Pandemic Flu Checklist for Individuals

Pandemic Flu Checklist for Individuals

July 30, 2009 · Filed under Flu

From the CDC.gov Pandemic Flu Checklist for Individuals:

You can prepare for an influenza pandemic now. You should know both the magnitude of what can happen during a pandemic outbreak and what actions you can take to help lessen the impact of an influenza pandemic on you and your family. This checklist will help you gather the information and resources you may need in case of a flu pandemic.

1.To plan for a pandemic:

◦Store a two week supply of water and food. During a pandemic, if you cannot get to a store, or if stores are out of supplies, it will be important for you to have extra supplies on hand. This can be useful in other types of emergencies, such as power outages and disasters.

◦Periodically check your regular prescription drugs to ensure a continuous supply in your home.

◦Have any nonprescription drugs and other health supplies on hand, including pain relievers, stomach remedies, cough and cold medicines, fluids with electrolytes, and vitamins.

◦Talk with family members and loved ones about how they would be cared for if they got sick, or what will be needed to care for them in your home.

◦Volunteer with local groups to prepare and assist with emergency response.

◦Get involved in your community as it works to prepare for an influenza pandemic.

2.To limit the spread of germs and prevent infection:

◦Teach your children to wash hands frequently with soap and water, and model the correct behavior.

◦Teach your children to cover coughs and sneezes with tissues, and be sure to model that behavior.

◦Teach your children to stay away from others as much as possible if they are sick. Stay home from work and school if sick.

3.Items to have on hand for an extended stay at home:

Examples of food and non-perishables

◦Ready-to-eat canned meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, beans, and soups

◦Protein or fruit bars

◦Dry cereal or granola

◦Peanut butter or nuts

◦Dried fruit

◦Crackers

◦Canned juices

◦Bottled water

◦Canned or jarred baby food and formula

◦Pet food

Examples of medical, health, and emergency supplies

◦Prescribed medical supplies such as glucose and blood-pressure monitoring equipment

◦Soap and water, or alcohol-based (60-95%) hand wash

◦Medicines for fever, such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen

◦Thermometer

◦Anti-diarrheal medication

◦Vitamins

◦Fluids with electrolytes

◦Cleansing agent/soap

◦Flashlight

◦Batteries

Other non-perishable items

◦Portable radio

◦Manual can opener

◦Garbage bags

◦Tissues, toilet paper, disposable diapers

I would add a few things to that list:

Disposable latex (or neoprene) gloves in the event that you have to care for a sick family member.

Bleach, Lysol, other disinfecting agents to clean up vomit/waste.

Disaster in the Making

Disaster in the Making
Obama’s repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity.

Thomas Sowell does not often receive a great deal of attention but he is well worth reading and considering.

Rasmussen: Barry Soetoro Down -12 Points Now

Soetoro's popularity dropped again after a disastrous week trying to defend health care rationing. He is at -12 points now according to Rasmussen.

China's Flag to Fly at White House

"Tank man" blocks a column of tanks heading east on Beijing's Chang'an Boulevard (Avenue of Eternal Peace) near Tiananmen Square during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. This photo was taken from the sixth floor of the Beijing Hotel, about half a mile away, through a 400mm lens.

Graphic source: 5 June 1989, Jeff Widener (The Associated Press).

A number of sources have confirmed that the national flag of the People's Republic of China (PRC) will be hoisted at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on 20 September.

The date is in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC.

The event is said to celebrate the friendship, magnanimous spirit, and kindness of the Chinese.

There seems to be few public recollections about the Tianamen Square massacre in which protesters erected the Goddess of Democracy; in addition, there were no American government commemorations this past June during the anniversary of the massacre.

If Americans do not recall Tianamen they certainly will not heed Washington's statement that we should avoid "entangling alliances." As Jefferson promoted our interests he stated:

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

John Quincy Adams, 1821

Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave

In the atmosphere of fear we are transitioning into, police should not even run a background check on Obama. Two police officers apparently simply accessed his file to find out what it contained and as a result they were placed on leave for their efforts. The Secret Service was immediately notified of their actions.

Americans are asked to place their personal medical records online; their communication may be monitored but no one dare look at Obama's file.

What is in his file? Perhaps there is no long form birth certificate.

