Organized Crime Ring The Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel

English: Example of promotional "freebies" given to physicians by pharmaceutical companies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola

Even though the video above is a few years old now and bigger fines of $3 billion have been assessed to GlaxoSmithKline two years ago, it is a good summary of how the drug cartels operate.

Did you know that nearly 20 percent of corporate crime is being committed by companies that make products for your health?

Sad but true, no less than 19 pharmaceutical companies made AllBusiness.com's Top 100 Corporate Criminals List for the 1990s, and the trend has continued if not increased into the 21st Century. Crimes committed by some of the most well-known drug companies include:

• Fabricated studies
• Covering up serious problems with their drugs
• False claims
• Bribery, illegal kick-backs, and defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and even the FDA
• Immoral threat and intimidation tactics (recall the international drug company Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be "neutralized" or discredited for criticizing the lethally dangerous painkiller Vioxx. "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read in court.)

Pulling Back the Curtain on Organized Crime

Fortunately, organizations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,1 the False Claims Act Legal Center,2 and Politicol News3 have all started investigating and publicizing the criminal actions these companies have been getting away with for decades.

Most recently, the British Medical Journal’s blog featured an article4 by former BMJ editor and director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative, Richard Smith, aptly titled: "Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Mafia?"

The piece is also the foreword to the book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, written by Peter Gøtzsche, head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, which is considered the gold standard in terms of independent research reviews.

In related news, a recently published study concluded that most drug commercials are misleading or outright false.5 There’s a literal mountain of evidence proving that pharmaceutical companies are untrustworthy at best, and criminal at worst. And yet they’re the backbone of our modern “healthcare” system...

Even Forbes Magazine6 recently published an article with the provocative headline: "Is Big Pharma Addicted To Fraud?" and asked out loud “whether any aspect of the pharmaceutical business can be trusted.”

Is It Fair to Compare the Pharmaceutical Industry with the Mafia?

If you depend on conventional medical care to address your health problems, then you’re basically entrusting your health to organizations that clearly have far more interest in their bottom line than your health. In his article, Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Like the Mafia? Smith writes:7

“The characteristics of organized crime, racketeering, is defined in US law as the act of engaging repeatedly in certain types of offence, including extortion, fraud, federal drug offenses, bribery, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, obstruction of law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, and political corruption.

Peter [Gøtzsche] produces evidence, most of it detailed, to support his case that pharmaceutical companies are guilty of most of these offenses.

And he is not the first to compare the industry with the Mafia or mob. He quotes a former vice-president of Pfizer, who has said:

‘It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry…’

Smith also notes that many more people are killed by the pharmaceutical industry than the mob. Prescription drugs also kill far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are on the incline.8, 9

For example, prescription drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69.

Legal prescription drug abuse is a silent epidemic, and is part of the reason why the modern American medical system has become one of the leading causes of death and injury in the United States.

An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the US every year. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx alone killed more than 60,000 people within a few years’ time before being withdrawn from the market.

“... [T]he benefits of drugs are exaggerated, often because of serious distortions of the evidence behind the drugs, a ‘crime’ that can be attributed confidently to the industry,” Smith writes.“The great doctor William Osler famously said that it would be good for humankind and bad for the fishes if all the drugs were thrown into the sea.

He was speaking before the therapeutic revolution in the middle of the 20th century that led to penicillin, other antibiotics, and many other effective drugs, but Peter comes close to agreeing with him and does speculate that we would be better off without most psychoactive drugs, where the benefits are small, the harms considerable, and the level of prescribing massive.”

'Science-Based' Medicine Has Fallen on Its Own Sword

There are many areas within which corruption can take root, and the drug industry has nurtured corruption in most if not all of them. It would require an entire book to begin to address them all, which is exactly what Peter Gøtzsche has done in his book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare.

