the top of the page.

On the right of the page there will be a timeline that breaks down all posts from a person's time on Facebook and allows viewers to jump back to people's earliest posts with a break down month-by-month.

Some were puzzled by the abrupt roll-out of the change, which is one of the biggest changes to Facebook - all the more so when paired with the new Timeline apps, such as Spotify, which posts a continuous stream of all songs listened to to your Timeline.

A user listening to Spotify on a smartphone, for instance, will default to posting every song to their Timeline for all to see. As with all Timeline features, there are various opt-outs, but they can be fiddly to find and use.

Likewise, e-book readers such as Kobo and video services such as Netflix can post every book and film people consume to Timeline.

Many sites published guides to how to 'hide' controversial content. Twitter users had mixed reactions.

Reactions included, 'I don’t want a timeline on my facebook - why do you force me to have one?' and 'I hate Facebook timeline design with a vengeance. More frippery and less function. Why are they forcing it on us?'

Many were shocked by how rapidly timeline had become compulsory.

Tech site Mashable said, 'Facebook must know that putting a ticking clock in front of users is bound to make very few of them happy, yet here it is, stop watch in hand. Here’s my theory.'
'Timeline apps aren't very effective without it. Conducting most of your day-to-day activities, like watching movies, sharing content, reading news, eating out, and more — that’s new. None of this has quite the same impact without Timeline.'

So far, Facebook has announced a few dozen Timeline apps.

Many sites recommend vetting apps carefully to see what they will post, and creating lists of friends to 'share' certain updates with, rather than bombarding your whole friends list.
Tech site CNET warns, 'Once you install an app and authorize it to post stories on your profile and News Feed, it'll never ask for your permission again.'

'If you love to cook, you can add the Foodily app to your timeline and share your latest dishes. If your friends have added the Foodily app, you can discover new recipes with each other, as you'll see their updates in the ticker and their timeline, and possibly News Feed.'
Facebook says that more Timeline apps, covering more interests will launch soon.

'Our vision for Timeline and our vision for the application platform is whatever you love and whatever story you want to tell, you can add that to your Timeline,' said Carl Sjogreen, Facebook's product management director.

Facebook Timeline with Apps and Ticker:
'Our message to developers is 'start your engines',' said Sjogreen.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb0jJtmF

SIDEBAR

PROTECTING YOUR PROFILE FROM PRYING EYES - WHAT TO DO IN THE SEVEN DAYS FACEBOOK ALLOWS YOU

Once timeline is activated on your profile, you have seven days to 'clean up' - and you will probably want to.

Things from your past that may have been previously hidden deep within your photos or timeline can be much more visible.

If there is anything particularly you don’t want shown, such as your relationship status from five years ago - which will be public by default - you’re best to click on the right hand side to the year it occurred, such as 2006, find the post and choose to either delete or hide it.

It all has to be done manually.

You can now choose directly from the right-hand side of nearly every section on profile who sees what for individual sections (such as photos, posts, likes etc). When you click on the item, you can choose whether it is seen publicly, by friends or by a customized list.

If you enable any timeline apps, be sure to read their privacy policies thoroughly - many will not ask again before posting information to your profile. Spotify, for instance, will default to filling your timeline with what you listen to, unless you tell it not to.

Facebook now has the ‘View profile as’ feature on the main page, rather than in privacy settings. This lets you check how different people can see your profile so you can then customize it as you wish.

For those looking to DELETE their facebook accounts permanently not just deactivate remove the spaces and copy paste this into your browser

If your doing it too replace your existing facebook account make sure your change your email address and password to something else first so you can use your original email. Funny how they hide this form.... HAH found youuuu!

https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091735/Facebook-Timeline-mandatory-users--just-7-days-clean-up.html#ixzz1kb125TKI

· Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country

Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42:33 AM · by EnglishCon · 4 replies

BBC News ^ | 01/27/12 | BBC News

Twitter has announced that it now has the technology to selectively block tweets on a country by country basis. In its blog, Twitter said it could "reactively withhold content from users in a specific country". But it said the removed content would be available to the rest of the world. Previously when Twitter deleted a tweet, it would disappear worldwide. --- In its blog post, Twitter explained that its international growth meant entering countries "that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression", citing France or Germany which ban pro-Nazi content as examples.

Wicked Writ of the Midwest

Wicked indeed… It would seem the elitists in Houston County, Minnesota want to implement Agenda 21 and take away citizen’s property rights. Disparaging the Constitution and treating the local populace as if they were nothing more than serfs. The very arrogant face of Progressivism and evil without a doubt.

One of the strongest American freedoms we have is the right to own property. It is what makes us a free society and is the very cornerstone of liberty.

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Exercising their quintessential American rights, landowners in Houston County, Minnesota decided they had had enough five years ago and set out to reclaim their rights after the County Commissioners started making directives on how people could and could not use their own land. The fight continues today as threats, court proceedings, the stripping of Constitutional rights and lawyer’s fees fly frantically back and forth, egged on by Progressives in positions of power who are more interested in the environment and instituting Agenda 21 than they are in the rights of property owners. Cass Sunstein, is that you hiding behind the EPA again? Who’s a little Marxist?

Enter Houston County’s Commissioner who called the Constitution an ‘old document.’

“I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed,” stated Commissioner Tom Bjerke.

Well sir… If you think that the Constitution is outdated, perhaps you should take your viewpoint and move to a more ‘Progressive’ country in Europe, or perhaps Russia would be a better fit for you. I’m sure you would be much happier with like-thinking comrades. Don’t let the American door hit you in the behind on the way out.

The County Commissioners have told those citizens attending meetings to sit down and shut up. The local paper has told them that they have said enough and have quit taking letters to the editor longer than 500 words. But if you are on the side of the Progressives, well have your say! The media propaganda machine is in full swing skewing the truth as usual as I understand it.

From The Blaze:

In 2007, Houston County sued a young, newly married couple due to the new land use plan. The couple, who had just legally bought the home, was given four options to “settle the situation.” The couple was required to move their house fifty feet, purchase an additional 32 acres of land, sell their property to a neighbor, or tear their house down. Dealing with “impossible options,” the couple chose to appeal the ruling in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court refused to hear their case, thus leading them to sell their property. The couple is now renting the very house they once owned.

That’s ridiculous and just wrong. And they didn’t even get to have their day in court, which probably wouldn’t have mattered any way since the County and State have already decided that this couple had no rights, Constitutional or otherwise. What a farce. This makes me boiling mad. And this couple is not alone, there are over 50 landowners in the area facing similar situations. Ask yourself, what would you do?

The County Commissioners have ignored the petition requesting they resign – over 700 landowners signed that petition. For a small county in the southeast corner of the state, that is a huge number of petitioners. These Commissioners have ignored all efforts by the people to have their voices heard concerning their Constitutional rights as landowners. They are told at meetings, in no uncertain terms, not to bring up the Constitution.

But these patriots are not giving up:

A small group of landowners decided that it was time to educate others, and themselves. With easy-to-read handouts of the Declaration of independence, quotes of the Founding Fathers, and parts of the Constitution, the group spent their evenings going from door to door, talking to their fellow citizens and asking for support.

And the march to take back their freedom has brought them to the Minnesota Federal Court, where they will plead their case. Fighting oppressive regulations and the blatant violation of Constitutional rights, these patriots are also fighting the insidious label by the Progressives of restricting their property’s use for “the public good.” That is Progressive lingo indicating that they: a) don’t feel there is any such thing as private property, b) the Constitution is irrelevant and c) landowners are too stupid to know what is good for them. If they do not prevail in Federal Court, property rights will be gutted and zoning rights will be the standard. Mull that over for a second… It renders the Constitution meaningless – individuals will no longer have the right to say what they can and can’t do with their own property – bureaucrats will wield that power. How very Marxist.

From the Let Freedom Ring Blog:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. Houston County is essentially saying that they aren’t taking the property. They’re just telling private property owners that the county, not the landowner, will control the use of private property.

This is unacceptable. If Houston County wants to be the final arbiter of what land can be used for, then it should be required to purchase the land from the landowners at a fair market price. If Houston County isn’t willing to purchase the land for a fair market price, then it shouldn’t have decision-making rights, final or otherwise.

Essentially, Houston County wants everything for nothing. That sounds more like what happened in the former Soviet Union than in the United States.

I’m sure there are tons of legal documents being issued. This cannot stand. I’m beginning to see the scene from The Patriot where Benjamin Martin says to plead with the King and plead again if necessary. But pleading has been done on this over and over to no avail. Better yet, this is reminiscent of Andrew Jackson and his Manifest Destiny. The question is if the Federal Court rules against Constitutional rights, will we allow this wicked writ of the Midwest to stand? Or will it be time to take a stand that will shake this country to its very foundations?

I will leave it to each of you to search your souls and decide what side you are on. Remember the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution – remember what this country was founded upon. Here is the press release announcing the lawsuit:

The Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have endorsed new litigation to get government back in the hands of “We the People.” The Complaint, to be filed in the Minnesota Federal District Court, asserts that the Houston County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission, as well as Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan and Environmental Service Director Richard (Rick) Frank are violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the landowners in Houston County.

