Why The FRAUD Obama Has Not Been Exposed

I have thought and said all along it would almost be to late to expose the FRAUD obama after Jan 8, 2009 when Congress met in joint session to count the electorial votes. Before this date if a case were filed in state court as the article below explains the FRAUD obama could have been exposed in the Supreme Court. Now obama hides behind the law and knows he can get cases dismissed questioning his citizenship. (If Obama was not a FRAUD he would not challenge ANY court case that seeks to only prove his "citizenship".) This is evidence in itself obama is a FRAUD by the fact obama challenges any court case that asks the question, are you a US citizen or are you a natural born citizen? (I know obama is a FRAUD because he will not provide ANY documentation to back up his on line certification of birth picture on his web site. Without ANY documentation to back it up, anyone including me could have printed it an declared it as authentic.) US election laws were known to obama. He knew of the vast loop holes of election law and state laws that require an individual to have "standing" to challenge a presidential candidate in court. The DNC also of course knows all states rubber stamp any candidate that is nominated in their convention as "qualified".

There is hope as Daniel Tokaji suggests. The most promising is a preelection state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified candidate off the ballot. This it seems would be a real answer to exposing the FRAUD obama, but only in the next election cycle of 2012.

The real time answer to exposing obama now is as Leo Donofrio states: "The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office. I call him President because he is President – under our Constitution – unless and until the District Court for the District of Columbia finds him ineligible. That is the only venue of review currently available under the law." Quo warranto is what obama should fear because it could expose him as a FRAUD if the wheels of justice would start turning!

What can be done to remove obama from office now

.....................................................................................
Daniel Tokaji: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates’ eligibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter. Fortunately, there are alternative means to adjudicate this matter that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The most promising is a preelection state-court lawsuit seeking to keep an allegedly unqualified candidate off the ballot. In the event that a renegade state court rejects a candidate who is, in fact, eligible or that two or more state courts reach conflicting conclusions on a candidate’s eligibility, U.S. Supreme Court review should be available as a backstop. This avenue seems less fraught with peril than congressional resolution of the matter, given Congress’ dubious legal authority to not count electoral votes of a candidate it believes ineligible. Those who seek to challenge a presidential candidate’s eligibility would thus be well-advised to dust off their state election codes and head to state court.

.....................................................................................

The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?

I agree with the michigan law review article written by Daniel Tokaji. Its to late to challenge obama's "election". A FRAUD has been elected. Its not to late to challenge the FRAUD in the 2012 election cycle and the FRAUD obama knows this. If Americans will question and challenge obama in state courts before the 2012 election as professor Daniel Tokaji states obama can and will be exposed as the FRAUD he is. This is the answer. This is what can be done to expose obama as a FRAUD in the near future. Quo warranto can expose obama as a FRAUD now. Obama know this. A FRAUD who hides his true nature and citizenship. Obama is really just an empty suit. He speaks as is he is programmed by a teleprompter. He makes decisions like an IDIOT. Everyday he tries to look presidential and make some statement and then change it or lie about saying it in the first place.

Rush Limbaugh made a statement that he thought children were in charge of running the country. I agree. Just listen to nancy pelosi, she is an IDIOT. The IDIOT obama was elected because of her efforts as she says. The obama administration makes decisions like children would. Our country has elected people who think like children and act like children.

EPA Holding a Smoking Gun Memo

Smoking gun memo saying that the findings were political, not scientific. Obama is again caught in a LIE. He is like a thug don, because he always denies he knows what the people he appointed and directs are doing. Because of this the public blames others for obama's own deception and lies. It is obama who is the liar and a fraud. A thug from chicago who hides behind; Plausible deniability which is the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such act.

It's people's opinions in the Obama White House. CO2 not a pollutant. The smoking gun that exposes Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, as an idiot or a liar. She is an idiot and a liar as is her leader obama.

.....................................................................................
The actual memo..that is a smoking gun!
The SMoking Gun memo Link...Read it yourself
.......................................................................................
DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
1
Discussion of scientific support and analysis.
The NPRM fails to articulate the process by which the Administrator came to the
conclusion on p. 30, line 41-46:
“The Administrator believes that the scientific findings in totality point to
compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and
potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified, even if
they cannot always be quantified with confidence. The Administrator’s proposed
endangerment finding is based on weighing the scientific evidence, considering
the uncertainties, and balancing any benefits to human health, society the
environment that may also occur.”
The finding document remains very separate from the TSD, with only occasional
references to the IPCC or particular CCSP report findings, and it is up to the reader’s
interpretation of the TSD to determine how the evidence has been weighed to arrive at
the conclusions above. The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the
amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about basic facts surrounding GHGs
seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the face of
unprecedented uncertainty. (The TSD notes several areas where essential behaviors of
GHGs are "not well determined" and "not well understood" (e.g., why have U.S. methane
levels decreased recently?).) This could be remedied by expanding the discussion on pp.
25-31 to articulate more clearly how the Administrator weighed the scientific evidence
related to each impact or how/whether she gave more or less weight to particular impacts
for either the public health or the welfare finding and how she weighed uncertainty in her
deliberations.
For example, the NPRM and TSD outline the following 5 human health effects from
climate change: temperature effects, air quality changes, extreme events, climatesensitive
diseases and aeroallergens. It is unclear whether temperature effects will result
in net mortality increases or decreases and the scientific literature does not provide
definitive data or conclusions about aeroallergen impacts. Further, the impact of climatesensitive
diseases may be minimal in a rich country like the US.
Hence, it seems that the Administrator’s public health endangerment conclusion is based
on the other two impacts, with the most significant health risks being posed by air quality
changes. If so, the discussion here should state this explicitly. Further, the argument for
why the increases in ozone from climate change pose a health impact could be fleshed
out more thoroughly (p. 27, line 34-39). Since tropospheric ozone is already regulated
under the Clean Air Act, EPA should explain why those regulations are inadequate to
protect public health from the ozone impacts of climate change.
In addition, the finding could be strengthened by including additional information on
benefits, costs, and risks (where this information exists); meeting appropriate standards
for peer review; and accepted research protocols. Some issues to cover that would
address costs, benefits, and risks include the following:

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
2
o Methodology or methodologies used for weighing risks and various
outcomes and the risks associated with each;
o Confidence intervals related to model results at the regional and local
scales;
o Underlying assumptions of findings, publications on which the findings
are based, and “business-as-usual” scenarios;
o Quality and homogeneity of temperature data from surface networks that
may affect estimates of past temperature trends, and calibration and
verification of models;
o Impacts of climate change on the value of net economic benefits.
The Finding should also acknowledge that EPA has not undertaken a systematic risk
analysis or cost-benefit analysis.
In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there
is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) "harm" from substances that have
no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available
scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse
public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3)
applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle. If EPA goes forward with a
finding of endangerment for all 6 GHGs, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive
new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, EPA would be petitioned to find
endangerment and regulate many other “pollutants" for the sake of the precautionary
principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise).
Endangerment without consideration of regulatory consequences.
EPA should explain whether it considered a finding that methane and the other four non-
CO2 GHGs do in fact contribute to climate change, based on their higher warming
potential, but that overriding policy concerns make such a finding infeasible concerning
CO2. Because methane and the other four non-CO2 GHGs are either already regulated
under the CAA or are functionally equivalent to pollutants typically regulated under the
CAA, an endangerment finding for these GHGs would be relatively routine. Because
GHGs are understood to be long-lived, well-mixed in the atmosphere, and generated by
many nations around the globe, the most analogous regulatory approach for controlling
GHGs would seem to be Title VI of the CAA. EPA's relevant experience with
controlling ozone-depleting substances should inform its decisions on an approach to
regulating GHGs.
In contrast, an endangerment finding under section 202 may not be not the most
appropriate approach for regulating GHGs. Making the decision to regulate CO2 under
the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated
entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.
Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and
institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
3
The role of mitigation, adaptation, and/or benefits of climate change
To the extent that climate change alters our environment, it will create incentives for
innovation and adaptation that mitigate the damages from climate change. The document
should note this possibility and how it affects the likely impacts of climate change.
For example, climate change is likely to unfold slowly and people may migrate from hot
regions (e.g., Arizona) to more temperate regions (e.g., Minnesota) and this would
mitigate the adverse impacts on health (although people would incur migration costs).
Further, climate change is likely to lead to innovation that mitigates the ozone related
health impacts; it seems reasonable to assume that in the absence of regulation of GHS,
new medicines that lessen the health impacts of ozone will be developed. Moreover,
advances in technology and the development of public health programs (e.g., cooling
centers) are likely to lessen the negative welfare impacts of heat waves.
Similarly, the document would appear more balanced if it also highlighted whether
particular regions of the US would benefit, and to what extent these positive impacts
would mitigate negative impacts elsewhere in the United States. For example, it might be
reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and
economic reasons. Deschenes and Moretti (2007 Review of Economics and Statistics)
demonstrate that extremely cold days are more dangerous to human health than extremely
hot days. Please add this paper to the literature review in Section 7(a) of the TSD.
Further, there should be a consideration of the fertilizing effect of CO2, which may
overwhelm the negative impact of additional hot days on agricultural yields in some
regions of the US. In others regions, the net effect is likely to be negative.
Agency compliance with other environmental mandates
There is some concern that an endangerment finding, and some of the language used to
support the finding, will make it more difficult to comply with NEPA and other
environmental planning statutes.
• This finding and the associated emission standards for these six greenhouse gases
may make it much more expensive and difficult to develop other air quality
standards (NAAQS in particular). For example, EPA has recently asked BLM to
use models that sometimes exceed current budgets in developing resource
management plans and environmental impact statements. Also, there are
currently no models available that forecast the potential impacts of greenhouse
gases on climate change at the regional or local level, which are the levels at
which our decisions are made. This rule also could make findings that would
leave agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging “inadequate NEPA” due to new
information (i.e., the endangerment finding) that was not considered when the EIS
was developed. Without a model available, an agency would be left with little
ability to respond because (i) there are no standards to serve as thresholds, (ii)
there are no tools to analyze impacts, and (iii) the cost of analyzing impacts could
be exorbitant.

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
4
• Unnecessarily broad or expansive language with respect to the effects of GHGs or
the certainty with which effects will occur could create a basis for finding all
GHG emissions significant for purposes of NEPA analysis, thus requiring an EIS
for all direct and indirect effects that change GHG emissions in any amount.
Similarly, EPA should be very careful to state which effects are significant and
their scale to avoid unintentionally trigger NEPA for Federal actions not
otherwise considered to have environmental impacts.
Four chemicals v. six chemicals
EPA proposes to make an endangerment finding on six directly emitted and long-lived
GHGs—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons
and sulfur hexafluoride, treated as a group as an air pollutant. The proposal, however,
defines the terms “air pollution” and “air pollutant” for purposes of section 202(a) as the
six GHGs, two of which are not addressed in the underlying petition and which EPA
recognizes are not emitted by new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, and on page
two, this action is characterized as a “response” to the Supreme Court’s decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), which arose from a petition with respect to
the four GHGs. Although the latter two GHGs have similar characteristics and are
addressed in UN documents, it is not clear why they are included in the endangerment
and “cause or contribute” findings. While it appears that section 202(a) provides
sufficiently broad authority for EPA to do so and the draft explains this decision as based
on the uniform, global nature of GHG ambient concentrations, a seemingly simpler
regulatory action might be to base the definition of “air pollution” or “air pollutant” on
the four GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.
• This raises the question of the extent to which EPA intends or does not intend
this finding to extend beyond section 202 to the same terms used in other key
parts of the CAA, e.g., section 101(a) (general findings and purpose), section 108
(National Ambient Air Quality Standards), and section 111(b) (New Source
Performance Standards). EPA would benefit from making its position explicit in
this proposal. Commenters are sure to take this important issue on in some
fashion so EPA may as well do what it can to shape the debate and the comments
being invited. For example, it could note that the same terms are important parts
of other key CAA provisions, but then state that EPA at this time is only
addressing and seeking comment on issues directly associated with section 202.
Alternatively, it could state that it views these findings as to GHGs to be broadly
applicable to the Act as a whole, but nonetheless make clear that EPA is not in
this rulemaking attempting to consider or address any of the other regulatory
findings that would be necessary to trigger GHG regulation under other CAA
programs. A third option would be to invite comment on whether interested
parties believed there was any basis for distinguishing the understanding of the
terms in the section 202 context from the understanding of the terms in other parts
of the Act.

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
5
• EPA fails to make a case of why the six GHGs should be treated as a single
pollutant and why all six should be treated as a group. Treating the gases as a
group yields the indefensible result that emissions of PFCs, SF6 and HFCs other
than HFC-134a from motor vehicles are asserted to “cause or contribute: to air
pollution, when there are no such emissions from motor vehicles. Further, EPA
states that: "Depending on the circumstances... it may be appropriate to set
standards for individual gases [of the 6], or some combination of group and
individual standards." EPA asserts that these regulatory flexibilities would exist
whether or not greenhouse gases are treated as multiple pollutants or as individual
pollutants. [See discussion on page 32-33.]
• These greenhouse gases differ significantly in terms of physical properties,
formation mechanisms, and possible mitigation techniques.
• Mobile source CO2 is formed by burning fossil fuels. Virtually all of the
carbon in the fuel is converted to CO2. The more efficient the combustion
process, the more complete the conversion to CO2. Unlike for traditional
criteria pollutants (e.g., NMHC, CO, NOX), which can be converted to other
substances through emissions aftertreatment (i.e., catalytic converters), no
mobile aftertreatment device can convert CO2 to something that does not
contribute to global warming.1 Therefore, mobile source CO2 emissions can
only be reduced by burning less fossil fuel, either by improving fuel economy
or converting to less carbon-intensive fuels.
• Mobile source CH4 and N2O emissions are by-products of fossil fuel
combustion. However, burning less fossil fuel does not necessarily mean
reducing CH4 and N2O emissions. For example, using methane (CH4) rather
than petroleum could increase CH4 emissions
• Mobile source HFC emissions arise from releases of HFC refrigerants from
mobile air conditioners. Therefore, mobile source HFC emissions can only be
reduced by using different refrigerants and/or “hardening” mobile air
conditioners to reduce the potential for refrigerant leaks.
• Mobile source CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFC emissions not only have different
global warning potentials, they remain in the atmosphere for different
amounts of time and are removed from the atmosphere by different
mechanisms.
• In contrast to EPA’s citation of Class I and Class II substances under Title VI,
under Title II, EPA’s treats mobile source NHMC and NOX as separate pollutants,
even though both are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone (i.e.,
urban smog), and both are mitigated through a combination of fuel improvements,
1 In fact, current catalytic converters operate by convert HC, CO, and NOX into CH4, N2O, and CO2 (and
water).
DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
6
combustion process changes, and emissions

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
6
combustion process changes, and emissions aftertreatment. Considering that
mobile source CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFC emissions are even more distinct from
one another than are mobile source NHMC and NOX emissions, and that EPA
classifies NMHC and NOX as separate pollutants, EPA should classify these as
separate pollutants or, alternatively, classify CO2 as one pollutant, classify CH4
and N2O as another pollutant (class), and classify HFCs as a third pollutant
(class).
Accounting for the Global Nature of Greenhouse Gas Pollution in the Findings
In this draft proposal, EPA finds under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a) that (1) “air
pollution” in the form of the global mix of six greenhouse gases (or the GHGs) may be
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare (the endangerment finding);
and (2) emissions of an “air pollutant” in the form of the global mix of the GHGs from
new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to that air pollution (the
contribution finding). The agency characterizes the “global” nature of the GHG
emissions and concentrations (page 16), notes the effects of GHG emissions globally in
making the endangerment finding (page 29), and assesses the contribution of the GHGs
emitted by section 202(a) sources as a percentage of global emissions (page 36). The
proposal appears to assume, but does not explicitly discuss why (or solicit comment on
whether) these are relevant legal inquiries under section 202(a) the Clean Air Act. This is
virtually certain to be a subject of public comment; and we recommend that EPA directly
address this matter in the proposal.
EPA also factors international considerations into the endangerment and contribution
findings differently. On page 29, the agency states: “The Administrator judges that
impacts to public health and welfare occurring within the U.S. alone warrant her
proposed endangerment finding.” On page 36, however, EPA bases its finding on the
“significance” of the GHG emissions from section 202(a) sources for purposes of the
contribution finding in part on their global contribution:
It is the Administrator’s judgment that the collective GHG emissions from section
202(a) source categories are significant, whether the comparison is global (over 4
percent of total GHG emissions) or domestic (24 percent of total GHG
emissions). The Administrator believes that consideration of the global context is
important for the cause or contribute test but that the analysis should not solely
consider the global context.
It is unclear from the proposal why a difference in treatment of the two findings is
necessary or appropriate. Because the Administrator regards the domestic contribution
comparison in itself to be significant, it may be simpler (and less open to challenge) to
base the contribution finding solely on domestic considerations. (This would not
foreclose a discussion of global contribution, provided, as requested above, it is made
clear how relevant this is under section 202(a)).
Group Versus Individual Approach to “Air Pollutant”

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
7
On page 32, EPA proposes to designate the six GHGs, collectively, as the "air pollutant"
for which the endangerment finding is being made. The proposal, however, then goes on
at pages 33-40 to analyze the contribution issue both as to the six GHGs collectively, and
as to each individually. Although EPA hints that it believes either a collective or
individual approach could be valid and would reach similar results, see page 34, the
agency never really says expressly whether or not it is soliciting comment on these issues
and whether it would be open to considering a pollutant-by-pollutant-based approach for
the final rule. We recommend that this be made explicit.
Comment Solicitation
EPA limits solicitation of comment on the proposal to the simple statements on page six
to the effect that it seeks comment on all aspects of this action (data, methodology, and
major legal and policy considerations). While this is efficient and legally sufficient, the
agency may want to highlight a few key areas in which comment would be most useful.
The first two issues that we’ve identified above might be worthy of an express request for
comment. EPA may also need to clarify the relationship between comment on this
proposal and the July 30, 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (ANPR). In footnote 11, EPA indicates that it is responding to a few key
comments from the ANPRM in this proposal related to the endangerment and
contribution findings and asks commenters to “submit to the docket for today’s action
any comments they want EPA to consider as it makes a decision on this proposed
determination.” We recommend that EPA move the footnote 11 discussion up to the
main body of the proposal at page 6 and explicitly state that commenters may not rely on
prior submission of comments to the ANPR and that if parties wish EPA to consider
comments made in response to the ANPR or other rulemakings, they should re-submit
those comments here with an appropriate explanation as to how the commenter believes
those comments relate to issues raised in this proposal. We can imagine a party trying to
make out a challenge to this endangerment finding based on arguments that were raised
entirely or primarily in comments submitted in response to the ANPR, not this proposal
(a prospect that is somewhat more likely due to the fact that EPA in various places
discusses comments made in response to the ANPR).
Agricultural Production
The proposed Finding erroneously suggests that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) predicts an increase in both crop and forest production in the U.S. (e.g.,
pg. 28 lines 21 and 34 of the Proposed Finding, pg 80 line 26, page 87 line 9). The IPCC
findings refer to North America, not the U.S.
The Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3) “The Effects of Climate Change on
Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States”
(U.S. Climate Change Science Program/Backlund et al. 2008), which includes more
recent and more geographically-specific publications, tempered IPCC’s findings
substantially, citing water limitations, northward progression of production zones,
diminished grain set period, pest infestations, nutrient limitations, air pollution, and
wildfire, among other dampening factors to production in agriculture and forestry in the U.S. Significant increases in production may be possible within North America as a
whole, but are unlikely within the U.S. itself.
The Findings document should be corrected to reflect that IPCC is referring to North
America rather than the U.S. More importantly, the Findings document should be revised
to accurately reflect the discussion in the Technical Support Document (TSD).
In addition, the placement of the IPCC prediction near the beginning of each section in
the absence of any summarization gives the impression that large production increases
are conclusive. This overrides the very salient and far more equivocal discussion which
follows, leaving readers with the mistaken impression that climate change is a boon to
U.S. agriculture and forestry. A summary statement which more accurately reflects the
content of the technical discussions should be composed to lead each section.
Emissions from the combustion of different fuels vs. emissions from different mobile
source categories.
Mobile source CO2 is formed by burning fossil fuels. Virtually all of the carbon in the
fuel is converted to CO2. Therefore, and considering that CO2 remains in the atmosphere
for a long time, national aggregate consumption of different types of fuels provides the
most accurate basis for estimating CO2 emissions.
IPCC guidelines for national reporting of GHG emissions account for this fact, and EIA
and EPA both use fuel consumption—not vehicle sales and fuel economy—as a basis for
estimating and reporting CO2 emissions. According to the IPCC (emphasis added),
“Emissions of CO2 are best calculated on the basis of the amount and type of fuel
combusted (taken to be equal to the fuel sold, see section 3.2.1.3) and its carbon
content.”2
Such reporting addresses petroleum consumption in the aggregate and for different
petroleum-based fuels, such as shown below from EIA
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html):

.....................................................................................
RUSH LIMBAUGH CAUGHT OBAMA IN A BIL LIE AGAIN!

.....................................................................................

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The EPA put out a memo. It's an Obama administration memo. This memo admits that CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. This memo alludes to the fact that there is no proof. Somebody in the Obama administration really goofed up.

Now, you haven't heard about this, you had to have seen C-SPAN to know about this, but this memo is out there that CO2 is not a pollutant, that there's no evidence that CO2 is leading to the warming of the planet. There is a memo that pretty much debunks everything environmental wackos and global warming people are putting out, and it came from the Obama administration. And what's interesting about it is that the EPA was just given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. So the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had a hearing on the proposed fiscal 2010 budget for the EPA. Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, had a conversation with the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. Now, Barrasso opened and he said this.

BARRASSO: In a memo that I received this morning, and it's marked "deliberative attorney-client privilege," nine pages, you are mentioned on every page of this memo, it is a White House memo, counsel in this administration repeatedly, repeatedly questions the lack of scientific support that you have for this proposed finding. It's here. Nine pages. This is a smoking gun saying that your findings were political, not scientific. Here, page two. There's concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.

RUSH: Folks, do you understand what you're hearing? This is a Republican Senator from Wyoming talking to the Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, saying White House counsel's put together a memo saying everything about CO2 is a myth, that there was no science in the formulation of this, that it was pure politics. He then said this to her.

BARRASSO: Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities. How do you square that when you say, "I don't want any overriding effect on the economy or small businesses," but this own internal document marked deliberative attorney-client privilege says everything you're proposing is going to have serious economic consequences for our businesses in this nation. Would you like to comment?

RUSH: Lisa Jackson. Here's her answer. It says the memo is basically only somebody's opinion.

JACKSON: The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that EPA owed the American people a determination as to whether greenhouse gases, either in whole or individually, endanger public health and welfare. We reviewed the science of it; we went through interagency review through the White House, so again I'm not sure what that document may say. It's deliberative, so obviously it's people's opinions.

RUSH: It's people's opinions in the Obama White House. CO2 not a pollutant. CO2 can't be said to be raising -- all of this is speculative, that it has all been arrived at politically, not with science. That treating CO2 as a pollutant, which is the precursor, by the way, to Obama's cap-and-trade, somebody put this together in the White House, and this has to be a huge leak, attorney-client privilege. I mean, whoever put this to paper has seriously undermined the cause. Of course, without C-SPAN or me telling you this you wouldn't know about it, I'm sorry. Nobody knows this. She says, "Well, it's just somebody's opinion." And then she went on and added this.

JACKSON: I have said over and over, as has the president, that we do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions and that the best way to address them is through a gradual move to a market-based program like cap and trade. Under the Clean Air Act have the potential to regulate all those sources you talk about now for other contaminates -- schools and hospitals and farms and Dunkin Donuts, and we don't because we use -- we -- we make regulations smartly to address the threats in the best way possible and with an eye towards understanding that we don't want to unduly affect those who can least afford to pay. So I do believe that the regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it, but we're not at that point yet.

RUSH: She didn't answer the question. She did not answer the question in any way, shape, manner, or form. She said, nah, this is somebody's opinion, precursor to cap-and-trade, then she throws in this business that they're not going to tax people who can least afford to pay it. But the dirty little secret is that that's who always gets hurt with liberalism. That's who always gets hurt, the people who can least afford it. The little guy either loses his job, increased taxes or what have you. But there you've heard it, this memo is out, attorney-client privilege from the White House, the Obama White House, and just to paraphrase what Barrasso said, it's nine pages, Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator mentioned on every page, the memo questions the lack of scientific support for the finding that CO2 is a pollutant. It's a smoking gun memo saying that the findings were political, not scientific.

On page two, quote, "There is concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated, direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects. Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the economy, small business, small communities." Obama administration's own memo, own lawyers. I don't know how this got out, and I don't know how Senator Barrasso from Wyoming got it, but he put it to Lisa Jackson. This is, again, not a surprise to me because we exhale CO2. If it were a poison it wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive.
END TRANSCRIPT




Acorn operates in the same way. It is also a sham that is operated out of chicago. It looks like the US is run by thus for real!

Barack Obama: America's Enemy

Barack Obama: America's Enemy

By David J. Stewart

I am a CITIZEN of the United States. As such, I love my country. I do not hate anyone; but I hate evil as God commands all believers to do (Psalm 97:10; Ephesians 5:11). There is not a more vile evil in America today than the Socialist policies Barack Hussein Obama will implement over the next few years in America. Some have questioned whether Obama is a Communist or not? I can tell you by definition of the word “Communism” that HE IS. One of the definitions of the noun Communism is “a socialist who advocates Communism.” Obama is an Anti-American, God-hating Communist wrapped in a smile.

In his book "Dream of My Father," Obama refers to his Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis as simply "Frank, a father figure." He doesn't even reveal Frank Davis' last name hoping that the public will not find out that "Frank, a father figure," is in reality a firebrand Communist labor agitator who identified himself as a Marxist lecturer and poet in 1964. Starting to get the picture?

The Chicago group who organized and funded Obama's first two campaigns look like a Who's Who of Communist activities dating from the violent 1960's. Chief among them was Tom Hayden, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn. ALL THREE ARE TO THIS VERY DAY UNREPENTANT AND UNAPOLOGETICALLY COMMUNIST AND THEY STILL SUPPORT THEIR FRIEND BARACK OBAMA FINANCIALLY. The American people have once again been duped by a charismatic man who makes a good speech.

Barack Obama is a Communist by definition and is supported by, funded by and advised by radical left wing Communists who seek to change our form of government from Capitalism to Socialism!!! On the day Obama won the election, I was saddened to see supports waving Communist flags behind Obama on FOX NEWS.

In Capitalism, a person keeps what they earn. In Socialism, a person keeps what someone else earns. In Communism, everyone is a slave to the government. Socialism is the Devil getting his foot in your front door. Communism is when the Devil takes control of your home. America's days are numbering before we are NO LONGER a free nation.

It is a sad day in American history. Few people realize that all of the recent nightmares in the housing and job market were artificially induced by the criminals controlling the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned. It's not federally owned and they have no reserve to back the value of our money. Our money today has no intrinsic value. It is a paper game. Why do you think China is buying up all the world's gold? They're smart and we're not, plain and simple. All of the recent economic troubles in America have been deliberately caused to condition us, to force us to beg for relief from a new leader, and that leader is implementing Socialism as the answer. America is in serious trouble as a nation and now we've got a treasonous Communist as our President.

Any government leader who provides welfare benefits, jobs, healthcare, driver's licenses and education to CRIMINALS who illegally cross our nation's borders is committing treason. Treason by definition means “an act of deliberate betrayal.”

Allowing Illegal immigration is a deliberate act of treason by our government leaders, as part of the ongoing effort to destroy America's sovereignty and bring about a New World Order, i.e., a Godless Global Totalitarian Communist Police State. It's become so bad that American citizens are now competing with illegal aliens for American jobs. We have been sold out by Democrat and Republican leaders alike. They are traitors.

