Guess who will vote for O’bama? You guessed right! Most teachers in the NEA and most members of AARP. The National Education Association ( I bet our local public schools belong to the NEA) has 3 million members and their agenda is against school vouchers and school choice (so parents can send their kids to a better performing school). The NEA has planks that conservative parents object (like marriage between homosexuals and lesbians is just fine). At the last NEA meeting - signs held up in the audience ' Educators For O’bama'! were everywhere. There are alternatives to the NEA. The AAE (Association of American Educators) and Conservative Teachers of America.

Now look at AARP - Very liberal and will surely want their members to vote for Mr. O’bama, like they asked for in the 2008 election. Please restore decent values to the U.S.A.and do not vote for Democrats like Senator Bob Casey and President O’bama. Vote for Mr.Tom Smith - U.S. Senate candidate and Mr. Mitt Romney - candidate for President.

Sincerely,

Bruce Moorhead

Susquehanna,Pa.

This letter is directed to those who have no doubt what and with whom we are dealing within the Obama administration. Time to the election is now measured in days and the Obama campaign seems to be imploding. My question to you is “What is going to happen if it looks like Obama will lose or has lost the election”? Do you think that Obama, et al, will allow the power which they have usurped to slip away just because they will or have been voted out? The Liberal/Socialist agenda has been nibbling away at our Constitution for one hundred years now and the attack has amped up these last four. They are on the brink of success in bringing down our Constitution. They are not going to go quietly. With over 900 Executive Orders having been issued, this administration has succeeded in marginalizing Congress. With the Attorney General as our adversary and all the Czars, HHS and EPA, the Executive Branch is consolidating power at blinding speed. We are already a hairs’ breadth from a Castro or Chavez.

So what do I think will or could happen? My fear is that Obama and Company will hatch a plan to justify the imposition of Martial Law, ostensibly to “protect” the citizens. Scenario: The Administration calls in Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO) and James Hoffa (Teamsters) and they conspire to create a national emergency. The Teamsters refuse to deliver food because of some trumped up grievance, resulting in a strike. Independent truckers are stopped at Teamsters blockades. The Attorney General does nothing. Food runs out, riots begin and “foragers” fan out into the countryside looking for food. They come to your house and you fight or feed (them). The administration, citing martial law, cancels the election or inauguration on the basis that fairness would be compromised.

If you think that this is farfetched, do your research on how Communist/Fascist dictators have overthrown democratic governments. Try Venezuela, Cuba, Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina, etc. See the movie 2016 if you have not already done so. If you are concerned, as I am, link up with likeminded citizens NOW and determine how you will oppose this or another similar scenario. There is strength in numbers. Get prepared. Do It Now! You have nothing to save but your republic. Not here in America you say. Dream on.

Sincerely,

Joe McCann

Elk Lake, Pa

Once again this Halloween Big Pharma will don his customary costume, white coat and stethoscope, and come knocking on your door via a multimillion dollar ad campaign in print and TV urging you to get your yearly flu shot.

The flu fanfare will be accompanied with a seasonally appropriate fright stat: 36,000 people die every year from the flu, but more about that later.

But be forewarned, it's trick or treat season for the drug marketeers. The trick is getting you to think that flu vaccines actually work. And the treat? It's the usual flu season bonanza of bucks which this year might gross Big Pharma $3.7 billion.

So do flu shots really work? Or are they just another Big Pharma scam?

Flu shots are 99 percent ineffective. That's the conclusion of an analysis titled, Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Adults, conducted by members of the Cochrane Collaboration, an international network of 28,000 researchers.

The authors examined 50 trials from 1966 to 2010 involving 70,000 people. They found that even 99 percent ineffective is too optimistic since, they say, some of the 50 studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that were designed to produce results favorable for their products.

For example, one vaccine boasted a 6.25 percent success rate. However, the average reaction to a placebo injection of distilled water was 30 percent effective. In other words, not only was the flu shot ineffective, it appeared to actually increase the chance of contracting the flu.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote, “In the age of 'evidence-based medicine,' it is shocking that there is so little evidence that the influenza vaccination program is effective. Indeed, there is evidence that is may be ineffective.”

But the pointlessness of flu shots is not the worst of it; they come with a raft of negative consequences. Among the more than two dozen side effects of flu vaccines are paralysis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, convulsions, and disorders of the nervous, metabolic, blood, and lymphatic systems.

Hugh Fudenbery, MD, a leading immunogeneticist, says that if a person has had five flu vaccinations, he is ten times more likely to get Alzheimer's disease than if he had only one or two shots.

The negative impact of flu vaccines might in part be due to the additives of neutralizers, stabilizers, and preservatives such as aluminum, formaldehyde, and most disconcerting, mercury.

Mercury is an extremely potent neurotoxin. Vaccinate a pregnant woman and some researchers think it will increase the risk of her baby developing a neurological impairment by seven to 14 times.

But Big Pharma isn't worried about being sued for vaccine related ailments. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 states that no manufacturer "shall be liable in any civil action" for any injury that "resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

The tax funded Vaccine Injury Compensation Program will pick up the tab in cases of successful liability suits for vaccine related injury or death.

But why should anyone seek the hoped for protection of a flu vaccine when we are born with a marvelous immune system that fights all pathogens. A respiratory infection indicates a weakness in that system.

Protect yourself from the flu, and all others illnesses as well, by strengthening your immune system. Health professionals emphasize the importance of sufficient sleep, a nutritious diet, exercise, and perhaps some supplements such as vitamins C and D.

Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin, is especially important since a lack of this vitamin in the fall and winter months is thought by some to be the reason for the seasonality of flu.

Oh, those 36,000 yearly flu deaths? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the actual number of flu deaths confirmed by laboratory analysis for the 2010-11 flu season was 311. That's exactly one in a million.

And if you're reasonably healthy, it's a lot less than that. How much less? Your chance of being killed by lightning is much greater than dying from the flu. Not so scary after all.

Perhaps this year we can turn the tables on Big Pharma's Halloween flu fleece and play a trick on them; skip the shot in favor of fortifying our immune system.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

A while back I warned about the "he-man" approach to foreign policy. It looks like one of our Presidential candidates has discovered this dubious tactic.

This candidate has called for a tougher approach to the Syrian crisis. Why? That's their crisis, not ours. Assad is killing Syrians, not us. And while this one candidate is eager to ally with the anti-Assad rebels, no one can say who they all are. Some are very likely to be radical Islamists, and do we really want to help them take over? That would be dumb.

And what would you do, Mr. Tough Guy? Go to war? Tell us.

This same candidate also finds fault with our current policy toward Iran. He says he would tighten sanctions. Exactly how? I say sanctions are as complete as they can possibly be. There's no way to tighten them any further. If I'm wrong, it'll take specifics to prove it. Alas, they're not forthcoming.

And he even seems to believe that if he were in charge, things like the Consulate attack in Benghazi wouldn't ever occur.

It's no wonder that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a noted professor of political science before and after her government service, has criticized this candidate's recent foreign policy address for its platitudes and lack of specifics. She gave it a C-- I'd call it a generous C.

Finally, this same candidate has some known Neocons among his foreign policy advisers. You know, those wonderful people who duped us into the Iraq War fiasco. History will keep repeating until we learn, but we sure hate to do that, don't we?

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA