Don't take vitamin D, calcium

A government advisory panel's recommendation Tuesday that healthy postmenopausal women should not take daily low doses of vitamin D and calcium to prevent bone fractures is a wakeup call to millions of Baby Boomer women that more is not always better.

• 
  By Leslie Smith Jr., USA TODAY
  A government advisory panel has issued recommendations on calcium and Vitamin D.

Enlarge

By Leslie Smith Jr., USA TODAY

A government advisory panel has issued recommendations on calcium and Vitamin D.

Sponsored Links

The panel said there is insufficient evidence to evaluate larger doses, easy to overdo with chewy chocolate supplements that can seem like candy.

In its draft recommendations, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also said existing research is insufficient to assess the risks or benefits of taking vitamin D — with or without calcium — to prevent cancer in adults.

• MORE: To supplement or not to supplement

Some studies link higher levels of vitamin D with lower rates of colorectal cancer and reduced risks for other cancers, including breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer. These reports are mixed and therefore inconclusive, the advisory panel said.

This is the same panel that grabbed headlines recently by recommending against PSA (prostate-specific antigen) tests to screen for prostate cancer in healthy men and told women ages 50 to 74 to have a mammogram every other year, instead of annually.

This latest report adds to many conflicting messages about the benefits and risks of vitamin D and calcium supplements.

For years, experts have been touting the health benefits of these nutrients. Both calcium and vitamin D are key nutrients for bone health.

The Institute of Medicine, which provides independent advice on health, recommends that people daily get 600-800 IUs (international units) of vitamin D and 700-1,300 milligrams of calcium, depending on their age.

Many foods, such as milk and yogurt products, are rich in calcium and fortified with vitamin D. Sunlight triggers the production of vitamin D in skin and is a major source of the vitamin for many people.

The task force's draft recommendation looked at doses up to 400 IUs (international units) of vitamin D and 1,000 milligrams of calcium for fracture prevention, and recommended against taking them, saying the nutrients slightly increase the risk for kidney stones. The authors add that there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about taking larger doses to prevent fractures.

Fractures are a significant health problem, the task force says; every year approximately 1.5 million fractures occur in the U.S. Nearly half of all women older than 50 will have an osteoporosis-related fracture during their lifetime.

"The science is still out for pre-menopausal women and men," with regard to low-dose supplements and fractures, says Timothy Wilt, the lead author on the panel report. "Many people take the supplements, but the science was insufficient to make recommendations for everyone."

Some health experts don't agree with the task force recommendation and say women should weigh options with their physicians based on their own ethnicity, diet and sun exposure, a major source of vitamin D.

The studies analyzed by the government panel have important limitations, says Jen Sacheck, an assistant professor and researcher in the antioxidants research laboratory at Tufts University in Boston. The research largely involved white people and no accommodation was made for how nutritional needs may vary by where a person lives, she says.

"It's a more complex picture than they're painting," she says. "If you live in New Englandthere are many months of the year when you're not getting adequate amounts of vitamin D from the sun. I check blood levels of young and older people and find them to be low in New England."

If you're Hispanic, Asian or black, says Sacheck, or are lactose intolerant, you might not get enough calcium from dairy products. She says being overweight or obese also can also compromise the levels of the nutrients.

Taylor Wallace, senior director of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group that represents supplement makers, says research shows that supplementation with calcium and vitamin D is beneficial for bone health, particularly in post-menopausal women and the elderly. "You want try to your best to get your calcium and vitamin D from food, but most Americans do not, so when there is a gap, they can fill that gap with supplements."

He points out that last month this same government task force said supplementation with vitamin D was beneficial in preventing incidences of falls among adults ages 65 and older. "Since falls commonly result in fractures, it's common sense for the elderly to consider supplementing with vitamin D and calcium."

About 22% of U.S. adults report taking calcium supplements and 22% reporting using vitamin D supplements, the industry group says.

Most calcium supplements also contain vitamin D because the two nutrients work together, Wallace says. "Vitamin D helps pull calcium into the bones."

"We recommend consumers read the labels," on supplements, he adds. "More is not always better, including for the tasty stuff like the soft chews where people might be tempted to eat a bit more."

Suzanne Steinbaum, director of women and heart disease at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and an American Heart Association spokeswoman, says the recommendation "changes everything. There seems to be no place for calcium for preventing cancer and fractures.

"To tell people, 'Take calcium and vitamin D to prevent fractures as you get older,' that's not panning out anymore," she says. "Even if you are at risk for a fracture, maybe you have to try other lifestyle changes, like diet and weight-bearing exercise."

Clifford Rosen, a spokesman for the Society of Bone and Mineral Research, notes that the task force discounts a finding from the Women's Health Initiative, a study of 36,282 healthy postmenopausal women, that supplements offer a 10%-11% reduced risk of fractures.

"I think the government panel's report is a little confusing," Rosen says.

JoAnn Manson, one of the Women's Health Initiative investigators, says in addition to reporting the lower fracture rate, the initiative found "bone density improved among postmenopausal women taking supplements."

Recent research has linked calcium supplements to increased risk of heart attacks, Manson says; she adds that it is best to get calcium from the diet, but some may want to add a low-dose supplement to reach recommended levels.

"The key point about calcium is that more is not better," says Manson, chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

The National Cancer Institute is funding a 20,000-person study to find whether taking a daily dietary supplement of 2,000 IU of vitamin D or one gram of omega 3 fatty acids reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. Manson is directing the study and recruiting men and women for it through this year.

"The science is still out on cancer prevention," says Wilt.

Steinbaum acknowledges that consumers may feel confused and frustrated by changing recommendations. She hopes that people won't give up and feel there's nothing they can do to improve their health. The two old standbys — "eating better and exercising" — still have the greatest impact, she says.

Home Front Officer: Missile attack would force massive evacuation of Tel Aviv

Col. Adam Zusman, Home Front Commander of Israel’s Dan region (Tel Aviv and its environs), told AFP Tuesday, June 12, "In case of a missile attack on the centre of Israel, especially unconventional attacks and if buildings are destroyed, the population from Tel Aviv and other cities will be evacuated and relocated in other areas of the country."
The officer did not say to where the roughly two million inhabitants of the Dan region’s core towns of Tel Aviv, Bat Yam, Holon, Petakh Tikva, Ramat Hasharon, Ramat Gan, Givatayim, Bein Brak, Herzliya, Or Yehuda, Givat Shmuel and Kiryat Ono, would be evacuated. DEBKAfile’s military sources estimate they will be relocated in the southern mostly desert Negev region. The outer Gush Dan ring includes some 3 million people.

Col. Zusman said Israel continued to face serious threats from Iran and its allies, the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah and Gaza's Hamas rulers. He did not refer to Syria.
"In the next war, nobody will be able to drink a coffee in Dizengoff," he said, referring to a popular street in downtown Tel Aviv. "Israeli civilians will have to face the threat. Today, every civilian is threatened in Israel."

Thirty percent of the Israeli population under his command are short of gas masks.

Zusman added Israel has some of the "most sophisticated" anti-aircraft system in the world, but that the Jewish state could not count on any system for total protection. "We are getting ready for the worst-case scenario."
Until now, Israeli officials and high-ranking officers have never talked openly about the potential outcome of a concentrated missile attack on central Israel, although two days ago, the deputy chief of staff, Maj. General Yair Naveh disclosed that Syria had the biggest arsenal in the world of chemical weapons and also rockets able to strike every part of Israel.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that plans were drawn up to evacuate Tel Aviv and some of its outlying towns two years ago when it turned out that in a potential war, that centralregion might be attacked with missiles carrying “dirty” (radioactive) warheads which spreads contamination across an area of several square kilometers, or containing poison chemicals, nerve gas or biological substances.
While Iran is the only possible source of nuclear bombs, although none are yet operational, the other types of unconventional weapons are possessed by Iran, Syria and Hizballah.
Israel’s Defense Forces area also prepared for a nuclear or dirty bomb attack coming from the Mediterranean Sea to the West.