America was founded upon Capitalism, which works fine if you leave it alone. But when our government leaders allow American corporations to relocate overseas to exploit foreign slave labor, then American citizens can't find a job anymore, and Capitalism becomes impossible. It's not fair. And worse, it's a betrayal of the American public. Our entrusted leaders have stabbed us in the back. The American people have been placed into a NO-WIN situation by their government leaders, where the American dream is no longer possible to the average hard-working American. It doesn't matter how hard one is willing to work if TENS-OF-MILLIONS of American jobs are being eliminated by greedy companies who have NO LOYALTY to America. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Nations don't rule the world, corporations do! The politicians who cater to these greedy and Anti-American companies are properly called “corporate whores.” ie Lindsey Lapdog Graham.


The average American is woefully ignorant of the evils at work within the U.S. government today. If all you listen to is FOX NEWS then you are well nigh hopeless, because they lie through their teeth about so many things. Sadly, even many of America's religious leaders (like Pat Robertson, who is NO Christian) are showing support for Barack Obama. Barack Obama is an Anti-American Communist, who does NOT fear God, and cannot be trusted. He will lead America down a path of Socialism, which is the road to Communism, i.e., a Police State like rotten China is today.

Obama has lied repeatedly to America and works for the New World Order elite, who hate America, the God of the Bible, Christianity and the traditional family. Government's original intent was to PROTECT our property, our rights and our freedom, period. It was never intended for the government to educate our children, provide retirement services, give aid to foreign nations, provide healthcare to illegal immigrants, tamper with the economy, provide welfare, et cetera. The average American today has been brought up with the mindset that this is the way it's supposed to be, but it's not. More and more American's are foolishly relying upon the government to solve their problems, whether they be financial, social, educational or moral. Obama is being hailed as a miracle leader, who will bring salvation to the American people; but his methods require increasing government control, which ultimately can only lead to a Communist Police State.

OBAMA IS A FRAUD, LIAR, who depends on your ignorance to fuel his agenda, "change" that will ensure your civil liberties are taken away so a socialist/communist type one world order is promoted and defended.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

If you still believe obama is not a FRAUD after watching this there is little hope for you. If your eyes have been opened to the FRAUD obama after watching this then you are no longer deceived nor are you a deciever.
Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

The issue of obama citizenship status is a legal one, not a political one

Devvy Kidd

OBAMA CITIZENSHIP

The issue of his citizenship status is a legal one, not a political one. This is what Obama's supporters willfully continue to ignore. They gleefully display their industrial strength stupidity by attacking Americans who are asking the law be upheld because no one, not even a president (or usurper president) is above the law. Here are a few examples of individuals who care nothing for our constitution.

Until this legal issue is resolved, Obama aka Soetoro will continue signing laws that will eventually lead to a torrent of lawsuits that will flood the courts and continue to divide this country.

Every American should continue demanding U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor convene a Quo Warranto. Every American regardless of political party affiliation should continue demanding the various U.S. Attorney's investigate Obama aka Soetoro for fraud regarding the data bases put together by Dr. Taitz.

Obama aka Soetoro is a classic narcissist and pathological liar. However, if a genuine long form birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii, it still does not get around constitutional restrictions even though his mother was a U.S. citizen.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does the first amendment state? "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH". What is congress doing. They are in the process of making a law that does what the first amendment says congress can't do. So I urge all citizens to IGNORE senate bill S909 because it is an ILLEGAL LAW!!!!

There is nothing in the US Constitution about so called "hate speech"

If I want to call a queer a queer, or even use crude racist words I have this right under the first amendment! Sodomy is a deadly sin in the bible and so are preversions of the same type. If I say obama is "satan's son" I have that right under the first amendment. Someone will say prove it. I will say, the senate bill s909 which obama has promoted is the evidence. Some will say, that is not proof. Then I will say, it is my right to say so and speak what I think obama is under the first amendment! If obama is not satan's son he is at the minimum satan's step son!

Hateful speech is just that. Hateful speech. Threats are threats. There are laws that deal with threats. There should be no law according to the first amendment that quells free speech. IGNORE IT! Obama is a FRAUD and and IDIOT!. The facts speak for themselves. Obama is a crack head. Obama is stupid. Obama is a media created dumb ass. Obama is a speaker who is but a shadow of himself. A cardboard cutout that is prompted by a teleprompter to speak when told to do so. He is like a circus monkey on a chain that has been trained to mimmic a leader. Obama seems to only keep putting his foot in his mouth. This is because he is really stupid. All this is but FREE SPEECH as no threat has been made but facts stated as I believe. I'm sure this offends those who are bonded with obama as brothers or who identify with him as one of their own. To me you also are idiots if you identify yourself so much with obama that any free speech directed toward your hero offends you to the point you must resort to personal attacts defending your idiot hero. Only an IDIOT would support obama or an individual who wished to further their own prospects in life as most liberals do. The mass media herds willing uninformed citizens to slaughter everday. The slaughter is the destruction of free speech etc as defined as hate speech by the idiot obama and his fellow thugs in congress!

...................................................................................
This bill includes the following:

"The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence."

I read this to say, free speech can be though of as an act of violence if one speaks of committing a violent act. Speaking of committing an act of violence could be a threat. This is called assault. There are laws for this. It is hateful speech directed toward an individual that could be considered an assult. So called "hate speech" is not an assault if not directed toward and individual as a threat of bodily harm. There is no such thing as "hate speech"! There are left wing radical extremists in the white house and congress who want to quell free speech and protect sodomy and perverts including pedifiles. Obama is a pervert because he and his fellow socialists are preverting the US Constitution.

What is the difference between assault and battery?

Assault is the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim. Battery is the actual physical impact on another person. If the victim has been touched in a painful, harmful, violent, or offensive way by the person committing the crime, this might be battery. If the victim has not actually been touched, but only threatened or attempted, then the crime is assault. Consider the act of spitting in someone's face. This is not painful, violent,or harmful, but it is certainly offensive and there is an impact, a touching, so this would be a battery.

....................................................................................

The following s909 bill is an illegal law under the US Constitution. It should be IGNORED!
....................................................................................

S 909 IS

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 909

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 28, 2009

Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BAYH, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. AKAKA)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act--

(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

‘(a) In General-

‘(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

‘(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

‘(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

‘(i) death results from the offense; or

‘(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

‘(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

‘(I) death results from the offense; or

‘(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

‘(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

‘(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

‘(I) across a State line or national border; or

‘(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

‘(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

‘(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

‘(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

‘(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

‘(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

‘(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

‘(b) Certification Requirement-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that--

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

‘(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

‘(c) Definitions- In this section--

‘(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

‘(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

‘(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

‘(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘249. Hate crime acts.’.

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race,’.

(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after ‘data acquired under this section’.