The case, which will be filed during the week of October 3, 2011, argues that the County, Scanlan and Frank have violated the private property rights, the rights of due process, the rights to freedom of speech and association, the right to petition for redress of grievance and the right to equal protection of the law to similarly situated landowners in the application of the County’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The case is being brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.

“We are not a litigious group,” said Robert Ideker, a Houston County landowner. “We have tried to work with the County; we have attended dozens of meetings and hearings; we have written dozens of letters, but no one will listen. This last year, we even tried to talk to the Commissioners individually to express our concerns about the protection of property rights, and some landowners were told that the Commissioners would not speak to them. These are our elected representatives; it boggles my mind that they won’t even hear what we have to say.”

“At some of the meetings, we are told not to talk about the Constitution and the protection it guarantees to U.S. citizens. We need to get government back in the hands of the people; we just want the use of our property, our land and buildings. As we have told the County numerous times, we are not against civil law, but if our property use is not harming our neighbors or the environment, we should be able to use our property. We aren’t disrespectful to the County, but they should listen to our side as well. We are disappointed that we have to resort to the federal court to get a fair hearing on our concerns.”

The disagreements with the County came to a head when concerned citizens who had been deprived of their property rights went to the county officials, only to be rebuffed for their concerns. The landowners, often referred to as Landowners Concerned About Property Rights, then drafted a resolution, which was signed by 700 of the County’s landowners, that urged the County Commissioners to recognize the protections for private property and property use. That petition was presented to the Commission in 2007. The Commissioners never responded.

The Concerned Landowners filed litigation in state court challenging the land use plan and zoning ordinance in 2010, but during the research and discovery in the case, many landowners learned that the issues between the County and its citizens were significantly deeper than the land use plan; those issues go to the heart of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. That is why the landowners are dismissing the state court case and endorsing the Federal District Court Civil Rights case. Dismissal of the state court case does not mean we agree with the County, it means we want to resolve all the claims at once and that can only be done in Federal Court.

“Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her U.S. citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including property rights, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination,” explained Ideker. “Specifically, section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act makes monetary and equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by a bureaucrat or official acting under State authority.

The Federal Civil Rights Act stands as one of the most powerful authorities under which federal courts may protect those whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are deprived. Section 1983 provides a way individuals can sue to stop past and prevent future violations of constitutionally protected rights. Section 1983 applies to both governmental employees as individuals and to state and local boards and commissions acting under state authority. It requires that the individuals or boards be responsible for the decisions they make, and not simply hide behind a claim that they are ‘following the law.’”

“It is disappointing that it has come to federal court litigation, but there is nowhere else to turn. We would still be open to talking to the County officials to try to come to a resolution,” said county land owner Tom Groeschner. “But we can’t really talk to them if they won’t listen to us. Don’t we have to put government back in the hands of ‘we the people?’”

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton  -  the NoisyRoom

Smackdown by Rand Paul

A Must Watch… Good Job Rand!

 

Video:  Smackdown  -  Please Watch First

Light bulbs and Fast Food… Are they connected?  Absolutely!!  It is all about Big Brother controlling every aspect of your life, and if Obama is re-elected, the next day the screws will be tightened!

Feds can't make up minds on mercury bulbs

Ban outdoor lights while mandating use indoors

In what critics call a classic case of the government working at cross purposes, Washington is forcing residents across the country to install mercury lighting inside their homes while phasing out mercury lighting outside homes to protect the environment.

Yes, you read that right.

In 2005, Congress passed a law banning mercury vapor streetlights – two years before it banned incandescent light bulbs in favor of mercury vapor compact florescent bulbs.

Under the Energy Policy Act, signed by President Bush in August 2005, manufacturers cannot make or import ballasts for mercury vapor lights after Jan. 1, 2008. According to the act, mercury vapor security lights are being phased out to "protect the environment" and to "promote energy efficiency" in lighting.

Mike Huckabee spells out 12 essential truths about government every open-minded American should agree upon in "A Simple Government,"

Utility companies across the country have been replacing mercury vapor street lamps with high-pressure sodium fixtures or metal halide fixtures, which are twice as efficient as mercury vapor and possibly safer. The EPA classifies mercury as a hazardous material.

Yet the federal government is pushing consumers to replace traditional incandescent bulbs used in their homes with compact fluorescents containing toxic mercury vapor.

A former Energy Department official says there's a regulatory "disconnect" regarding mercury lighting.