Col. Zusman did not go into the logistics of a massive population transfer from Tel Aviv or the measures to sustain them as refugees. However, because of the awareness of Tel Aviv’s potential danger, building was halted there on a new underground facility for the IDF General Command, which unlike the present war room was planned to withstand intense missile attack. Our military sources report that an alternative site has been reserved to house the high command in the event of war.  

OH NO YOU DIDN'T: MOSSAD AGENTS CLAIM OBAMA LYING ABOUT STUXNET

Israeli officials who were placed at risk by the Obama administration's leaks about the Stuxnet virus are disputing American claims that the cyber-weapon was jointly developed by the U.S. and Israel. Rather, they say, Israeli intelligence first started developing cyberspace warfare against Iran, only convincing the U.S.--with some difficulty--to join in. The Israelis allege that President Barack Obama claimed credit for Stuxnet to boost his re-election campaign.

The source for the new claim is Yossi Melman, a journalist for Israel's left-wingHa'aretz daily (via Israel Matzav):

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy...

Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”

The Obama administration's pattern of leaks to mainstream media outlets--of which the Stuxnet virus is only one example--prompted bipartisan outrage from Congress and the appointment of two special prosecutors. While the leaks jeopardized U.S. national security--allegedly for the political purpose of burnishing President Obama's image as commander-in-chief--they may also have been exaggerated, if the new reports from Israel are accurate.

Galaxy S III changes pin layout, incompatible with previous MHL adapters

If you've pre-ordered a Galaxy S III and can't wait to see its display mirrored to the silver screen, add one more thing to that pre-launch shopping list: a new MHL dongle. According to UK retailer Clove, a change in the phone's connector pins renders it incompatible with previous Samsung-made adapters. Sammy's new microUSB-powered connector supports 1080p output via HDMI -- though it reportedly doesn't play nicely with 720p displays -- and rings up at $40 on Amazon. Mosey past the break for a video unboxing of the dongle.
Continue reading Galaxy S III changes pin layout, incompatible with previous MHL adapters

Galaxy S III changes pin layout, incompatible with previous MHL adapters originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:46:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink The Verge  |  Clove  | Email this | Comments

Can Israel defy the World?