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Epidemic Influenza And Vitamin D

This is a simple way to help prevent the flu virus and colds. Of course the {House Monkeys in washington dc would never tell you this information}{House Monkeys is not hate speech but free speech.} {What is a house monkey?. It doesn't exist just like the term "hate speech" is non existent but only a term to be used by LIBERALS to confuse the act of FREE SPEECH} The US house of reps could say they are offended but then they would admit the house monkey term applies to them! The obama bug is a bo virus that will make you immune to common sense. (Story Reports)

....................................................................................
Please read the article below about vitamin D. It is well worth your time. Spread the vitamin D around like a virus :)
....................................................................................
Every year, we all field patient questions about flu shots. This study must now inform how we answer those questions. Flu shots expose a person to a weak relative of the soon to arrive flu virus, stimulating the immune system to respond and acquire immunity. This has benefit as long as the drug makers pick the right virus strain for the vaccine. Vitamin D, in contrast, prevents flu by stimulating innate immunity and prevents flu infection, regardless of what strain arrives this year. Flu vaccine attempts to fight the germ. Vitamin D removes the fertile field. This is what naturopathic medicine is about.

Epidemic Influenza And Vitamin D

In early April of 2005, after a particularly rainy spring, an influenza epidemic (epi: upon, demic: people) exploded through the maximum-security hospital for the criminally insane where I have worked for the last ten years. It was not the pandemic (pan: all, demic: people) we all fear, just an epidemic. The world is waiting and governments are preparing for the next pandemic. A severe influenza pandemic will kill many more Americans than died in the World Trade Centers, the Iraq war, the Vietnam War, and Hurricane Katrina combined, perhaps a million people in the USA alone. Such a disaster would tear the fabric of American society. Our entire country might resemble the Superdome or Bourbon Street after Hurricane Katrina.

It's only a question of when a pandemic will come, not if it will come. Influenza A pandemics come every 30 years or so, severe ones every hundred years or so. The last pandemic, the Hong Kong flu, occurred in 1968 - killing 34,000 Americans. In 1918, the Great Flu Epidemic killed more than 500,000 Americans. So many millions died in other countries, they couldn't bury the bodies. Young healthy adults, in the prime of their lives in the morning, drowning in their own inflammation by noon, grossly discolored by sunset, were dead at midnight. Their body's own broad-spectrum natural antibiotics, called antimicrobial peptides, seemed nowhere to be found. An overwhelming immune response to the influenza virus - white blood cells releasing large amounts of inflammatory agents called cytokines and chemokines into the lungs of the doomed - resulted in millions of deaths in 1918.

As I am now a psychiatrist, and no longer a general practitioner, I was not directly involved in fighting the influenza epidemic in our hospital. However, our internal medicine specialists worked overtime as they diagnosed and treated a rapidly increasing number of stricken patients. Our Chief Medical Officer quarantined one ward after another as more and more patients were gripped with the chills, fever, cough, and severe body aches that typifies the clinical presentation of influenza A.

Epidemic influenza kills a million people in the world every year by causing pneumonia, "the captain of the men of death." These epidemics are often explosive; the word influenza comes from Italian (Medieval Latin ?nfluentia) or influence, because of the belief that the sudden and abrupt epidemics were due to the influence of some extraterrestrial force. One seventeenth century observer described it well when he wrote, "suddenly a Distemper arose, as if sent by some blast from the stars, which laid hold on very many together: that in some towns, in the space of a week, above a thousand people fell sick together."

I guess our hospital was under luckier stars as only about 12% of our patients were infected and no one died. However, as the epidemic progressed, I noticed something unusual. First, the ward below mine was infected, and then the ward on my right, left, and across the hall - but no patients on my ward became ill. My patients had intermingled with patients from infected wards before the quarantines. The nurses on my unit cross-covered on infected wards. Surely, my patients were exposed to the influenza A virus. How did my patients escape infection from what some think is the most infectious of all the respiratory viruses?

My patients were no younger, no healthier, and in no obvious way different from patients on other wards. Like other wards, my patients are mostly African Americans who came from the same prisons and jails as patients on the infected wards. They were prescribed a similar assortment of powerful psychotropic medications we use throughout the hospital to reduce the symptoms of psychosis, depression, and violent mood swings and to try to prevent patients from killing themselves or attacking other patients and the nursing staff. If my patients were similar to the patients on all the adjoining wards, why didn't even one of my patients catch the flu?

A short while later, a group of scientists from UCLA published a remarkable paper in the prestigious journal, Nature. The UCLA group confirmed two other recent studies, showing that a naturally occurring steroid hormone - a hormone most of us take for granted - was, in effect, a potent antibiotic. Instead of directly killing bacteria and viruses, the steroid hormone under question increases the body's production of a remarkable class of proteins, called antimicrobial peptides. The 200 known antimicrobial peptides directly and rapidly destroy the cell walls of bacteria, fungi, and viruses, including the influenza virus, and play a key role in keeping the lungs free of infection. The steroid hormone that showed these remarkable antibiotic properties was plain old vitamin D.

All of the patients on my ward had been taking 2,000 units of vitamin D every day for several months or longer. Could that be the reason none of my patients caught the flu? I then contacted Professors Reinhold Vieth and Ed Giovannucci and told them of my observations. They immediately advised me to collect data from all the patients in the hospital on 2,000 units of vitamin D, not just the ones on my ward, to see if the results were statistically significant. It turns out that the observations on my ward alone were of borderline statistical significance and could have been due to chance alone. Administrators at our hospital agreed, and are still attempting to collect data from all the patients in the hospital on 2,000 or more units of vitamin D at the time of the epidemic.

Four years ago, I became convinced that vitamin D was unique in the vitamin world by virtue of three facts. First, it's the only known precursor of a potent steroid hormone, calcitriol, or activated vitamin D. Most other vitamins are antioxidants or co-factors in enzyme reactions. Activated vitamin D - like all steroid hormones - damasks the genome, turning protein production on and off, as your body requires. That is, vitamin D regulates genetic expression in hundreds of tissues throughout your body. This means it has as many potential mechanisms of action as genes it damasks.

Second, vitamin D does not exist in appreciable quantities in normal human diets. True, you can get several thousand units in a day if you feast on sardines for breakfast, herring for lunch and salmon for dinner. The only people who ever regularly consumed that much fish are peoples, like the Inuit, who live at the extremes of latitude. The milk Americans depend on for their vitamin D contains no naturally occurring vitamin D; instead, the U.S. government requires fortified milk to be supplemented with vitamin D, but only with what we now know to be a paltry 100 units per eight-ounce glass.

The vitamin D steroid hormone system has always had its origins in the skin, not in the mouth. Until quite recently, when dermatologists and governments began warning us about the dangers of sunlight, humans made enormous quantities of vitamin D where humans have always made it, where naked skin meets the ultraviolet B radiation of sunlight. We just cannot get adequate amounts of vitamin D from our diet. If we don't expose ourselves to ultraviolet light, we must get vitamin D from dietary supplements.

The third way vitamin D is different from other vitamins is the dramatic difference between natural vitamin D nutrition and the modern one. Today, most humans only make about a thousand units of vitamin D a day from sun exposure; many people, such as the elderly or African Americans, make much less than that. How much did humans normally make? A single, twenty-minute, full body exposure to summer sun will trigger the delivery of 20,000 units of vitamin D into the circulation of most people within 48 hours. Twenty thousand units, that's the single most important fact about vitamin D. Compare that to the 100 units you get from a glass of milk, or the several hundred daily units the U.S. government recommend as "Adequate Intake." It's what we call an "order of magnitude" difference.