One of the most dangerous forms of corruption is that which occurs within medical science. For example, according to data from Thomson Reuters,10 the number of retractions of scientific studies have increased more than 15-fold since 2001, and a review11 published just last year showed that nearly 75 percent of all retracted drug studies were attributed to “scientific misconduct,” which includes:

• Data falsification or fabrication
• Questionable veracity
• Unethical author conduct
• Plagiarism

Corruption of science is incredibly serious, as health care professionals rely on published studies to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be harmed when false findings are published. The average lag time between publication of the study and the issuing of a retraction is 39 months. And that's if the misconduct is ever caught at all. What’s worse, about 32 percent of retractions are never published,12 leaving the readers completely in the dark about the inaccuracies in those studies!

Poster Children for Corrupted Science

One clear example of how deadly corrupted science can be is the painkiller Vioxx. There were many indications that this would be a dangerous drug, despite Merck’s claims, and I warned my readers to avoid it before its FDA approval in 1999. In 2008, four years after the drug was withdrawn from the market, an editorial13 published in the Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) suggested Merck might have deliberately manipulated dozens of academic documents published in the medical literature, in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.

The diabetes drug Avandia is another potent example. Between 1999 and 2007, Avandia is estimated to have caused over 80,000 unnecessary heart attacks,14 although the actual numbers of people harmed or killed by the drug is still largely unknown. Avandia is a poster child for the lethal paradigm of corrupted science as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of Avandia,hid damaging information about the drug for over 10 years, as they knew it would adversely affect sales!

Two years ago, GSK agreed to a $3 billion settlement over the sales and marketing practices of several of its drugs, including Avandia. This was the largest federal drug-company settlement in US history, surpassing the $2.3 billion paid by Pfizer in 2009(see video above) for illegally promoting off-label uses of four of its drugs. Most recently, GSK’s crooked ways made international headlines yet again when Chinese authorities arrested four of the company’s senior executives on charges of cash and sexual bribery. Another 18 GSK employees and medical personnel were also reportedly detained.15 As reported by The Guardian:16

“The Chinese authorities have accused GSK of acting like a criminal "godfather", using a network of 700 middlemen and travel agencies to bribe doctors with £320m [$489 million] cash and sexual favors in return for prescribing GSK drugs. Gao said the police have evidence that bribery has been a 'core part' of GSK China's business model since 2007.” [Emphasis mine]

As Smith writes in the featured article:

“The drug industry has systematically corrupted science to play up the benefits and play down the harms of their drugs... the industry has bought doctors, academics, journals, professional and patient organizations, university departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians. These are the methods of the mob.

The book doesn’t let doctors and academics avoid blame... doctors and academics are supposed to have a higher calling. Laws that are requiring companies to declare payments to doctors are showing that very high proportions of doctors are beholden to the drug industry and that many are being paid six figures sums for advising companies or giving talks on their behalf. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that these ‘key opinion leaders’ are being bought. They are the ‘hired guns’ of the industry.

And, as with the mob, woe be to anybody who whistleblows or gives evidence against the industry. Peter tells several stories of whistleblowers being hounded, and John Le Carré’s novel describing drug company ruthlessness became a bestseller and a successful Hollywood film.”

New Study Finds Most Drug Commercials Misleading

In related news, a recent study17 concluded that a majority of American drug commercials—60 percent of prescription drug ads, and 80 percent of ads for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—are either misleading or outright false. Lead author Adrienne E. Faerber told Scientific American:18

“There were cases of blatant lying, but these half-truths form more than half of our analysis.”

In all, the researchers analyzed 84 prescription and 84 OTC drug ads aired on major networks between 2008 and 2010. Ads deemed to be “potentially misleading” omitted important information, exaggerated information, made lifestyle associations, or expressed opinions. Ads making false claims were either factually false or unsubstantiated. Ads promoting erectile dysfunction drugs were among the worst offenders. OTC drugs, which are overseen by the Federal Trade Commission and not the FDA, were also more likely to be misleading or false. Overall, a mere 33 percent of drug ads were found to be “objectively true.”

Interestingly enough, other research published in the journal Psychological Science19, 20 found that warnings of adverse side effects in drug ads can actually backfire over time. While initially making viewers cautious, over the course of time people tend to ignore the warnings. People even began to see the warning as "an indication of the firm's honesty and trustworthiness!" According to the authors:

“In four studies, we demonstrated this phenomenon. For example, participants could buy cigarettes or artificial sweeteners after viewing an ad promoting the product. Immediately afterward, the quantity that participants bought predictably decreased if the ad they saw included a warning about adverse side effects. With temporal distance (product to be delivered 3 months later, or 2 weeks after the ad was viewed), however, participants who had seen an ad noting the benefits of the product but warning of risky side effects bought more than those who had seen an ad noting only benefits.”

