This is one of the best explanations on why Socialism just doesn't work!
-Very Profound
This man is truly a genius?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had
never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire
class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that
no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class
on Obama's plan"..
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade
so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied
little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who
studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard
decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame
and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study
for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great,
the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the
reward
away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012
elections.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Top US Court Rules That Citizens Can Videotape Police
There’s been a long rash of arrests over recording police officers on duty; recording that floods the internet with footage of police abuse. The First Circuit Court of Appeals made an important decision last week to reaffirm the right to videotape police on duty.
In a similar story, the ACLU recently won a $48,500 settlement of a lawsuit from a man who was arrested in 2009 for videotaping the police arresting his friend. The ACLU brought the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the charges against the man were dropped.
Gee, courts, thanks for the permission to use our first amendment rights!
~Health Freedoms
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape Police
The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reached a crucial decision last Friday allowing the public to videotape police officers while they’re on the clock.
The decision comes after a string of incidents where individuals have videotaped police officers and were arrested. Police officers across the United States believed citizens didn’t have the right to videotape them as they conducted official duties, but issues like police brutality put the issue up for debate.
One instance where a citizen was arrested for videotaping an officer was when Khaliah Fitchette, a law-abiding teenager from New Jersey, boarded a bus in Newark. Two police officers boarded the bus as well to remove a drunken man. Fitchette began taping the police officers because of how they were handling the man, and a police officer instructed her to stop recording them. When Fitchette refused, she was arrested and placed in the back of a cop car for two hours while the officers took her phone to delete the video. Fitchette was then released, but she and her mother then filed suit against the Newark Police Department with the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Another example involves Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common. He used his cell phone to tape police officers when the Boston police were punching a man. Citizens surrounding the scene were saying, “You’re hurting him.” Glik never interfered with the police officers’ actions, but recorded the entire incident. The police officers ended up charging Glik with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording, even though the police officers admitted that they knew Glik was recording them. He was also charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner.
While all charges against Glik were dropped due to lack of merit, he still decided to join forces with the ACLU and file a civil rights suit to prevent a similar incident from occurring with others.
On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England’s highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties.
The city’s attorneys made the argument that police officers should have been exempt from a civil rights lawsuit in the first place in this case because the law is unclear as to whether there’s a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police” conducting their daily duties in public.
“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
The Court added that the police officers should have understood this all along, and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press.
“Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the Court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”
The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain “burdens” as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they’re conducting their duties responsibly.
Sources:
http://www.dailytech.com/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens+Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.htm
In a similar story, the ACLU recently won a $48,500 settlement of a lawsuit from a man who was arrested in 2009 for videotaping the police arresting his friend. The ACLU brought the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and the charges against the man were dropped.
Gee, courts, thanks for the permission to use our first amendment rights!
~Health Freedoms
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape Police
The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reached a crucial decision last Friday allowing the public to videotape police officers while they’re on the clock.
The decision comes after a string of incidents where individuals have videotaped police officers and were arrested. Police officers across the United States believed citizens didn’t have the right to videotape them as they conducted official duties, but issues like police brutality put the issue up for debate.
One instance where a citizen was arrested for videotaping an officer was when Khaliah Fitchette, a law-abiding teenager from New Jersey, boarded a bus in Newark. Two police officers boarded the bus as well to remove a drunken man. Fitchette began taping the police officers because of how they were handling the man, and a police officer instructed her to stop recording them. When Fitchette refused, she was arrested and placed in the back of a cop car for two hours while the officers took her phone to delete the video. Fitchette was then released, but she and her mother then filed suit against the Newark Police Department with the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Another example involves Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common. He used his cell phone to tape police officers when the Boston police were punching a man. Citizens surrounding the scene were saying, “You’re hurting him.” Glik never interfered with the police officers’ actions, but recorded the entire incident. The police officers ended up charging Glik with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording, even though the police officers admitted that they knew Glik was recording them. He was also charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner.
While all charges against Glik were dropped due to lack of merit, he still decided to join forces with the ACLU and file a civil rights suit to prevent a similar incident from occurring with others.
On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England’s highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties.
The city’s attorneys made the argument that police officers should have been exempt from a civil rights lawsuit in the first place in this case because the law is unclear as to whether there’s a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police” conducting their daily duties in public.
“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
The Court added that the police officers should have understood this all along, and that videotaping public officials is not limited to the press.
“Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the Court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”
The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain “burdens” as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they’re conducting their duties responsibly.
Sources:
http://www.dailytech.com/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens+Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.htm
Monday, September 12, 2011
Government released update on cancer treatments using medical cannabis
Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB:CBIS), a pioneering US biotech company developing pharmaceutical cannabis products, is pleased to report a government released update on cancer treatments using medical cannabis (marijuana)
The websites cancer.gov Page 1, updated March 17, 2011, summarizing how the treatment of cancer with cannabinoids goes beyond the simple treatment of symptoms and side effects by exhibiting possible direct antitumor activities.
“In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.”
This summary contains the following key information:
•Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years prior to its current status as an illegal substance.
•Chemical components of Cannabis, called cannabinoids, activate specific receptors found throughout the body to produce pharmacologic effects, particularly in the central nervous system and the immune system.
•Cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects.
•The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep.
• Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.
•Unlike other commonly used drugs, cannabinoids are stored in adipose tissue and excreted at a low rate (half-life 1–3 days).
•Even abrupt cessation of cannabinoid intake is not associated with rapid declines in plasma concentrations that would precipitate severe or abrupt withdrawal symptoms or drug cravings.
Robert Melamede, Ph.D., Cannabis Science’s CEO stated, “As we’ve previously reported, one of the most interesting findings that has emerged since the discovery of the endocannabinoid system (marijuana like compounds produced by humans, and all vertebrates) is that cannabinoids have profound cancer-killing and anti-metastatic properties. There is strong scientific support, demonstrated in tissue culture and animal studies, of the potent cancer killing properties of cannabinoids for such deadly cancers as glioma, lung cancer, breast and prostate cancer, leukemias and lymphomas, and as well as skin cancers.
Currently the federal government prohibitionist position on cannabis is hindering the medical community by delaying vitally important clinical cannabis research. I was quite elated when I recently saw that the NCI posted on their webpage “In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.” I foolishly thought that finally there would be official recognition of the modern peer reviewed science that shows the cancer killing properties of cannabinoids. Sadly, this statement was removed, without comment, within hours of its posting.”
Dr. Melamede goes on to say “Clinical trials are desperately needed. Cannabis Science is actively working on arrangements that will allow us to perform the necessary clinical trials to verify, or not, the numerous anecdotal reports demonstrating what appears to be cancer cures. These observations are occurring with greater frequency since numerous states have legalized the medical use of cannabis. Cannabis in various forms has been used by different cultures for thousands of years as a viable medicine for numerous ailments. In fact, some biblical translations even indicate that cannabis (keneh bosem) was a component of the “Holy Anointing Oil.” Current cannabis science simply provides evidence that supports the widespread historical use of oral, cannabis-based medicines that was driven by it’s success in treating illnesses.”
The websites cancer.gov Page 1, updated March 17, 2011, summarizing how the treatment of cancer with cannabinoids goes beyond the simple treatment of symptoms and side effects by exhibiting possible direct antitumor activities.
“In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.”
This summary contains the following key information:
•Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years prior to its current status as an illegal substance.
•Chemical components of Cannabis, called cannabinoids, activate specific receptors found throughout the body to produce pharmacologic effects, particularly in the central nervous system and the immune system.
•Cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects.
•The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep.
• Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.
•Unlike other commonly used drugs, cannabinoids are stored in adipose tissue and excreted at a low rate (half-life 1–3 days).
•Even abrupt cessation of cannabinoid intake is not associated with rapid declines in plasma concentrations that would precipitate severe or abrupt withdrawal symptoms or drug cravings.
Robert Melamede, Ph.D., Cannabis Science’s CEO stated, “As we’ve previously reported, one of the most interesting findings that has emerged since the discovery of the endocannabinoid system (marijuana like compounds produced by humans, and all vertebrates) is that cannabinoids have profound cancer-killing and anti-metastatic properties. There is strong scientific support, demonstrated in tissue culture and animal studies, of the potent cancer killing properties of cannabinoids for such deadly cancers as glioma, lung cancer, breast and prostate cancer, leukemias and lymphomas, and as well as skin cancers.
Currently the federal government prohibitionist position on cannabis is hindering the medical community by delaying vitally important clinical cannabis research. I was quite elated when I recently saw that the NCI posted on their webpage “In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.” I foolishly thought that finally there would be official recognition of the modern peer reviewed science that shows the cancer killing properties of cannabinoids. Sadly, this statement was removed, without comment, within hours of its posting.”
Dr. Melamede goes on to say “Clinical trials are desperately needed. Cannabis Science is actively working on arrangements that will allow us to perform the necessary clinical trials to verify, or not, the numerous anecdotal reports demonstrating what appears to be cancer cures. These observations are occurring with greater frequency since numerous states have legalized the medical use of cannabis. Cannabis in various forms has been used by different cultures for thousands of years as a viable medicine for numerous ailments. In fact, some biblical translations even indicate that cannabis (keneh bosem) was a component of the “Holy Anointing Oil.” Current cannabis science simply provides evidence that supports the widespread historical use of oral, cannabis-based medicines that was driven by it’s success in treating illnesses.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)