Humans evolved naked in sub-equatorial Africa, where the sun shines directly overhead much of the year and where our species must have obtained tens of thousands of units of vitamin D every day, in spite of our skin developing heavy melanin concentrations (racial pigmentation) for protecting the deeper layers of the skin. Even after humans migrated to temperate latitudes, where our skin rapidly lightened to allow for more rapid vitamin D production, humans worked outdoors. However, in the last three hundred years, we began to work indoors; in the last one hundred years, we began to travel inside cars; in the last several decades, we began to lather on sunblock and consciously avoid sunlight. All of these things lower vitamin D blood levels. The inescapable conclusion is that vitamin D levels in modern humans are not just low - they are aberrantly low.

About three years ago, after studying all I could about vitamin D, I began testing my patient's vitamin D blood levels and giving them literature on vitamin D deficiency. All their blood levels were low, which is not surprising as vitamin D deficiency is practically universal among dark-skinned people who live at temperate latitudes. Furthermore, my patients come directly from prison or jail, where they get little opportunity for sun exposure. After finding out that all my patients had low levels, many profoundly low, I started educating them and offering to prescribe them 2,000 units of vitamin D a day, the U.S. government's "Upper Limit."

Could vitamin D be the reason none of my patients got the flu? In the last several years, dozens of medical studies have called attention to worldwide vitamin D deficiency, especially among African Americans and the elderly, the two groups most likely to die from influenza. Cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, depression, chronic pain, depression, gum disease, diabetes, hypertension, and a number of other diseases have recently been associated with vitamin D deficiency. Was it possible that influenza was as well?

Then I thought of three mysteries that I first learned in medical school at the University of North Carolina: (1) although the influenza virus exists in the population year-round, influenza is a wintertime illnesses; (2) children with vitamin D deficient rickets are much more likely to suffer from respiratory infections; (3) the elderly in most countries are much more likely to die in the winter than the summer (excess wintertime mortality), and most of that excess mortality, although listed as cardiac, is, in fact, due to influenza.

Could vitamin D explain these three mysteries, mysteries that account for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year? Studies have found the influenza virus is present in the population year-around; why is it a wintertime illness? Even the common cold got its name because it is common in cold weather and rare in the summer. Vitamin D blood levels are at their highest in the summer but reach their lowest levels during the flu and cold season. Could such a simple explanation explain these mysteries?

The British researcher, Dr. R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, was the first to document the most mysterious feature of epidemic influenza, its wintertime surfeit and summertime scarcity. He theorized that an unknown "seasonal factor" was at work, a factor that might be affecting innate human immunity. Hope-Simpson was a general practitioner who became famous in the late 1960's after he discovered the cause of shingles. British authorities bestowed every prize they had on him, not only because of the importance of his discovery, but because he made the discovery own his own, without the benefit of a university appointment, and without any formal training in epidemiology (the detective branch of medicine that methodically searches for clues about the cause of disease).

After his work on shingles, Hope-Simpson spent the rest of his working life studying influenza. He concluded a "seasonal factor" was at work, something that was regularly and predictably impairing human immunity in the winter and restoring it in the summer. He discovered that communities widely separated by longitude, but which shared similar latitude, would simultaneously develop influenza. He discovered that influenza epidemics in Great Britain in the 17th and 18th century occurred simultaneously in widely separated communities, before modern transportation could possibly explain its rapid dissemination. Hope-Simpson concluded a "seasonal factor" was triggering these epidemics. Whatever it was, he was certain that the deadly "crop" of influenza that sprouts around the winter solstice was intimately involved with solar radiation. Hope-Simpson predicted that, once discovered, the "seasonal factor" would "provide the key to understanding most of the influenza problems confronting us."

Hope-Simpson had no way of knowing that vitamin D has profound effects on human immunity, no way of knowing that it increases production of broad-spectrum antimicrobial peptides, peptides that quickly destroy the influenza virus. We have only recently learned how vitamin D increases production of antimicrobial peptides while simultaneously preventing the immune system from releasing too many inflammatory cells, called chemokines and cytokines, into infected lung tissue.

In 1918, when medical scientists did autopsies on some of the fifty million people who died during the 1918 flu pandemic, they were amazed to find destroyed respiratory tracts; sometimes these inflammatory cytokines had triggered the complete destruction of the normal epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract. It was as if the flu victims had been attacked and killed by their own immune systems. This is the severe inflammatory reaction that vitamin D has recently been found to prevent.

I subsequently did what physicians have done for centuries. I experimented, first on myself and then on my family, trying different doses of vitamin D to see if it has any effects on viral respiratory infections. After that, as the word spread, several of my medical colleagues experimented on themselves by taking three-day courses of pharmacological doses (2,000 units per kilogram per day) of vitamin D at the first sign of the flu. I also asked numerous colleagues and friends who were taking physiological doses of vitamin D (5,000 units per day in the winter and less, or none, in the summer) if they ever got colds or the flu, and, if so, how severe the infections were. I became convinced that physiological doses of vitamin D reduce the incidence of viral respiratory infections and that pharmacological doses significantly ameliorate the symptoms of some viral respiratory infections if taken early in the course of the illness. However, such observations are so personal, so likely to be biased, that they are worthless science.

As I waited for the hospital to finish collecting data from all the patients taking vitamin D at the time of the outbreak - to see if it really reduced the incidence of influenza - I decided to research the literature thoroughly, finding all the clues in the world's medical literature that indicated if vitamin D played any role in preventing influenza or other viral respiratory infections. I worked on the paper for over a year, writing it with Professor Edward Giovannucci of Harvard, Professor Reinhold Vieth of the University of Toronto, Professor Michael Holick of Boston University, Professor Cedric Garland of U.C., San Diego, as well as Dr. John Umhau of the National Institute of Health, Sasha Madronich of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Dr. Bill Grant at the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center. After numerous revisions, we submitted our paper to the same widely respected journal where Dr. Hope-Simpson published most of his work several decades ago.

Epidemiology and Infection, known as The Journal of Hygiene in Hope-Simpson's day, recently published our paper. The editor, Professor Norman Noah, knew Dr. Hope-Simpson and helped tremendously with the paper. In the paper, we detailed our theory that vitamin D is Hope-Simpson's long forgotten "seasonal stimulus." We proposed that annual fluctuations in vitamin D levels explain the seasonality of influenza. The periodic seasonal fluctuations in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels, which cause recurrent and predictable wintertime vitamin D deficiency, predispose human populations to influenza epidemics. We raised the possibility that influenza is a symptom of vitamin D deficiency in the same way that an unusual form of pneumonia (pneumocystis carinii) is a symptom of AIDS. That is, we theorized that George Bernard Shaw was right when he said, "the characteristic microbe of a disease might be a symptom instead of a cause."