"We're removing mercury from outside the home while adding it inside," he said. "It makes no sense."

In 2007 – two years after enacting the ban on outdoor mercury lighting – Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, also signed by Bush. It mandated the use of compact florescent lighting in U.S. homes by making incandescent bulbs a controlled substance and outlawing the 100-watt bulb by 2012, and all other wattages by 2014.

Sponsors of the law argue that it will save energy. According to the Energy Department, however, lighting accounts for only 11.6 percent of the electricity costs in the average American home. So savings will be minor. And critics point out that CFLs are more expensive than traditional bulbs.

California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs. CFL shipments nationwide reached 400 million last year, according to Megan McKoy-Noe of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Right now CFLs account for roughly 30 percent of the lighting market.

The EPA warns that the amount of mercury in one bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. The agency provides elaborate instructions on its website for cleaning up broken CFL bulbs on hard surfaces and carpets. It also recommends disposing of unbroken old CFL bulbs at special recycling centers.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, a Republican running for the White House, has introduced a bill demanding that government first guarantee "there are no public health risks from the mercury in replacement bulbs at home or in any public building."

House Republicans earlier this month failed to overturn the ban on incandescent bulbs, but passed a bill that would bar the Energy Department from spending money next year to enforce the ban.

Texas recently enacted legislation seeking to get around the federal law by declaring that incandescent bulbs – if made and sold in Texas – do not involve interstate commerce and, therefore, are not subject to federal regulation.

EPA has published detailed recommendations for "what to do if a CFL bulb breaks in your home."

The agency recommends numerous steps to "reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb," including:

Before Cleanup:

• Have people and pets leave the room, and avoid the breakage area on the way out.
• Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5-10 minutes.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning (H&AC) system, if you have one.
• Collect materials you will need to clean up the broken bulb:
• Stiff paper or cardboard.
• Sticky tape (e.g., duct tape).
• Damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces).
• Glass jar with a metal lid (such as a canning jar) or a sealable plastic bag(s).

Cleanup Steps for Hard Surfaces:

• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag.
  (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Vacuuming of hard surfaces during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.

  [NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.]

If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:

• Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;
• Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available; and
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materialsusedtoclean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.
• Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.
• Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.
• Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.

Cleanup Steps for Carpeting or Rugs:

• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag.
  (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Vacuuming of carpeting or rugs during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.
  [NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.]

If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:

• Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;
• Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available, and
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materials used to clean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.
• Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.
• Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.
• Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.

Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rugs: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming:

• The next several times you vacuum the rug or carpet, shut off the H&AC system if you have one, close the doors to other rooms, and open a window or door to the outside before vacuuming. Change the vacuum bag after each use in this area.
• After vacuuming is completed, keep the H&AC system shut off and the window or door to the outside open, as practical, for several hours.

Actions You Can Take to Prevent Broken Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:

• Fluorescent bulbs are made of glass and can break if dropped or roughly handled. To avoid breaking a bulb, follow these general practices:
• Always switch off and allow a working CFL bulb to cool before handling.
• Always handle CFL bulbs carefully to avoid breakage.
• If possible, screw/unscrew the CFL by holding the plastic or ceramic base, not the glass tubing. <
• Gently screw in the CFL until snug. Do not over-tighten.
• Never forcefully twist the glass tubing.
• Consider not using CFLs in lamps that can be easily knocked over, in unprotected light fixtures, or in lamps that are incompatible with the spiral or folded shape of many CFLs.
• Do not use CFL bulbs in locations where they can easily be broken, such as play spaces.
• Use CFL bulbs that have a glass or plastic cover over the spiral or folded glass tube, if available. These types of bulbs look more like incandescent bulbs and may be more durable if dropped.
• Consider using a drop cloth (e.g., plastic sheet or beach towel) when changing a fluorescent light bulb in case a breakage should occur.
• The drop cloth will help prevent mercury contamination of nearby surfaces and can be bundled with the bulb debris for disposal.

Source: Feds can't make up minds on mercury bulbs

More Fruit, Fewer Fries: Michelle Obama Might Have Taken the ‘Happy’ Out of McDonald’s Happy Meals

A child could once feel excitement over hearing a parent utter those beautiful words: “honey, we‘re going to McDonald’s for a Happy Meal.” But those carefree days are over and that sense of childhood wonderment and abandon is about to be seriously curbed by a new McDonald’s policy that cuts an order of fries in half, throws apple slices, raisins and pineapple chunks around as if they were ketchup, and just generally makes Happy Meals “healthier,” and, less happy. And even though the apples are reportedly not well-received by customers, guess what? McDonald’s is forcing the fruit in its Happy Meals anyway. Whether you want it or not.