But Who Is Behind the Drug Companies?

While it is true that there were fines of $2 billion and $3 billion against the drug companies, that really pales in comparison to the fines being leveraged against the financial industry. JP Morgan will likely receive an $11 billion dollar fine.21 This level of fine doesn’t even begin to come close to what these criminal institutions really deserve for how they have ruined the US economy.

But keeping the article focused on health, you have to wonder if there is some common thread here and I believe there is.  The drug companies are typically owned by other corporations. Just as the featured video shows, the shell game that Pfizer played shielded them by developing tiered lower-level corporations. What is rarely ever explained is that the corporate shield also runs in the other direction. The primary owners of most of these drug companies are the international banksters that are responsible for most of the problems we see not only in the health arena, but in all areas of the world.

How To Avoid Becoming a Disease Statistic

Ultimately, the take-home message here is that even if a drug or treatment is "backed by science," this in no way guarantees it is safe or effective. Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective. Also, when a drug or treatment does come with warnings, do yourself a favor and don’t tuck that information into some recessed corner in the back of your mind!

You've got to use all the resources available to you, including your own sense of common sense and reason, true experts' advice and other's experiences, to determine what medical treatment or advice will be best for you in any given situation. I advise you to remain skeptical but open -- even if it is something I'm saying, you need to realize that YOU are responsible for your and your family's health, not me, and certainly not drug companies trying to sell their wares and convince you to take dangerous "symptom-cover-ups" disguised as science-based solutions.

When it comes to health, an ounce of prevention is certainly better than a pound of cure, especially when the cure comes in a pill. Please keep in mind that leading a common-sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to achieve and maintain a healthy body and mind. And while conventional medical science may flip-flop back and forth in its recommendations, there are certain basic tenets of optimal health (and healthy weight) that do not change, including the following:

1. Proper Food Choices: For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, ideally organic, unprocessed foods. For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to eat a good portion of your food raw.
Avoid sugar, and fructose in particular. All forms of sugar have toxic effects when consumed in excess, and drive multiple disease processes in your body, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of chronic disease and accelerated aging. I believe the two primary keys for successful weight management are severely restricting carbohydrates (sugars, fructose, and grains) in your diet, and increasing healthy fat consumption. This will optimize insulin and leptin levels, which is key for maintaining a healthy weight and optimal health.
2. Regular exercise: Even if you're eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval-type training boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor. HGH also helps boost weight loss. So along with core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching, I highly recommend that twice a week you do Peak Fitness exercises, which raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, followed by a 90-second recovery period.
3. Stress Reduction: You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease -- from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer. Meditation, prayer, social support and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium. I also strongly believe in using simple tools such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) to address deeper, oftentimes hidden, emotional problems.
4. Drink plenty of clean water.
5. Maintain a healthy gut: About 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut, and research is stacking up showing that probiotics—beneficial bacteria—affect your health in a myriad of ways; it can even influence your ability to lose weight. A healthy diet is the ideal way to maintain a healthy gut, and regularly consuming traditionally fermented foods is the easiest, most cost effective way to ensure optimal gut flora.
6. Optimize your vitamin D levels: Research has shown that increasing your vitamin D levels can reduce your risk of death from ALL causes. For practical guidelines on how to use natural sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D benefits, please see my previous article on how to determine if enough UVB is able to penetrate the atmosphere to allow for vitamin D production in your skin.
7. Avoid as many chemicals, toxins, and pollutants as possible: This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.
8. Get plenty of high quality sleep: Regularly catching only a few hours of sleep can hinder metabolism and hormone production in a way that is similar to the effects of aging and the early stages of diabetes. Chronic sleep loss may speed the onset or increase the severity of age-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and memory loss.