Talk is cheap. The right accuses the left of pursuing a fantasy, namely, that peace is possible. At the same time it suffers from what others consider, a fantasy of its own, namely, that Israel can defy the World. While many on the right believe it is no fantasy and can be done, they represent a minority of Israelis only. You can count the instances where Israeli prime ministers defied the US on the fingers of one hand. Ben Gurion’s declaration of Statehood is one such example as was his refusal to withdraw in the ‘48 war to the Partition line. He insisted instead on the Armistice lines. In part for his intransigence, he was punished with the creation of UNRWA. Eshkol’s decision to pre-empt the Six Day War and Begin’s courageous decisions to bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, and to push on to Beirut in the first Lebanese War, were perhaps, others. Begin, uncharacteristically gave up every inch of the Sinai, after much pressure and prodding. He even came to the conclusion that doing it was a good thing. The most important reason was that, Egypt, then Israel’s biggest Arab enemy, was prepared to break the Arab rejectionist front by making peace with Israel. This was considered a very big deal at the time. Shamir was forced to participate in the Madrid Conference in 1991 and to negotiate indirectly with the PLO. He was also forced to put Jerusalem on the table. He may have given in as he desperately needed a US loan guarantee on a $10 billion line of credit in order to finance the aliya of close to one million Jews, or nearly Jews, from Russia. There may have been pressures applied to him as well, as he was dealing with James Baker who had no love for Jews. It was due to the pressure and threats that he and therefore Israel was subject to, that Rabin, when he became Prime Minister, opted to by-pass the pressure and to secretly negotiate a deal directly with Arafat, the head of the PLO. What resulted was the Declaration of Principles in 1993 and the Interim Agreement in 1995, together known as the Oslo Accords. These agreements were favourable to Israel as US was not in a position to support the Palestinian position. That is not to say that it wasn’t a huge mistake to invite Arafat back into Judea and Samaria. It was. After Rabin’s assassination, Benjamin Netanyahu, in 1996, narrowly defeated Shimon Peres for the job of Prime Minister. He based his campaign on his rejection of the Oslo Accords or on his demand for reciprocity before Israel acts on them. Within two years he betrayed his long standing positions and signed the Wye Agreement in which he turned over to the PA, control 40% of the territories as required by Oslo without demanding reciprocity. Douglas Feith wrote on Wye and the Road to War, in Commentary which explains the significance of the agreement. It was a known fact that Pres Clinton had promised to release Jonathan Pollard but I doubt that this was why Netanyahu signed the agreement. He may have thought he had no choice but to continue the Oslo process even in the face of Arafat’s non-compliance. In any event, it contributed to his defeat at the hands of Ehud Barak in the elections one year later. Because of a wave of devastating suicide bombings, Barak resigned in 2001 and Ariel Sharon, the noted war hero, replaced him as Prime Minister. For all his toughness and his defense of the settlement enterprise, expectations were that he would not succumb to pressure. His first task was to put an end to the killings and accordingly he announced: “All of our efforts to attain a cease-fire have been torpedoed by the Palestinians. The fire did not cease, even for one day. The Cabinet has therefore instructed our security forces to take all necessary measures to bring full security to the citizens of Israel. We can rely only on ourselves. [The following sentence, significantly, was said in Hebrew only] And from this day forward, we will rely only on ourselves.” But the thrust of Sharon’s remarks [here translated from Hebrew] were directed westward: “We are currently in the midst of a complex and difficult diplomatic campaign. I turn to the western democracies, first and foremost the leader of the free world, the United States. Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of a temporary, convenient solution. Don’t try to appease the Arabs at our expense. We will not accept this. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. “ Some in Israel though Sharon’s remarks were over the top, but I for one, and I was not alone, was thrilled to read them. Reuven Koret wrote about the statement and what may have caused it: “Israeli officials were uncharacteristically reticent to comment on Sharon’s remarks. Army Radio reported in the morning that they were unable to extract any quote from any government minister with whom they spoke. “Part of the reason for the barely-veiled hostility the Prime Minister expressed with regard to the United States is evidently a less than understanding response of the Bush Administration to his request to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah to the “A-list” of terror groups, especially after each of the groups launched attacks on Israel in recent days, with little or no action by the Palestinian Authority. “Another explanation is believed to be the new Middle East “initiative” reportedly being introduced by the Bush Administration to gain support from reluctant Arab would-be coalition partners [for the invasion of Iraq.] “The U.S. initiative reportedly calls for an independent Palestinian state, division of Jerusalem (Jewish areas to Israel and Arab areas to Palestine, including the Temple Mount), and the halt of all Israeli construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” Sharon never once reiterated these sentiments and a year and a half later grudgingly was forced to accept this American initiative, then called the Roadmap. He did so with 14 reservations which were never heard from again even though the US agreed to “seriously consider them”. This Roadmap, by including the Saudi Plan, drastically changed the terms of the Oslo Accords and put Israel into a strait-jacket. Oslo had made no mention of Res 194 which is the basis for the “right of return”, nor did it put a limitation on Israeli settlement construction. Thus the US was back in the game. The US forced Israel to agree because that was the price Saudi Arabia was demanding in exchange for her agreeing to the invasion of Iraq by the US. Once again, as with Rabin, the pressure that Sharon was subject to resulted in him proposing to unilaterally disengage from Gaza on his terms. Such a proposal stood in the face of everything Sharon had stood for. To make the