Publicado: 04-26-2011 05:29 PM
ESTOS NO CALIFICAN ...
Poll shows GOP not happy with its prez candidates
Washington (CNN) - As the Republican presidential primary race continues its slow march out of the gate, a new poll suggests likely GOP voters are significantly less satisfied with the potential field of contenders than they were four years ago.
Less than 50 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents give positive marks to the still-in-flux GOP presidential field, down markedly from 2008 when nearly two-thirds said they were happy with that cycle's crop of candidates, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
And in another sign no potential candidate has yet to register momentum within the party, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney scored in the double digits (16 percent) when likely Republican voters were asked who they would support in the primaries and caucuses. The answer "no opinion" by contrast was the response of 33 percent of respondents, while an additional 12 percent said flatly "no one."
Behind Romney comes perhaps-serious candidate and business mogul Donald Trump at 8 percent, followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at 6 percent and 5 percent respectively.
Several other candidates were at 2 percent or less, including: Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he will not run.
The telephone poll was conducted April 14-17 and carries sampling error of 5 points.
Publicado: 05-18-2011 06:08 PM
White House Tries to Shut Boston Herald Out of Press Pool
Just another example of the Obama administration’s extensive history of imposing egregious limitations on the press.
May 18, 2011
More anti-media thuggery from the Obama White House:
The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
As you might recall, the White House tried to shut Fox News out of a press pool in October of 2009 on the grounds they were not a “fair” media outlet. When that happened, other media outlets stood up for Fox’s right to participate in the pool.
The president went 308 days without holding a press conference from July 2009 to May 2010. He famously held an event to sign the Press Freedom Act, then refused to take any questions from members of the press.
But the coup de grâce, may have been how the administration handled the press during the BP oil spill last year:
Media outlets such as The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, and NPR have written damning reports of the government’s unreasonable attempts to limit access to the spill. The New Orleans Times-Picayune was prohibited from flying a plane over the spill so a photographer could get pictures. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was denied permission to take a boat out to the spill with reporters and examine the catastrophe affecting his state. The Associated Press sent a letter of protest with the White House over the arbitrary restrictions. A CBS camera crew was threatened with arrest for trying to report from a beach affected by the spill.
The Herald further notes that the press has been exasperated with the White House for some time:
In April 2010, Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, president of the White House Correspondent’s Association, met with then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to hash out complaints about limitations on the press, saying, “In my 10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger ... over White House practices and attitudes toward the press.”
Despite showing nothing but contempt for the press and unfairly limiting the access of nearly all publications — even those that are editorially favorable to the Obama administration — the White House still thinks they are in a pposition to determine who in the media is “fair.”
OBAMA, PICHON DE TIRANO, NO CONFORME CONQUE 98% EN LA PRENSA SON LACAYOS SUYOS, AL ESTILO DE FIDEL Y CHAVEZ, NO TOLERA LA MENOR CRITICA QUE PUEDAN HACER PERIODISTAS DIGNOS QUE SE RESPETAN A SI MISMO Y A SU PROFESION.
Publicado: 11-28-2011 11:49 AM
OBAMA is Playing Fast and Furious with Drugs
By Tait Trussell On November 24, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
The President is siccing his always trustworthy and ever-so competent Attorney General Eric Holder on the pharmaceutical industry.
With an Executive Order, Obama assigned the Justice Department to “undertake whatever enforcement actions…it deems appropriate” to regulate the supply of medications. In other words, the industry is seen as guilty unless proven innocent.
From time to time, some medicines have been in short supply for medical caregivers and patients. Treatments for cancer, infections, cardiovascular troubles, and central nervous system problems are particularly in short supply currently.
With a flurry of activity and press coverage to indicate Obama is trying to show he cares that patients shouldn’t die waiting for drugs that could prolong their lives, “the Executive Order, however, “will aggravate the conditions causing the shortage,” The American Spectator reported Nov. 4.
Obama’s Executive Order tells the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to look for potential drug shortages and the Justice Department to seek out possible collusion or price gouging (which Obama always suspects from the private sector).
In other words, pharmaceutical companies will be “suspected of criminal activity if they work together or raise prices in ways that—to FDA or DOJ lawyers—seem illegal,” the article added.
Meanwhile, shockingly, the government is buying for $433 million an experimental smallpox drug from a major donor to Democrats and Obama at a time when we face the shortage of cancer-fighting drugs.
The beneficiary of the smallpox deal is Ronald Perelman, a billionaire controlling shareholder of Siga Technologies, Inc., which makes the experimental drug.
As much as Obama wants to keep campaign money rolling in, the plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug makes absolutely no sense. Smallpox was eradicated in 1978 and is known to exist only in locked freezers in the U.S. and Russia. There’s no credible evidence, according to a Los Angeles Times story Nov. 13 that any other country or terrorist group has smallpox to use as a weapon.
If such an attack should occur, the story said, “the government could draw on $1 billion worth of smallpox vaccine it already owns to inoculate the entire U.S. population.” The vaccine costs the government $3 a dose and can prevent any fatalities.
As for current drug shortages, a report issued Nov. 14 said that most of the drug shortages are in four key areas. “Supplies of other scarce drugs are either stable or have improved, according to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, a global research organization.
The drug shortage problem is highly concentrated. More than 80 percent of the products are generics and injectables, the study said. “While representing a small part of the overall medicines market, affected products include critical drugs to treat cancer, infection, cardiovascular disease, central nervous system conditions, and pain.” The study also said “Total supply volume for many impacted products has been stable or growing.”
The IMS Institute determined that of drugs believed to be scarce, manufacturers reported stable supplies of 56 drugs and increasing availability of 31 drugs, but 75 products have declined in the past five years.