Satire: Birth Certificate

Sen. Kyle (AZ) On Health Care Rationing

Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

The U.S. health care system is the best in the world, spurring advancements in new medical treatments and technologies. Such innovation helps physicians treat and prevent diseases better than ever before, eradicates once fatal epidemics, and helps Americans lead longer, healthier lives.

Despite these advances, millions of Americans struggle to find affordable health insurance options. From 1999 to 2008, the average cost of a family health plan increased by 119 percent from $5,791 to $12,680. Meanwhile, workers' wages increased 34 percent during the same nine-year period. Ensuring access to quality, affordable health care is a laudable goal. I support targeted solutions that lower health care costs and improve health care by building upon, not completely dismantling, our health care system.

Unfortunately, many of the proposals being considered in the U.S. Senate will make health insurance more expensive, jeopardize Arizonans' current coverage, and expand the government's control over health care. While you will not find the words "ration," "withhold coverage," or "delay access to care" in the pending plans, that is what will result from the web of federally-dictated insurance reforms, new legal obligations, and provider reimbursement schemes that are part of them. Such policies centralize the power of medical decisions with politicians and bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, and they will result in the delay or denial of care.

There are three main problems with the Majority party's proposals: the implementation of a government-run insurance plan, the use of comparative effectiveness research, and spending.

Government-Run Insurance Plan:

First, the Majority's proposals would create a new, government-run health insurance plan to compete against private insurance plans. The argument is that a government-run plan would give consumers a better range of choices and make the health care market more competitive -- "keep the insurance companies honest," as the President put it. However, well-respected, independent analysis provides evidence to the contrary. For one thing, a government-run plan would be subsidized by the taxpayers, giving the government plan a huge advantage over competitors. Yet, even government resources are not unlimited. To save money after tens of millions of people are added to the public plan, the government would cut reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, exacerbating the difficulty Arizonans' already encounter in trying to schedule doctor appointments. To make up for low government reimbursements to providers, insurance companies would have to charge more for private insurance, making it less attractive than the government plan.

Over time, there will only be room for the government plan according to the respected Lewin Group, as 119 million Americans would lose their current coverage. Remember, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed as independent "government-sponsored enterprises" to complement the private mortgage market. Now, Fannie and Freddie account for a combined share of 73 percent of mortgage originations in the second half of 2008. The two "government-sponsored enterprises" are now effectively owned and run by the federal government, after having sustained losses of over $100 billion last year alone. A Washington-run health care plan will do to the health care market what Fannie and Freddie did to the housing market.

Comparative Effectiveness Research

Second, the Majority's plan would create a new research entity to conduct so-called comparative effectiveness research (CER). CER is a mechanism used by medical professionals to provide information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of various procedures and treatments. In the hands of doctors, medical researchers, and other health professionals, CER can help patients and their own doctors make informed health care decisions. However, in the hands of government, CER can become a tool to delay or deny care. For example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness in Britain uses "cost-effectiveness research" to make health care decisions. By basing treatment decisions on cost rather than need, Britain prescribes fewer cancer drugs than any of the other big five European nations; its patients therefore have the lowest survival rate according to a May edition of National Review. The UK's system provides only half of the care for end-stage renal disease patients that we do in the United States. Obviously, such rationing of care is not something we should replicate in the United States.

It is telling that none of the Majority's proposals in Congress would bar the federal government from using CER to deny access to care. In fact, when I offered an amendment in April to explicitly bar the use of CER to ration care, it was defeated on a near party-line vote. I have now introduced a free standing bill to ensure that any information obtained through CER cannot be used to deny access to care. The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Service (PATIENTS) Act of 2009 (S. 1259) will protect the doctor-patient relationship and ensure access to the highest quality medical care. I will fight at every opportunity to ensure that any health care reform plan the Senate considers later this year protects patients' access to care.

Cost

Finally, the Majority's plans would cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But even that may understate the true cost. Consider that Massachusetts enacted near universal health insurance in 2006, and costs have exploded, doubling from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion just two years later. To deal with those costs, the state has decided to slow enrollment of beneficiaries and eliminate dental coverage for its poorest residents. A special commission, which was established by the state legislature, has now recommended limiting coverage to those health care services that government deems to be cost-effective -- just like government-run health systems in other nations such as Canada and Great Britain do.

Furthermore, the plans would be financed by a combination of new taxes and cuts in Medicare spending, hurting seniors' access to care. The Medicare Trust Fund is expected to reach bankruptcy by 2017. Taking money from one program with urgent solvency problems, such as Medicare, to fund a huge expansion of health care benefits for others is not sensible.

I believe in the right of every American to choose the doctor, hospital, and insurance plan of his or her choice. No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right or substitute the government's judgment for that of a physician. Any health reform proposal should adhere to these principles.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

JON KYL
United States Senator

Why the birth certificate? Helen Valois

Orly Taitz on Tool Colbert's Show

Martial Law Coming to the United States

CNN reported that the U.S. is a step closer to martial law by revealing that active, military troops are preparing to be dispersed throughout the nation. The increasing effects of the flu pandemic will most likely to be the trigger event. The fear and panic aroused by the pandemic may be easily used as an excuse to implement martial law and a mandatory vaccination program. Vaccinations will be required (Cf.
Jacobson vs. Massachusetts).

Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination:

This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned."' (at 26)

The Court interpreted the social contract where the individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society. Jacobson sought to enjoy the benefit of his neighbors being vaccinated without personally accepting the risks inherent in vaccination. The Court rejected Jacobson's claim which it viewed as an attempt to be a free-rider on society.

The Court next considered Jacobson's right to contest the scientific basis of the Massachusetts vaccination requirement. Accepting that some reasonable people still questioned the efficacy of vaccination, the Court nonetheless found that it was within the legislature's prerogative to adopt one from many conflicting views on a scientific issue. The Court ruled that the state may choose scientifically questionable grounds for vaccination but the right of the individual to refuse the government is not possible.

Working Copy AR Health Dept Legal Vaccination Denial Call
by guyrazer

In addition, as reported by CNS News earlier this month, a health-care rationing bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee called The Affordable Health Choices Act, will fund the creation of state “intervention” teams that will carry out home visits in order to check that both children and adults have been vaccinated and also provide “provision of immunizations.”

“Home visits" will be made by the state and will send representatives to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children.”

By placing combat troops amongst Americans these type of measures will be enforced. Americans, for example, who opposed the FEMA occupation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, had their weapons seized.

And recently, the U.S. Northern Command (Northcom) was assigned its own fighting unit-–the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which had been fighting in Iraq for five years before that. The U.S. will be confronting combat veterans on the streets and homes of America. In violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and out of keeping with one of the conditions sparking the American Revolution, troops will be deployed amongst civilians. As reported on this blog for some time, soldiers have been appearing at the Boston Marathon, at the Kentucky Derby, at the last Inauguration, and in routine murder investigations. This desensitization to un-American activities, has conditioned Americans to accept combat troops on the streets and highways as a part of everyday life.

The question to consider is why is it that first-responders, police, National Guard, Homeland Security, the FBI, and all ordinary and typical American means are now exceeded by placing even combat-hardened military troops to handle Americans? What is the government expecting? Why do Americans require such man-handling as is typical of banana republics and countries that are collapsing?

This development is absolutely unprecedented in American history when troops were called up under only the most extreme conditions such as during the Civil Rights struggle, war demonstrations, and the occupation of the South after the Civil War.

HR 8791 Homeland Preparedness Bill:

Rep-PA. John Haller introduces bill bringing martial law to the U.S.

Obogie

AARP Joins Euthanasia Health Care Rationing Plan

The AARP has joined in with the euthanasia effort to rid the country of older Americans. The controversial health rationing bill includes a counseling plan to end the lives of those citizens thought to have lived beyond their usefulness. An effort has been organized to call AARP and protest their action. Their main number is listed at the end of this blog.

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(a) MEDICARE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
(A) in subsection (s)(2)—(i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (DD); (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (EE); and (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:425

(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’ and (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.

