CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Arizona State University: Campus Clubs Must All Be In Conformity?



EDUCATION / COLLEGE CAMPUS ''DIVERSITY'' NOT SO DIVERSE





Patriotic Smiley

"The application of religion and sexual orientation non-discrimination rules is the most significant threat to religious freedom in America right now."

It's almost like a fad spreading nationwide: universities ignoring federal law and cracking down on religious student groups. Which is why the Christian Legal Society finds itself fighting cases like this one with ASU on at least four other campuses.



COLLEGE


~ By Paul Strand
CWNews

January 14. 2005

CWNews.org -- In the U.S. more and more universities are forcing Christian student groups to admit non-Christians or face punishment. It's part of a wave of ‘political correctness’ that accuses believers of ‘discrimination’ if they want to limit their fellowship to other believers.

But some students are fighting back.

There's really one main reason Christian law students like Francisco Sirvent and Bethany Lewis want their own organization.

Bethany Lewis said, "If you have a skiing club, the purpose there is to bring together people who love skiing and are devoted to skiing. Our organization "the purpose there is to bring together Christians, to walk out our Christianity together at the law school."

But Arizona State University, known as ASU, has a problem with that, because the Christian Legal Society chapter demands two things of its members.

Francisco Sirvent explained, "We would just like to ask that our members" and our leaders "have Christian beliefs and believe in what the Bible says."

Lewis added, "You have to be a Christian to be a part of our student organization. And then the other part is, implicit in our statement of faith is the idea that sex is only to be practiced within the bounds of marriage, so that would exclude homosexual conduct."

ASU's Student Code of Conduct prohibits "engaging in discriminatory activities ... on the basis of (among other things) ... religion, (or) sexual orientation."

The Christian law students, and lawyers representing them, tried to get an exemption from ASU, but ...

Greg Baylor, of the Christian Legal Society said, "They said flat-out 'No, we're not going to respect your religious liberty’."

So the students have sued ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents, known as ABOR.

The students are represented by lawyers like Greg Baylor who is at the northern Virginia headquarters of the Christian Legal Society.

Baylor says ASU tells student organizations "you have to promise not to take religion or sexual conduct into account when you're choosing your voting members and your leaders.”

He went on, “And our leader looked at that and said, 'Well, we can't do that. We're the Christian Legal Society. We're about allegiance to Jesus Christ, and therefore we want our voting members and our leaders to sign a statement of faith demonstrating their commitment to Christ and to live a life that's consistent with God's moral laws’."

There are real consequences if the law students won't comply.

Sirvent explained, "The first step is ASU de-recognizes us as a student organization, and that takes away a lot of the benefits and privileges that student organizations have on-campus: meeting on-campus is one of them, and receiving some funding."

And, if the university wanted to get really personal, it could impose on the Christian students ...

Sirvent said, "Suspension, expulsion. Which [it] probably never would get to that level. But those are options for them."

ASU wouldn't give CBN News an interview, but did send us a news release, accusing the Christian Legal Society of asking ASU "to permit the student chapter of the Christian Legal Society to discriminate against non-Christians and homosexuals."

The news release suggests that's not going to happen because "ASU is committed to diversity and respect for all of its students."

And the news release goes on to say "student organizations on ASU campuses are required to comply with applicable law and with the ABOR Student Code of Conduct."

But Lewis insists, "In good conscience, we can't sign that non-discrimination policy."

Lewis explained, "We've had problems in the past with members of different religions wanting to become members of our organization and lead Bible studies" when they don't agree with the essentials of Christianity!"

Both the students and Baylor say they're fighting because this is about far more than one Christian club.

Baylor said, "The application of religion and sexual orientation non-discrimination rules is the most significant threat to religious freedom in America right now."

Baylor says it's almost like a fad spreading nationwide: universities ignoring federal law and cracking down on religious student groups. Which is why the Christian Legal Society finds itself fighting cases like this one with ASU on at least four other campuses.

Baylor commented, "All of the laws that ban religious discrimination in employment have an exception for religious organizations. Because the law recognizes that it's simply not wrong for religious organizations to take religion and sexual conduct into account when choosing its people. I don't know why universities and other folks can't understand that. But the law in other contexts recognizes and respects religious freedom."

While the university feels it's fighting discrimination, the Christian Legal Society chapter wonders, 'Isn't it just a matter of common sense that Christians are the only people allowed in the Christian Legal Society?'



© Copyright 2004. The Christian Broadcasting Network


Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on the e-mail [envelope] icon, below.





Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs And Cancer



HEALTH & MEDECINE / CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DRUGS MAY CAUSE CANCER






Patriotic Smiley

Well-designed studies have shown the link between cholesterol-lowering drug use and cancer. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Thomas B. Newman MD, MPH and co-workers show that all cholesterol-lowering drugs, both the early drugs known as fibrates (glofibrate, gemfibrozil) and the newer drugs known as statins (Lipitor, Pravachol, Zocor), cause cancer in rodents at the equivalent doses used by man


CHOLESTEROL-LOWERING DRUGS AND CANCER


~ Shane Ellison M. Sc.
December 17, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs for the prevention of heart disease may increase your chances of suffering from the pandemic killer known as cancer. Few doctors are aware of this real and present danger.

Well-designed studies have shown the link between cholesterol-lowering drug use and cancer. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Thomas B. Newman MD, MPH and co-workers show that all cholesterol-lowering drugs, both the early drugs known as fibrates (glofibrate, gemfibrozil) and the newer drugs known as statins (Lipitor, Pravachol, Zocor), cause cancer in rodents at the equivalent doses used by man [1]

The extrapolation of evidence of cancer from rodent to human is very uncertain. This is the argument of those in favor of using cholesterol-lowering drugs. The argument would only be plausible if human studies also showed an increase in cancer rates. And in fact, that is what science is showing.

Evidence from the cholesterol-lowering drug trial known as CARE (Cholesterol And Recurrent Events) showed that Pravachol™ (a cholesterol-lowering drug made by Bristol-Myer Squib) reduced the chance of suffering from a heart attack by an absolute reduction rate of 1.1%. This miniscule benefit was accompanied by a 1500% increase in breast cancer among women taking Pravachol. An increase in cancer rates among Pravachol users was also shown in the drug trial known as PROSPER.

It is rare that cancer would show up in most other cholesterol-lowering drug trials. Drug company-funded studies for these drugs are conveniently short in nature, typically 5 years or less. It can take decades for cancer to develop. Therefore, cancer rarely shows up. In fact, even heavy smoking will not cause lung cancer within 5 years. [2] Yet it is a well-known fact that smoking leads to lung cancer. Therefore, as long as statin drug trials last only 5 years, this side effect will continue to fly below the radar.

If cancer were to show up as a negative side effect, there is concern whether or not it would be reported. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has reported that of 164 statin drug trials reviewed, only 48 reported the number of participants with one or more negative side effects caused by the drug. [3]

As if in recognition of this, attempts have been made to warn the public. Dr. Gloria Troendle, deputy director for the Division of Metabolism and Endocrine Drug Products for the FDA, noted that the cholesterol-lowering drug gemfibrozil belonged to a class of drugs that has repeatedly been shown to increase death rates among users. Moreover, Dr. Troendle stated that she does not believe the FDA has ever approved a drug for long-term use that was as cancer causing at human doses as gemfibrozil. Elizabeth Barbehenn, PhD, concluded to the FDA, "fibrates must be considered as potential human carcinogens and their carcinogenic potential should be part of the risk benefit equation for evaluating gemfibrozil."

Historically, FDA advisors were reluctant to approve the cholesterol-lowering drugs. When asked to vote whether or not the cholesterol-lowering drug gemfibrozil should be approved for the prevention of heart disease, only 3 out of 9 members of the FDA advisory committee voted in favor of approval. Unfortunately, these votes are only "advisory" and the FDA decided to approve gemfibrozil for human consumption against the better judgment of the committee.

One mechanism by which cholesterol-lowering drugs may cause cancer has been identified. Published in Nature Medicine, Dr. Michael Simons of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston shows that statin drugs mimic a substance known as vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF). The biochemical VEGF promotes the growth of new blood vessels, a process known as angiogenesis. While angiogenesis may help the growth of arteries, the benefit is quickly negated by the potential for growth of cancer. The British Journal of Cancer reports that VEGF plays an important role in the spread of colorectal cancer. Further, for those who already have tumors, VEGF and compounds that mimic VEGF significantly diminishes that person's survival time. [4] [5]

Benefits associated with cholesterol-lowering drugs do not exceed risk. Looking at the "statin-drug trials," not a single cholesterol-lowering drug prevented all-cause death rates when compared to a placebo. In laymen terms, this means that none of these drugs prevented early death from heart disease.

USA Today reported that, "Statins have killed and injured more people than the government has acknowledged." [6] Oblivious to their dangers, medical doctors are calling cholesterol-lowering drugs the "new aspirin" and are even recommending that children be prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The medical community failed to protect the public from Vioxx™. Now they are failing to protect them from the dangers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Health and longevity was not meant to be risky, complicated or expensive. To attenuate the risk of using cholesterol-lowering drugs while preventing heart disease, the general public must utilize healthy lifestyle habits. Most notably, that would be the act of quitting sugar and artificial flavors while minimizing grain products from your diet. This will prove to be simple, effective and most affordable.

Footnotes:

1, Newman, Thomas B. et al. Carcinogenicity of Lipid-Lowering Drugs. JAMA. January 3, 1996-Vol 275, No. 1.

2, Ravnskov, Uffe. Statins as the new aspirin. Letters. BMJ. 2002; 324:789 (30 March).

3, Law, M.R. et al. Quantifying effect of statins on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003 June 28; 326 (7404): 1423.

4, Akagi K. et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor-C (VEGF-C) expression in human colorectal cancer tissues. Br J Cancer. 2000 Oct; 83 (7):887-91.

5, Nature Medicine September, 2000;6:965-966, 1004-1010.

6, Sternberg, Steve. USA Today. 08/20/2001.

© 2005 Shane Ellison - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.




Shane holds a Master’s degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand industry experience with drug research, design and synthesis. He understands that Americans want and deserve education rather than prescriptions.

His shocking ebook surrounding cholesterol lowering drugs can be downloaded for FREE as a pdf file at www.health-fx.net/eBook.pdf.

His book "Health Myths Exposed" is available at www.healthmyths.net

E-Mail: shane@health-fx.net




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on the e-mail [envelope] icon, below.






Monday, January 17, 2005

Bush Forms Advisory Committee On IncomeTax Reform



TAXES / ABOLISHING THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND ITS GOLDEN EGG: THE I.R.S.





Patriotic Smiley

Talk of reforming the income tax is nothing new. Back on May 25, 1956, Coleman T. Andrews, who was Commissioner of the IRS under Eisenhower for 33 months before he resigned, gave a lengthy interview to U.S. News & Report. He is quoted as follows:

".... We're confiscating property now ... That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him ... the inevitable end of "steeply" graduated taxes on income and inheritances, and absolutism in any form is slavery ..."



BUSH ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER FORMING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INCOME TAX REFORM


January 14, 2005

Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
~ NewsWithViews.com

On January 7, 2005, President Bush issued an Executive Order (search) to form an advisory committee "to assist in reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code to benefit all Americans."

Talk of reforming the income tax is nothing new. Back on May 25, 1956, Coleman T. Andrews, who was Commissioner of the IRS under Eisenhower for 33 months before he resigned, gave a lengthy interview to U.S. News & Report. He is quoted as follows:

".... We're confiscating property now ... That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him ... the inevitable end of "steeply" graduated taxes on income and inheritances, and absolutism in any form is slavery ..."

The second major plank of the communist manifesto is a progressive, oppressive income tax.

In that interview, Coleman also said, "If we keep on at the present rate of taxation, we will come eventually to the point where no one will have anything to invest and the "man on horseback" will be upon us. The Government will own everything, and we'll be forced to do the bidding of commissars imbued with the idea that they know better how to spend our money than we, and vested with the authority to do it."

At the time of this interview, the federal government was collecting $52 billion dollars for its operating budget. Over the years, the hunger of the federal government has increased to $1.7 trillion dollars (2004 budget). The creation of cabinets since 1953 has boosted federal spending by close to a trillion dollars per year. The secretary of health, education, and welfare (now known as health and human services) became a Cabinet officer in 1953 when the department was established, as did the secretary of housing and urban development in 1965, the secretary of transportation in 1967, the EPA in 1970, the secretary of energy in 1977, the secretary of education in 1980, (the Federal Department of Education became a cabinet in 1979 via Public Law 96-88), the secretary of veterans affairs in 1989, and the secretary of homeland security in 2003, when those departments were officially established.

Back in 1995, Congressman Christopher Cox wrote a column titled "Why We Must Abolish the Federal Income Tax." He said in part:

"The chief Republican sponsor of the l6th Amendment, Rep. Sereno Payne of New York, supported it only because he believed that the country should have the option of taxing income in time of war. On July 12, 1909, Rep. Samuel McCall of Massachusetts looked into the future and asked a troubling questions about the l6th Amendment, which the House approved later that day: "Why drag every government power to Washington so that a vast, centralized government may devour the states and the liberty of individuals as well? I say this amendment should be more carefully considered than it has yet been considered. As to the general policy of the income tax," he said, "I am utterly opposed to it. I believe, with Gladstone, that it tends to make a nation of liars ... It is, in a word, tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of the rascals. In the intervening decades, the American people have had ample opportunity to consider the income tax, and they have found it sorely wanting. It has become exactly what McCall feared. It deserves to die." In his election run for the U.S. Senate in 1996 during a debate, former Congressman Fred Dalton Thompson [R-TN] stated that there was a lot of talk about getting rid of the income tax, but in his opinion, "It won't happen this year or probably the next." It didn't. In 1997, highly televised hearings were held by the House, Ways and Means Committee regarding the abuses of the IRS. There was talk of reform, not of abolishing the Federal Reserve's golden egg.

Citizen groups who advocate abolishing the IRS have one thing in common: They are angered by the fact that not a penny of the money collected by the IRS funds a single function of the federal government. One government report explains it this way:

President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control: A Report to The President (Reagan), January 15, 1984; page 12:

"If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days. 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Simply stated, 100% of all income tax money collected goes to the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking System for transfer payments and to pay down the national debt created by Congress from funding unconstitutional expenditures. Because there is no money in the U.S. Treasury, all operating funding has to be borrowed from this private banking cabal.

There are numerous groups and organizations lobbying for alternative taxing schemes, i.e. flat tax, fair tax, VAT (Value added tax) or sales tax to replace the current system. Opponents of these taxing schemes maintain that America would only be trading one funding method for the private bankers for another and would accomplish nothing. Prior to 1913, America had no income tax or central bank and the federal government functioned within constitutional restraints. Once the progressive direct income tax was instituted along with the newly created Federal Reserve Banking System at the same time (1913), the government debt exploded because Congress was given a a blank check to borrow so they could spend beyond authorized limits under Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution ...

The Federal Reserve is not federal; it is a credit monopoly controlled by powerful banking families. This private banking cartel issues Class A stock to its members, however, only families like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs and others can own and buy stock in this private cartel. The average American who funds this private monopoly by paying interest on all money borrowed by Congress cannot own stock or any of their banks.

Millions of Americans have been petitioning and demanding that Congress exercise the option clause in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to buy out the assets of the Fed and return to constitutional currency instead of fiat money. Supporters of abolishing the FED stress that there's no reason for Congress to borrow money from this private banking consortium and that it's nothing more than making the middle man rich at the expense of the American people. Congress has refused for eight decades. Perhaps William Greider, author of "Secrets of the Temple," gave some clues in his October 7, 1993 testimony to the House Banking Committee:

"The only players who are left out of this conversation are the American people and, to a large extent their elected representatives. Instead, they are provided a frustrating stream of evasive euphemisms and opaque jargon and platitudinous generalities and, sometimes, even downright deception. As more than one Federal Reserve governor confided to me, it would be very difficult - perhaps impossible - for the FED to have an honest discussion of monetary policy with Congress or the public because the level of ignorance is so profound."

"The lack of accountability is not simply a function of Fed mystique. Among elected politicians, there is also a widespread willingness not to know or understand. In fairness to Congress, the news media encourages this deference by promoting the conventional wisdom about the institution. Any politician who dares to become a critic can count upon damaging attacks from both editorial writers and news reporters ..."

"Frankly, the Fed does not even have to confront intelligent scrutiny from those the people have elected to represent them. That is, the Congress. In my experience, congressional oversight hearings are usually a dispiriting mixture of posturing and bile and trick questions that the Federal Reserve governors find quite easy to fend off."

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden who was at the time, Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, Conspiracy, Fraud, Unlawful conversion, and treason. He opened his speech with these words:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over."

"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender."

McFadden's charges were not acted upon. Some say because the very same members of Congress who helped engineer the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 owed their political careers to the private banking cartel. McFadden died in 1936.

Under Mr. Bush's new executive order, "The Advisory Panel shall submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a report containing policy options in accordance with section 3 of this order as soon as practicable, but not later than July 31, 2005." It looks like with this time table, the American people will be waiting until mid-summer to find out what recommendations this newly formed panel submits in its report to the president.

© 2005 NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.




For radio interviews or comments:
newseditor1@earthlink.net




Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on the e-mail [envelope] icon, below.