Publicado: 11-28-2011 11:50 AM
Reasons for shortages, the IMS study found included manufacturing problems, discontinuations and suspensions of production, inability to meet demand, raw material problems, and contamination or other quality issues. Some drugs are still awaiting FDA approval. There is a misconception that the main problem is older unprofitable generics. The IMS study pinpointed manufacturing problems to be the main reason for shortages.
If companies were allowed to pool resources, (and not be charged with collusion) the production times and costs could go down.
In Obama’s fiscal year budget for 2012, he called for a period of seven years during which drug manufacturers could exclusively market brand-name “biological” drugs, down from 12 years. This would give a drug company less time to have its brand-name drug exclusively on the market. It might not recover in profits the heavy expense of making and marketing that drug before a generic drug company could begin making and selling the drug.
Most biological drugs, as contrasted to chemically synthesized drugs are complex mixtures that are not easily characterized. Biological products, including those manufactured by biotechnology, are considered drugs of the future. Vaccines, gene therapy or living cells may be used to treat manufacturing steps, in contrast to most conventional drugs.
Publicado: 11-28-2011 11:51 AM
Biological products often represent the cutting-edge of biomedical research and, in time, may offer the most effective means to treat a variety of medical illnesses and conditions that presently have no other treatments available. Biological medicines cost more because they are more expensive to manufacture. But they lead to quicker recovery time.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wants all drugs to be generics because they are cheaper. But only about half the drugs on the market have a generic equivalent.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) representing the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, sent me a statement Nov. 22 saying it has “long worked to prevent drug shortages in advance, and will continue to work closely with the FDA to prevent manufacturing disruptions.
“The implementation of the President’s Executive Order must effectively strike a balance between addressing a complex set of rare but nevertheless concerning issues in the manufacturing process while promoting a market environment that fosters accessibility for these needed products. Addressing anticipated occurrences of a drug shortage early in the process helps both health care providers and manufacturers identify treatment alternatives more efficiently, and we will continue to work with FDA to improve upon existing reporting requirements.
“Additionally, price gouging by secondary wholesalers is unacceptable. The ‘gray market’ presents serious concerns for patient safety as it cannot be assured that these products obtained by providers in his manner have been handled in a way that maintains produce integrity.
“While the majority of drug shortages involve generic drugs, with FDA specifically referring to an increase in shortages among ‘older sterile injectable drugs,’ this problem concerns us all and requires our combined attention.
“In the instance a shortage is anticipated, an innovator or generic manufacturer is encouraged to notify the FDA in order to address, avert and mitigate drug shortages. In the event there is a discontinuation of sole source, medically necessary drugs, companies are required to inform FDA six months in advance. Manufacturers have stepped up the voluntary reporting of anticipated events that might lead to drug shortages, and according to the FDA, in 2011, this early notification helped prevent over 99 shortages….
“It is critical that we seek a more comprehensive understanding of the many circumstances that can lead to a drug shortage as industry, Congress, FDA, patients, providers and other stakeholders try to identify meaningful ways to help alleviate, mitigate and address this critical problem. PhRMA and its members have worked — and will continue to work — diligently to this common goal.”
“PhRMA companies are leading the way in the search for new cures. PhRMA members alone invested an estimated $49.4 billion in 2010 in discovering and developing new medicines.
What we don’t need are experimental drugs Obama buys to encourage contributions to his campaign money pot.
Publicado: 03-07-2012 05:03 PM
Barack Obama’s Sole Article in Harvard Law Review Promotes Abortion Life News ^ | 8/22/08 | Steven Ertelt
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – How strongly does Barack Obama believe in unlimited abortions? Strongly enough that the only article he wrote for the Harvard Law Review while he was a law school student talked about how fervently believed in legalized abortion. Obama’s name wasn’t attached to any other legal scholarship during the time.
In an article unearthed by the Politico web site, Obama, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote an unsigned article touting abortion.
The web site says the article comes in at six pages and is contained in the third volume of the 1990 Harvard Law Review.
In the work, Obama considered a parenthetical abortion issue — whether unborn children have a legal right to sue their mothers for damage sustained during pregnancy, from such things as alcohol or illegal drugs.
Obama says no and writes supportively of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and another from the Illinois Supreme Court saying no such right exists.
According to Politico, Obama wrote: "[T]he case raises the broader policy and constitutional considerations that argue against using civil liability to control the behavior of pregnant women."
In a discussion of abortion itself, Obama wrote that government has more important business than "ensuring that any particular fetus is born."
He also decried any limits on abortion, saying the government has an interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
Politico said the Obama campaign confirmed the pro-abortion presidential candidate wrote the piece in question and that it was one of the typical articles law students would write briefing and opining on federal and state court decisions.
In an email to the web site, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt also confirmed that Obama "remains committed to" the sentiments he expressed in the piece.
Obama’s article is on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review and would likely be located in larger public libraries and databases that chronicle legal articles in scholarly publications.
Publicado: 05-31-2012 09:26 PM
When an American President gave the Medal of Freedom to a Socialist who admires Castro y Chavez? Who also once said that the United States should follow the path of Venezuela. To know more please read here:
Publicado: 06-28-2012 01:22 PM
Ahora que los comunistas del judicial (incluyendo a la comuñanga Kagan que obama puso ahí) tienen la mayoría, pueden votar a sus anchas leyes que son intencionalmente anti Constitucionales.
A mí ya me subieron el seguro de vida el año pasado y estoy segura lo harán otra vez para hacernos pagar por lo que se avecina... El 45% de nosotros estamos pagando por el resto... ¡Este barco se hunde gente!
Publicado: 06-29-2012 03:51 AM