disengagement more palatable to Israelis, he negotiated with the George Bush administration for a letter which ostensibly allowed Israel the right to keep the settlement blocks and to reject the so-called right of return. (Pres Obama made short shrift of that letter declaring the US not bound by it.) Sharon originally intended to remain in control of the border between Gaza and Egypt in order to prevent smuggling. Condi Rice forced Sharon to accept the Rafah Agreement which provided for the monitoring to be done by the EU with Israel video access, albeit a day later. In time, the EU abandoned its post leaving no monitors in place. We all know with what results. Similarly Rice spearheaded the formulation of UN Res 1701 to end the second Lebanon war in 2006 at the request of PM Livni. That too proved worthless. Thank you Condi. In fact, every time Israel went to war she was on a very tight leash. The UNSC always passed a Chapter VII cease fire resolution sooner or later depending on the US position and Israel never violated such resolutions except perhaps for a few hours. This was so even when it was in Israel’s best interest to finish the job. In 2009 Netanyahu once again became Prime Minister. Within a few months of taking office, he gave a speech at BESA in which he accepted the two-state solution contrary to the Likud platform and his own previous pronouncements. In the fall of that year he announced a ten month settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria seemingly as a gesture. No reason was given. No reciprocity demanded. Netanyahu proudly made the point that it didn’t apply to Jerusalem. Nevertheless for all intents and purposes he imposed a de-facto freeze, when the freeze expired, which applied to both the territories and Jerusalem. He merely allows the odd building project to go ahead in order to pacify his right wing. How can anyone have any confidence in his declarations that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. Don’t ever underestimate the ruthless pressure Israel is subjected to. Last September, MK Aryeh Eldad said he had reliable information that Obama put a “gun” to Bibi’s head to prevent Israel from annexing Area C in response to the unilateral move by the PA for recognition at the UN. The “gun” was Obama’s threat not to veto the UNSC resolution recognizing Palestine. When Netanyahu was invited to form the government based on the support he received from Parties on the right he began immediately to water down the influence of the right by forming a coalition with Labor headed by Barak. He also appointed establishment lawyer Yehuda Weinstein as Attorney General. In this position he is the legal advisor to the Government and is responsible for protecting the rule of law. Prior to the elections he also engineered that Moshe Feiglin would be low on the list so as to exclude him from the Knesset and he inviting Dan Meridor to join Likud. Meridor was subsequently given a senior cabinet post. And now he has added Kadima to the coalition. He is no longer threatened by the right as he was first time around. With Kadima, Labor and Likud in the coalition, he can comfortably rule from the centre. A series of laws have been proposed by his colleagues on the right in order to make Israel more democratic and to handcuff the radical NGO’s supported by the EU and the NIF. In almost all cases he has opposed the legislation either because he didn’t want to alienate the left or because he didn’t want to alienate the EU. Besides that he has followed the dictate of the international community not to do anything that would imperil the two-state solution. Obviously the freeze and the opposition to the legislation is part of that but something else is going on. In the last three years the EU has encouraged and financed the Palestinian’s efforts to take over“Area C” by planting or building. According to Regavim this program has resulted in the loss of thousands of acres and the rate of loss is growing exponentially. Not only is Netanyahu’s government not doing anything to stop them but it is aiding and abetting them. A recent example of that is Barak’s decision to uproot olive treesplanted by Jews while permitting the Arabs to plant. The Arabs acquire title to the lands by doing so. The GOI required the Jews to waive their right to acquire title by planting which they did.. They said their sole purpose was and is, to stop the Arabs from acquiring title. Still Barak wants to uproot the trees which the Jews have planted. Another example is the government’s policy to demolish homes built by Jews on “private Palestinian land”, though no one is claiming ownership to such lands and though well accepted law in the west and even in Israel, allows for compensation when the homes have been built in good faith. The government policy is to direct the Court to issue demolition orders rather than to allow the residents the right to argue they built them in good faith. Furthermore Netanyahu has opposed recent bills that would legalize houses built on “private Palestinian Land”. He threatened to fire any Minister that voted in favour of the bills resulting in their defeat. He didn’t even wait for the report of the Levy Commissionappointed by him to recommend solutions. My guess is that Netanyahu was aware that the report would support the settlers. Pres. Obama has taken position that a solution to the conflict can only be arrived at through direct negotiations. He uttered such a position to prevent the PA from circumventing negotiations by going to the UNGA or to the UNSC for recognition. He also uttered this position recently when Barak threatened to unilaterally withdraw. But the problem with negotiations is that the UN, US and EU meddle in them on the side of the PA. And now the PA, with the support of the EU and US, is putting facts on the ground which essentially pre-determine the outcome. At the same time they prevent Israel from putting facts on the ground. Inherent in the idea that one can negotiate, is the right to say “no”, to not offer what one doesn’t want to offer or to reject what one wishes not to accept. Thus negotiations, whether to buy a house of arrive at a peace agreement, don’t necessarily result in a deal. So negotiations are not the answer and Obama knows it. Putting facts on the ground is. Israel must find the resolve to end the peace process and take the heat. Otherwise she is doomed to subservience. She must put the right’s “fantasy” to the test. Ted Belman  Most recent columns Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and Editor of Israpundit.com.  He made aliyah from Canada in 2009 and now lives in Jerusalem. Ted can be reached at:[email]tedbel@rogers.com[/email]

NY Times: Obama Colluded with Drug Companies to Keep Prices High

A new trove of emails shows President Barack Obama’s White House agreed to help drug companies block a proposal to bring down medicine prices so they would back Obama’s healthcare plan. 

House Republicans obtained the three-year-old correspondence between the Obama administration and representatives of the drug industry and released more of them to the public on Friday, The New York Times reported. 

The exchanges show the compromises as they were being negotiated that laid the groundwork for the health care law now awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Times reported that in 2009 drug industry lobbyist — concerned after weeks of talks about  a proposal for the reimportation of prescription medicines at lower prices — e-mailed White House health care adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle about the matter.  

DeParle assured the lobbyist, according to the Times, saying that athough Obama was overseas, he and top officials had “made decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation” on a different proposal.

In the end,  the drug industry agreed to provide $80 billion to expand health coverage in exchange for protection from policies that would cost more, the Times reported.

The e-mails also reveal discussions about an advertising campaign to support Obama’s health plan. “They plan to hit up the ‘bad guys’ for most of the $,” a union official wrote after an April meeting, according to the Times. “They want us to just put in enough to be able to put our names in it — he is thinking @100K.” 

In another email reported by the paper, a drug industry official urged colleagues to sign a joint statement with the White House: “Rahm is already furious. The ire will be turned on us,” it said, referring to former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
  
The emails drew fire from Republicans who see the closed-door dealing as hypocritical. 

“He said it was going to be the most open and honest and transparent administration ever and lobbyists won’t be drafting the bills,” Rep. Michael Burgess, of Texas, told the Times. 

“Then when it came time, the door closed, the lobbyists came in and the bills were written.”

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: NY Times: Obama Colluded with Drug Companies to Keep Prices High
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

See No Evil, Speak No Truth, And Us

I freely admit to being rigid and borderline inflexible pursuant to my low opinion of those elected or appointed to political office. But even using that as a high bar of contempt, Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Janet Napolitano fail to come even close to exceeding it.

The overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea how incestuously corrupt and self-serving politicians can be, and that the majority of those in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, in fact, are. Specific to that point, Fast and Furious, the illegal international gun-smuggling operation, is a case study into the depth of corruption and intrigue within the four highest offices in our land. It is a case study of the depths the highest elected individual and the highest politicalappointees in government will sink to in order to undermine the Constitution of the United States.

I pause here to encourage everyone to read Katie Pavlich’s blood-curdling book: “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal And Its Shameless Cover-up.” It pulls back the curtain on the culture of corruption that exists in our government today. And it lays bare the actors involved, with documented detail after documented detail. But this isn’t a treatise about Pavlich’s book, it’s an indictment of the feckless, craven, and/or the blind ideologues who refuse to take the necessary steps to punish those involved.

A couple questions: why did the highest member of Congress, Speaker of the House John Boehner, work behind the scenes to stall and sabotage the investigations into Eric Holder‘s part in Fast and Furious? Was he working on behalf of Obama? or was he secretly trying to cut a deal with members of the committee investigating Holder? Why do Republicans appear as unwilling to uphold the law as Jehmu Greene is to extricate “white boy” from her lexicon? Why does Mitt Romney have to be encouraged to make the lies, subterfuge, murder, blackmail, perjury, ad nauseum of Fast and Furious part of his campaign language? How can Romney claim that his administration would be different than what is in place now, if he must be coaxed to condemn the transpicuous corruption of Fast and Furious? And last, why are even those who freely admit there has been and still is unparalleled law-breaking conjunctive with Fast and Furious–hesitant to condemn Boehner and Republican leadership for their lack of commitment to justice?