Such consultation shall include the following:
(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable
powers of attorney, and their uses.
(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy).
(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
furnished in a State—
(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in
clause (iii).
(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a
program that—
(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign
orders for life sustaining treatments.
(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, along-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
or pulmonary problems;
(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care set21
ting;
(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration

PAYMENT.—Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting
(2)(FF),’’ after ‘‘(2)(EE),’’.
(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION.—Section 1862(a)of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking and’’ at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting “and”; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘or (K)’’and inserting ‘‘(K), or (P)’’.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
(b) EXPANSION OF PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING

INITIATIVE FOR END OF LIFE CARE.—
1 (1) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE.—Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
(3) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life sustaining treatment.
(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES.— The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.’’

c) INCLUSION OF INFORMATION IN MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK.—
(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare &You Handbook to include the following:
(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including—
(I) living wills;
(II) durable power of attorney;
(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and
(IV) health care proxies.
(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including—
(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and
(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.

Here is the toll-free number:
1-888-OUR-AARP in other words: 1-888-687-2277.

Resistance to Health Care Rationing is building.

Officer Voted for Obama: Will Not Again

US Soldier Demands Apology From Senator Claire McCaskill at Town Hall

Once the manufactured town hall meetings are over the politicians are coming home to face us; let us hope most of us will have the fortitude to press them for answers.

Muslim Principal Fires Coach When Student Converts to Christianity

Indicative of the times, a Muslim Principal fired a popular wrestling coach once a student athlete converted to Christianity.

911 Tape Reveals Caller Did Not Bring Up Race Of Gates

The 911 tape reveals that the caller did not identify the race of Gates when calling in the report. One "gentleman" who she thought was breaking in she did not see at all and one looked "sorta' Hispanic." She was not sure and stated this point clearly. She asked the police to investigate; she did not know what was going on but neighbors were concerned.

The only thing "stupid" about the case is that a racist might hear about it and state that the police acted poorly.

In addition, the police who responded, and when they were dispatched the race was unknown, one suspect was described as "possibly Hispanic"

but race was not a factor in the dispatch. The Cambridge Officer dispatched notes: "He is not cooperative." Gates was his own worst enemy.

Gates has been at it for some time. Gates spoke in a church speech in 1996

where he uses the N-word, rants against "racist historically white institutions in America" and accuses Newt Gingrich of attempting to block blacks from entering the middle class.

He states:

"We are trying to end what we call the one n-gger syndrome–you know, this place ain't big enough for more than one of us,"

said Gates in the video, filmed in the All Souls Church in Washington, D.C.

"We in the academy have to know that our people, those of us who practice African-American studies, have to know that our people are under assault," Gates said.

He continued: "Newt Gingrich can come in, that Contract for America is serious. You know what those guys have said? 'Somehow, while we were asleep, all you white women and all you black people got into the middle class.'

"'We are not sure how it happened. But the first thing we are going to do is we are going to shake the tree and any of y'all who can't hold on, you're all going back. And the second thing, we are going to set up barriers so no more of you all can get in here.'"

"I was able to go to Yale University because they were trying to diversify themselves," he said. "Because of racism I never would have been allowed to compete on a more or less level terrain with white boys and white girls.

"What we're trying to do is end 'your mamma' and 'your daddy criticism,' which is what African-Americans quite frankly have mastered in for 250 years," he said.

In clearly racially divisive remarks, Gates blasted the state of North Carolina, drawing applause when he exclaimed, "I don't even like the airplane to fly over North Carolina."

One audience member yelled out that American jazz great John Coltrane was born in North Carolina.

"Oh, that's true. I'm sorry. I'm sorry," said Gates. "And they got good barbeque, too. So maybe it's OK."

He should be taken at his own word, on his Yale application he wrote:

"As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself."

Prepare for the Fall Swine Flu

Models predict the 2009 H1N1 flu will peak in October, with many cases being diagnosed in September, according to Dr. Robert Belshe, director of Saint Louis University’s Center for Vaccine Development. One of the best home remedies are oral rehydration solutions.

A Gatesgate At Henry Gates' "Bogus" Charity?

Perhaps Gates is in need of a little investigation.

Short, but Sweet Video: Right on Target

Obama: "retarded" Health Care Rationing

The proposed health-rationing bill from the House of Representatives refers to mentally disabled people as "retarded"--a term advocates feel is discriminatory and offensive.

The bill refers to: "A hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate-care facility for the mentally retarded . . ."

The phrase is a rehash of the controversy with advocate groups for the developmentally disabled, who were angered when Obama referred to his poor bowling skills on "The Tonight Show" as "like the Special Olympics."