And what’s more, politics, perhaps even the White House itself, could be to blame.

The changes reportedly come on the heels of an outright Happy Meal toy ban in San Francisco and threats that other cities and counties will follow suit. The toys, allege legislators, are McDonald’s way of luring children to indulge in the unhealthy treat. Yes, health advocates, who‘ve long seen fast food as the bane of the nation’s existence, have gotten their way yet again.

So after all the years of satisfied customers “lovin’ it,” it is political pressure, including First Lady Michelle Obama’s war on childhood obesity, that reportedly forced McDonald’s hands. CNN reports that Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University, said McDonald’s had to change its menu because of political and community “pressures”:

“I see this as a positive development,” he said. “The companies have recognized the pressures from the public, the community and parents to offer healthier choices for children. They’ve begun to respond. There have been criticisms of what they serve children for many years. In the past years, the pressure has intensified, the White House concern about childhood obesity is one source of that pressure.”

And not skipping a beat, the First Lady has already commended McDonald’s for making “progress today by providing more fruit and reducing the calories in its Happy Meals. I’ve always said that everyone has a role to play in making America healthier, and these are positive steps toward the goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity.”

According to reports, the fast food giant will offer apple slices, half-portions of french fries and the beverages of choice will now include 1% milk and fat-free chocolate milk.

Ironically, since introduced, the apple slices are apparently not even popular in the Happy Meals with only 11 percent of customers — be them children or adults — opting for the fruit. Regardless, McDonald’s is making the fruit a default item in the Happy Meal.

So whether you want apples or not, you are going to get them.

Worse still:

“McDonald’s has been engaging suppliers, government and non-government organizations to determine ways it could play a role in helping society address today’s obesity concerns,” the company’s press release said.

Engaging government and non-government organizations? We are still talking about a burger-joint, whose mascot is a red-nosed clown, right?

Still, whether driven by PR or genuine concern for children’s welfare, McDonald’s is seemingly gun ho for the healthy changes, promising to launch even more menu revisions including additional fruit and vegetable options over…the next ten years? CNN writes:

The fast food giant also pledged to reduce sodium 15% across the board in its menu by 2015. It recently reduced sodium by 10% in most of its chicken offerings, including the Chicken McNuggets.

McDonald’s also vowed to reduce added sugars, saturated fat and calories through varied portion sizes, reformulations and innovations by 2020.

“Reformulations” and “innovations” are perhaps not words one likes to associate with appealing, tasty foods.

But in the end, kids can rest assured, sort of — in an effort to prevent children from getting too confused when being presented with the almost unrecognizable Happy Meals, McDonald’s claims the staple burger or McNugget of choice will essentially remain the same.

You can watch a local news report explaining the healthier Happy Meals below:

Video: McDonalds Making Changes to Happy Meals

McDonald’s: another casualty in the Nanny State’s war on personal choice, or is the fast food giant bringing this on themselves? Will the new, and perhaps not improved, McDonald’s menu affect your decision to patronize the long-time burger institution?

Remember when? Take a walk down Happy Meal memory lane:

Video: Remember when? Take a walk down Happy Meal memory lane

Source: The Blaze - Cross-Posted at True Health is True Wealth by Ask Marion

Best suggestion I’ve heard all day… put a picture of Meeechelle-O in each Happy Meal & that'll cure childhood obesity almost immediately... If it doesn’t stop the kids from eating, it will stop the parents from buying them!!

Comments:

POLITICALJUNKIE09

Posted on July 26, 2011 at 11:58pm

Thank you, Michelle Obama. We are too stupid to count calories ourselves, thank GOD we have you!!!

RATIONAL MAN

Posted on July 27, 2011 at 12:34am

Now we will have to super size and order on the side.
Just like everything else the Obamas want, it costs us more money!
The morons probably don’t realize we can super size.
And don’t realize that we know that we had that choice before the White House porker got involved…………

IN THE RIGHT

Posted on July 26, 2011 at 11:54pm

Gee, our First “Lady” (a tranny) can eat French fries with gravy while in Africa on OUR dime yet she and her husband the Communist think they can dictate what retailer can serve and the taxpaying public can eat?

I guess fast food restaurants better stock up on coconuts, bananas, okra, and watermelons if this silly legislation goes into affect

*Nobody is arguing that obesity or childhood obesity isn’t a problem, but telling parents and people who are just barely making ends meet what they can do and buy for themselves and their kids is over the line! Wake-up America.

Check out Judge Andrew Napolitano’s books:

A Nation of Sheep and The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land