Related articles

• Pulling Back the Curtain on the Organized Crime Ring That Is the Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel
• Violent Side Effects of Antidepressants
• Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating
• Red Flag for Universal Flu Vaccine
• Designer Babies and Other Patented Life Forms
• Media Buries Psychiatric Drug Connection to Navy Shooter

Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's Kids 35, James Armistead

Battle of the Hook Pre Show.  Liberty's Kids episode number 35, James Armistead.  We are now only a few short days away from the event of the Battle of the Hook here in Gloucester, Virginia.  If you have not heard about this event until now, what rock have you been hiding under?  This is the event of the year.  An American Revolutionary War Reenactment and one of the largest and most complete ever seen in one location.  If you are just hearing about this now and you have the time to spare and do not mind traveling, we highly recommend it.  The are here is sold out of rooms but Williamsburg still has rooms left and is only about a 30 minute drive away along one of the most incredible roads in the nation.

Below are directions on how to get to Gloucester from the main points around Virginia.

Gloucester, Virginia Crier, Battle of the Hook Directions from Chuck Thompson

Related articles

• Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's Kids 34, Deborah Samson
• Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's kids 33, Conflict In The South
• Battle of the Hook Pre Show - Liberty's Kids 32, Benedict Arnold
• Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's Kids 31, Bostonians
• Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's Kids 30, In Praise of Ben
• Liberty's Kids 29, The Great Galvez - Battle of the Hook Pre Show

Anti Federalist Papers No. 24, Objections to A Standing Army (Part 1)

BRUTUS

The first essay is taken from the ninth letter of "BRUTUS" which appeared in The New-York Journal, January 17, 1788.

. . . . Standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people. . . . [If] necessary, the truth of the position might be confirmed by the history of almost every nation in the world. A cloud of the most illustrious patriots of every age and country, where freedom has been enjoyed, might be adduced as witnesses in support of the sentiment. But I presume it would be useless, to enter into a labored argument, to prove to the people of America, a position which has so long and so generally been received by them as a kind of axiom.

Some of the advocates for this new system controvert this sentiment, as they do almost every other that has been maintained by the best writers on free government. Others, though they will not expressly deny, that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous, yet join with these in maintaining, that it is proper the general government should be vested with the power to do it. I shall now proceed to examine the arguments they adduce in support of their opinions.

A writer, in favor of this system, treats this objection as a ridiculous one. He supposes it would be as proper to provide against the introduction of Turkish Janizaries, or against making the Alcoran a rule of faith.'

{1 A citizen of America [Noah Webster], An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution proposed by the late Convention held at Philadelphia. With Answers to the Principal Objections Raised Against the System (Philadelphia, 1787), reprinted in Ford (ed.), Pamphlets pp. 29-65.}

From the positive, and dogmatic manner, in which this author delivers his opinions, and answers objections made to his sentiments-one would conclude, that he was some pedantic pedagogue who had been accustomed to deliver his dogmas to pupils, who always placed implicit faith in what he delivered.

But, why is this provision so ridiculous? Because, says this author, it is unnecessary. But, why is it unnecessary? Because, "the principles and habits, as well as the power of the Americans are directly opposed to standing armies; and there is as little necessity to guard against them by positive constitutions, as to prohibit the establishment of the Mahometan religion." It is admitted then, that a standing army in time of peace is an evil. I ask then, why should this government be authorised to do evil? If the principles and habits of the people of this country are opposed to standing armies in time of peace, if they do not contribute to the public good, but would endanger the public liberty and happiness, why should the government be vested with the power?

 No reason can be given, why rulers should be authorised to do, what, if done, would oppose the principles and habits of the people, and endanger the public safety; but there is every reason in the world, that they should be prohibited from the exercise of such a power. But this author supposes, that no danger is to be apprehended from the exercise of this power, because if armies are kept up, it will be by the people themselves, and therefore, to provide against it would be as absurd as for a man to "pass a law in his family, that no troops should be quartered in his family by his consent." This reasoning supposes, that the general government is to be exercised by the people of America themselves. But such an idea is groundless and absurd. There is surely a distinction between the people and their rulers, even when the latter are representatives of the former. They certainly are not identically the same, and it cannot be disputed, but it may and often does happen, that they do not possess the same sentiments or pursue the same interests. I think I have shown [in a previous paper] that as this government is constructed, there is little reason to expect, that the interest of the people and their rulers will be the same.

Besides, if the habits and sentiments of the people of America are to be relied upon, as the sole security against the encroachment of their rulers, all restrictions in constitutions are unnecessary; nothing more is requisite, than to declare who shall be authorized to exercise the powers of government, and about this we need not be very careful-for the habits and principles of the people will oppose every abuse of power. This I suppose to be the sentiments of this author, as it seems to be of many of the advocates of this new system. An opinion like this, is as directly opposed to the principles and habits of the people of America, as it is to the sentiments of every writer of reputation on the science of government, and repugnant to the principles of reason and common sense.

The idea that there is no danger of the establishment of a standing army, under the new constitution, is without foundation.

It is a well known fact, that a number of those who had an agency in producing this system, and many of those who it is probable will have a principal share in the administration of the government under it, if it is adopted, are avowedly in favor of standing armies. It is a language common among them, "That no people can be kept in order, unless the government have an army to awe them into obedience; it is necessary to support the dignity of government, to have a military establishment. And there will not be wanting a variety of plausible reasons to justify the raising one, drawn from the danger we are in from the Indians on our frontiers, or from the European provinces in our neighborhood. If to this we add, that an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry, and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay them, and perhaps sooner.

A writer, who is the boast of the advocates of this new constitution, has taken great pains to show, that this power was proper and necessary to be vested in the general government.

He sets out with calling in question the candor and integrity of those who advance the objection; and with insinuating, that it is their intention to mislead the people, by alarming their passions, rather than to convince them by arguments addressed to their understandings.

The man who reproves another for a fault, should be careful that he himself be not guilty of it. How far this writer has manifested a spirit of candor, and has pursued fair reasoning on this subject, the impartial public will judge, when his arguments pass before them in review.

He first attempts to show, that this objection is futile and disingenuous, because the power to keep up standing armies, in time of peace, is vested, under the present government, in the legislature of every state in the union, except two. Now this is so far from being true, that it is expressly declared by the present articles of confederation, that no body of forces "Shall be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state." Now, was it candid and ingenuous to endeavour to persuade the public, that the general government had no other power than your own legislature have on this head; when the truth is, your legislature have no authority to raise and keep up any forces?

He next tells us, that the power given by this constitution, on this head, is similar to that which Congress possess under the present confederation. As little ingenuity is manifested in this representation as in that of the former.

I shall not undertake to inquire whether or not Congress are vested with a power to keep up a standing army in time of peace; it has been a subject warmly debated in Congress, more than once, since the peace; and one of the most respectable states in the union, were so fully convinced that they had no such power, that they expressly instructed their delegates to enter a solemn protest against it on the journals of Congress, should they attempt to exercise it.

But should it be admitted that they have the power, there is such a striking dissimilarity between the restrictions under which the present Congress can exercise it, and that of the proposed government, that the comparison will serve rather to show the impropriety of vesting the proposed government with the power, than of justifying it.

It is acknowledged by this writer, that the powers of Congress, under the present confederation, amount to little more than that of recommending. If they determine to raise troops, they are obliged to effect it through the authority of the state legislatures. This will, in the first instance, be a most powerful restraint upon them, against ordering troops to be raised. But if they should vote an army, contrary to the opinion and wishes of the people, the legislatures of the respective states would not raise them. Besides, the present Congress hold their places at the wilt and pleasure of the legislatures of the states who send them, and no troops can be raised, but by the assent of nine states out of the thirteen. Compare the power proposed to be lodged in the legislature on this head, under this constitution, with that vested in the present Congress, and every person of the least discernment, whose understanding is not totally blinded by prejudice, will perceive, that they bear no analogy to each other. Under the present confederation, the representatives of nine states, out of thirteen, must assent to the raising of troops, or they cannot be levied. Under the proposed constitution, a less number than the representatives of two states, in the house of representatives, and the representatives of three states and an half in the senate, with the assent of the president, may raise any number of troops they please.