In the paper, we propose that vitamin D explains the following 14 observations:

1. Why the flu predictably occurs in the months following the winter solstice, when vitamin D levels are at their lowest,

2. Why it disappears in the months following the summer solstice,

3. Why influenza is more common in the tropics during the rainy season,

4. Why the cold and rainy weather associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which drives people indoors and lowers vitamin D blood levels, is associated with influenza,

5. Why the incidence of influenza is inversely correlated with outdoor temperatures,

6. Why children exposed to sunlight are less likely to get colds,

7. Why cod liver oil (which contains vitamin D) reduces the incidence of viral respiratory infections,

8. Why Russian scientists found that vitamin D-producing UVB lamps reduced colds and flu in schoolchildren and factory workers,

9. Why Russian scientists found that volunteers, deliberately infected with a weakened flu virus - first in the summer and then again in the winter - show significantly different clinical courses in the different seasons,

10. Why the elderly who live in countries with high vitamin D consumption, like Norway, are less likely to die in the winter,

11. Why children with vitamin D deficiency and rickets suffer from frequent respiratory infections,

12. Why an observant physician (Rehman), who gave high doses of vitamin D to children who were constantly sick from colds and the flu, found the treated children were suddenly free from infection,

13. Why the elderly are so much more likely to die from heart attacks in the winter rather than in the summer,

14. Why African Americans, with their low vitamin D blood levels, are more likely to die from influenza and pneumonia than Whites are.

Although our paper discusses the possibility that physiological doses of vitamin D (5,000 units a day) may prevent colds and the flu, and that physicians might find pharmacological doses of vitamin D (2,000 units per kilogram of body weight per day for three days) useful in treating some of the one million people who die in the world every year from influenza, we remind readers that it is only a theory. Like all theories, our theory must withstand attempts to be disproved with dispassionately conducted and well-controlled scientific experiments.

However, as vitamin D deficiency has repeatedly been associated with many of the diseases of civilization, we point out that it is not too early for physicians to aggressively diagnose and adequately treat vitamin D deficiency. We recommend that enough vitamin D be taken daily to maintain 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels at levels normally achieved through summertime sun exposure (50 ng/ml). For many persons, such as African Americans and the elderly, this will require up to 5,000 units daily in the winter and less, or none, in the summer, depending on summertime sun exposure.

By: J. J. Cannell

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Disease from Outer Space?

Solar flare activity on the sun affects influenza outbreaks here on earth. Hope-Simpson, was the first to notice this association. Such an outlandish idea has justifiably, had its share of disbelievers. Although one proposed explanation suggests viral invasions from outer space, we now understand what is going on. Solar flare activity increases high-altitude ozone, which, in turn, absorbs more solar radiation and so decreases the amount of ultraviolet light that actually reaches the earth's surface. Current analysis says ultraviolet exposure may drop as much as 13% during maximum solar flare activity, something that fluctuates on an 11-year cycle. This fluctuation produces a proportional decrease in global vitamin D status. Extraterrestrial events may explain the cycles of more and less aggressive influenza epidemics. Wow!

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Norwegians, who get less sun exposure than any other Europeans, appear somewhat exempt from annual wintertime flu epidemic and have a smaller wintertime spike in mortality. The explanation is simple. Norwegians take fish oil, so much fish oil that they have the highest wintertime vitamin D levels of any European nation.

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Race Relations:

Melanin in the skin lowers vitamin D production. No one doubts that African Americans have lower vitamin D levels than white Americans. This fact is the simplest explanation as to why black children get pneumonia twice as often as white children. It also explains why blacks are more likely to die of respiratory infections and pneumonia.
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Don't volunteer:

There are a number of trials in which people were injected with attenuated flu vaccine and then watched to see how many of them got feverish. It is not clear what incentives researchers employed to find these study participants; I would not rush to volunteer for this one. Anyway, it turns out that injecting people with flu virus produces very different results depending on when and where you perform the experiment. If you run the experiment in the winter, 8 times as many test subjects get a fever than if you run the same test in summer. The further north you run the experiment, the more people get sick at any time of the year.

....................................................................................
....................................................................................
More examples:

There is no end of interesting trivia that associates D deficiency with upper respiratory infections. For example, children with Rickets, the classic vitamin D deficiency illness in which inadequate calcium is absorbed to build bones, are 11 times more likely to have lower respiratory infections than matched controls without Rickets.



Another example is a 1990 Russian study in which athletes were treated with ultraviolet radiation twice a year for three years. Compared to a matched control group, the treated athletes developed half the respiratory infections, recovered faster and had higher levels of salivary immunoglobulin.



These days we promote fish oils for their anti-inflammatory action. Years ago, the focus was different; fish oil was an anti-infective, given to reduce incidence of respiratory infections. Controlled studies from way back in the 1930's, show fish oil, which supplied a decent dose of vitamin D, reduced respiratory infections by 50%.

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
In 1981, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson proposed that a ‘seasonal stimulus’ intimately associated with solar radiation explained the remarkable seasonality of epidemic influenza. Solar radiation triggers robust seasonal vitamin D production in the skin; vitamin D deficiency is common in the winter, and activated vitamin D, 1,25(OH)2D, a steroid hormone, has profound effects on human immunity. 1,25(OH)2D acts as an immune system modulator, preventing excessive expression of inflammatory cytokines and increasing the ‘oxidative burst’ potential of macrophages. Perhaps most importantly, it dramatically stimulates the expression of potent anti-microbial peptides, which exist in neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract where they play a major role in protecting the lung from infection. Volunteers inoculated with live attenuated influenza virus are more likely to develop fever and serological evidence of an immune response in the winter. Vitamin D deficiency predisposes children to respiratory infections. Ultraviolet radiation (either from artificial sources or from sunlight) reduces the incidence of viral respiratory infections, as does cod liver oil (which contains vitamin D). An interventional study showed that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections in children. We conclude that vitamin D, or lack of it, may be Hope-Simpson's ‘seasonal stimulus’.

....................................................................................
....................................................................................
Vitamin D and the Common Cold Virus
A well organized study that followed over 100 postmenopausal women for 1 year while they were taking 4000 IU of Vitamin D daily, had only one women get cold or flu symptoms IN THE ENTIRE YEAR!

That’s ONE cold in ONE year in over 100 women By the way, that was NOT one cold PER PERSON for the year, that was ONE COLD IN ONE YEAR FOR 100 people.

How many colds do you and 99 friends get every year?
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Vitamin D, really a hormone and not a vitamin, has kept its classification as a vitamin due to our bodily needs for it that can be supplied in our diet.

But really it IS a hormone. One definition of a hormone is: “A chemical substance produced in the body that controls and regulates the activity of certain cells or organs.”

Vitamin D fits this definition because we actually create it in our bodies by the activation of sunlight on our skin. And it definitely regulates the activity of other cells in the body.
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
Immune system Control You can't get Vitamin D from vegetables Vitamin D facts that most people don't know is that it is a powerful immune system controller. Some recent Vitamin D research led to the journal 'Science News' to call it "The Antibiotic Vitamin!"

Vitamin D acts on the immune system through nuclear receptors called Vitamin D Receptors or VDR’s.

Nuclear Receptors are substances that attach to genes and affect their EXPRESSION of that particular gene depending upon environmental inputs. Only VDR's are specific to Vitamin D, but there are thousands of different nuclear receptors that gather information from the environment and tell genes what to do

The discovery of Nuclear Receptors really tipped the ‘nature vs. nurture’ argument in favor of the nurture side. Since the discovery of nuclear receptors and findings on how widespread they are, some scientists estimate that genetics influence the expression of disease about 20% with environment influences contributing 80%.
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................