The answers to those questions can be summed up by understanding that which is an anathema to me, i.e., people view those in elected office as superior to ourselves. The person elected to office may have been a bagger at the downtown Piggly Wiggly on Tuesday, but the moment they take office on Wednesday they are somehow deemed to be erudite and Wellingtonesque. We elect people to office to represent our concerns. We pay their salaries and turn a blind eye to the benefits they enjoy at our expense. We elect them to office and they immediately lord over us with an air of superiority. Even when it is glaringly apparent that they are reluctant or that they refuse to do that which is proper, the party ideologues are loathe to condemn them, and the citizenry wrings their hands and laments being helpless.

Having us believe that we are helpless is a trick of the elected and of party hierarchy that is intended to diminish our resolve and keep us obedient to their instructions. But the elected and the ideologues who do their every bidding don’t want us to realize that.

If Fast and Furious is pursued to the limit of the laws that were broken, and are being broken, in the coverup–there is a legitimate likelihood we will see a sitting President, an Attorney General, a Secretary of State, the Director of Homeland Security and perhaps a dozen or more other bureaucrats indicted and receive prison sentences. But the mainstream media and news outlets are incalcitrant and indifferent to the welfare of the nation and will of the people.

Ergo, we cannot look to the media, ideologues, or the elected themselves to uphold the Constitution or to do that which is in the best interest of We The People. We must take it upon ourselves. It is important to note that no politician will give us the time of day unless it is of personal benefit to them–but they have all the time in the world for Fox News or one of the alphabet cable networks.

It wasn’t Fox News or the mainstream media outlets that broke the news of Fast and Furious–it was a ragtag collection of bloggers and whistleblowers at CleanUpATF.org who broke the story. Just as it was internet bloggers that exposed the fraudulent documents Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were attempting to smear President Bush with concerning his National Guard service.

In the case of Dan Rather, within hours of his 60 Minutes broadcast, those posting at Free Republic and various blogs were questioning the authenticity of the documents.

We cannot trust the majority of the politicians in office at this time nor can we, in truth, depend on party ideologues, and we certainly cannot trust the mainstream media. I receive emails every day from persons who have started their own news blogs and from persons who have created unique ways of circulating important news and information that the media purposefully ignores.

We can also write, fax, telephone, and email our representatives and tell them that we insist Obama, Holder, Clinton, Napolitano, and the others involved, must be indicted and tried. If they do not respond in a timely fashion, or if they respond with a form letter response or if they respond with synthetic oratories about what they can or cannot do, and do nothing, we must expose them. Politicians do not like light shone on their actions. Every time we contact them and they ignore us, or respond with a canned reply, we must make it known.


One way to accomplish that is to have a website or websites that are nothing more than repositories to make their shunning of us known. We can keep track of the number of times and the dates we contacted their office and were ignored. We can publish the combined data and send the information to WND.com, Drudge Report, or any major news website that isn’t in league with a political party. At the end of the year a ranking system can be established and we will see which pols seem to honestly care about us.

This is a simple step but therein lies its genius: because if done correctly, it will expose the elected in a way they do not want to be exposed. We can publish the information in newspapers, etc. I assure you this is not something any politician wants to have happen. But it calls for us to be determined in our efforts.

Our nation has been brought to the brink of the abyss, and Obama plays golf, denies entrance to Vietnam veterans, friends and family to the Vietnam Memorial, while his wife goes on secret shopping sprees and secret trysts at the taxpayers’ expense. Fast and Furious, if thoroughly investigated, can lead to the most powerful collection of elected and appointed politicians receiving sanctions and prison sentences in the last century, if not longer. We need those in office and running for office to address these criminal acts.

We don’t need John Boehner and former Congressman-now-Governor John Kasich of Ohio, playing golf with Obama last week and then laughing about how much fun it was as Kasich was interviewed on the Golf Channel. We need Boehner and Kasich to help us prosecute Obama for his involvement in Fast and Furious. We need them to stand up for America and her citizens and to stop glad-handing with those who are corrupting ourgovernment, subverting our Constitution, and destroying our nation.