 The present Congress are restrained from an undue exercise of this power; from this consideration, they know the state legislatures, through whose authority it must be carried into effect, would not comply with the requisition for the purpose, [if] it was evidently opposed to the public good. The proposed constitution authorizes the legislature to carry their determinations into execution, without intervention of any other body between them and the people. The Congress under the present form are amenable to, and removable by, the legislatures of the respective states, and are chosen for one year only. The proposed constitution does not make the members of the legislature accountable to, or removable by the state legislatures at all; and they are chosen, the one house for six, and the other for two years; and cannot be removed until their time of service is expired, let them conduct ever so badly. The public will judge, from the above comparison, how just a claim this writer has to that candor he asserts to possess. In the mean time, to convince him, and the advocates for this system, that I possess some share of candor, I pledge myself to give up all opposition to it, on the head of standing armies, if the power to raise them be restricted as it is in the present confederation; and I believe I may safely answer, not only for myself, but for all who make the objection, that they will [not] be satisfied with less.

Liberty Education Series:  

Related articles

• Federalist Papers No. 24. The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
• Federalist Papers No. 23. The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
• The Anti Federalist Papers No 23 Certain Powers Necessary For the Common Defense, Can and Should Be Limited
• Federalist Papers No. 21. Other Defects of the Present Confederation
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 21 Why The Articles Failed
• The Anti Federalist Papers No. 17 Federalist Power Will Ultimately Subvert State Authority

Governor McDonnell Announces Amtrak Ridership Grows

  c 2005 joseph barillari (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

~ Since 2009, Ridership on Virginia’s State-supported Amtrak Intercity Passenger Trains Has Almost Doubled~

Staples Mill Road station busiest in Virginia

 

RICHMOND - Today, Governor Bob McDonnell announced Amtrak Virginia service continues to grow year and after year, delivering statewide benefits, providing vital transportation services, advancing the Commonwealth’s economy, and demonstrating the value and convenience of intercity passenger rail.

           “The impressive increase in Amtrak Virginia ridership demonstrates why the state has become more involved with providing additional transportation choices for citizens of the Commonwealth,” said Governor McDonnell. “It is clear that Virginians embrace the idea of passenger rail and we are pleased to be able to continue to expand intercity passenger rail service, most recently to Norfolk, and in the future to Roanoke.”

Stations in Richmond (Staples Mill Road), Alexandria, Charlottesville, and Newport News are the busiest facilities in Virginia.

“Since 2009, the Commonwealth's state-supported Amtrak intercity passenger trains have seen ridership grow by 99.83 percent.  Dedicated funding for Amtrak Virginia trains was included in Governor Bob McDonnell's 2013 transportation package, HB 2313, to continue to support existing intercity passenger rail and to provide additional funding sources to expand services for Virginians,” said Transportation Secretary Sean T. Connaughton.

                The Amtrak Virginia Lynchburg route had an increase of 7 percent. The Norfolk service has exceeded expectations as its one-year anniversary approaches. Both Amtrak Virginia trains provide same-seat service as far north as Boston.

                “People throughout the State are deciding on other modes of transportation rather than driving their vehicles to their destinations and often sitting in traffic,” said Thelma Drake, director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT).  “Train travel is an attractive option by providing a relaxing one-seat ride up to Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and Boston, free Wi-Fi and the ability to work, read or just enjoy the beautiful scenery of the State during the journey.”

                Virginia and other state-supported services are vital links in the Amtrak national network.  The power of increasing demand for passenger rail is recognized through state investments to improve service, speed and safety.  In addition, states and communities realize stations served by Amtrak are anchors for economic development, catalysts for historic preservation and tourism growth, sites for commercial and cultural uses, and points of civic pride.

                “There is high demand for passenger rail service in Virginia as demonstrated by considerable ridership growth throughout the Commonwealth,” said Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman. “We look forward to continuing our partnership with DRPT and further expanding service in the Commonwealth.”

About Amtrak Virginia

Amtrak Virginia is a partnership between the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) and Amtrak to provide more rail travel choices in Virginia. The Lynchburg train was initiated in October 2009, and serves the following Virginia stations: Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Culpeper, Manassas, Burke Centre, and Alexandria. The Richmond train was initiated in July 2010, and serves the following Virginia stations: Richmond-Staples Mill, Ashland, Fredericksburg, Quantico, Woodbridge, and Alexandria. The Norfolk train launched in December 2012 and connects passengers to destinations north of the city. Amtrak Virginia service promotes economic, tourism and environmental benefits. Seewww.amtrakvirginia.com for more information.

About Amtrak®

Amtrak is America’s Railroad®, the nation’s intercity passenger rail service and its high-speed rail operator. Amtrak and its state and commuter partners move people, the economy and the nation forward. Formally known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak is governed by a nine member board of directors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Anthony R. Coscia is board chairman and Jeffrey R. Moreland serves as vice chairman. In FY 2013, a record 31.6 million passengers traveled on Amtrak on more than 300 daily trains – at speeds up to 150 mph (241 kph) – that connect 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian Provinces. Enjoy the journey® at Amtrak.com or call 800-USA-RAIL for schedules, fares, and more information. For updates, Like them on Facebook, follow them on Twitter (@Amtrak), and check out their blog at blog.amtrak.com.

Related articles

• Governor McDonnell Launches Adoption Social Media Campaign:
• Governor Bob McDonnell Announces 95 Express Lanes Construction Reaches Mid-Point
• Governor Bob McDonnell Named "Public Infrastructure Official of the Year"
• Statement of Governor Bob McDonnell on Shooting at Washington Navy Yard
• Governor McDonnell Congratulates 2014 Virginia Teacher of the Year
• Virginia Posts 2.6% Revenue Increase in September

Signing a Contract to sign a Contract? Gloucester Officials Need To Understand The Laws

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

“For the Common Good. “

Since County officials are incapable of following the law as shown repeatedly on this blog site; do they think that signing a letter of intent to sign the Contract for the Swamp School is legal before the funding is available?

The Virginia Constitution was written for us to limit the government intrusion into our lives.  Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?  How about the Constitution of Virginia?

Code of Virginia

Ҥ 15.2-1238. Certification of sufficient funds.

Except in emergency, no order for delivery on a contract or open market order for supplies or contractual services for any county department or agency shall be awarded until the chief financial officer has certified that the unencumbered balance in the appropriation concerned, in excess of all unpaid obligations, is sufficient to defray the cost of such order.

15.2-1239. Orders and contracts in violation of article.

If any department or agency of the county government purchases or contracts for any supplies or contractual services contrary to the provisions of this article or the rules and regulations made there under  such order or contract shall be void and the head of such department or agency shall be personally liable for the costs of such order or contract.

§ 22.1-175.5. Capital School Projects Fund.

A. The governing body of any locality which is awarded a grant pursuant to this chapter may authorize the local treasurer or fiscal officer, by ordinance or resolution, to create a separate escrow account upon the books of the locality, as described in this section. Upon the adoption of such ordinance or resolution, the treasurer of the locality shall place such grant awards into this account.

B. The escrow account shall be known as the "County/City/Town of ____________ Capital School Projects Fund." All principal deposited to such fund, together with all income from or attributable to the fund, shall be used solely for (i) construction, additions, renovations, including retrofitting and enlarging public school buildings, infrastructure, including technology infrastructure, and site acquisition for public school buildings and facilities or (ii) debt service payments, or a portion thereof, for any such projects completed in the previous ten years if so designated. No disbursement from the fund may be made except upon specific appropriation by the governing body in accordance with applicable law. If a locality establishes such a fund and designates any portion of the funds deposited therein to pay debt service for (i) any general obligation of the locality held by the Virginia Public School Authority or (ii) any Literary Fund loan, the locality shall obtain an opinion of bond counsel that designation of funds to pay debt service on obligations described in clauses (i) and (ii) hereof does not adversely impact the tax-exempt status of such obligations.

C. All grant awards deposited in the fund, including all income from or attributable to such fund, shall be deemed public funds of the locality and shall be subject to all limitations upon deposit and investment provided by general law, including, but not limited to, the Virginia Security for Public Deposits Act (§2.2-4400 et seq.). Income, dividends, distributions, and grants accruing to the fund shall be retained in such fund and shall be expended only in accordance with the terms of this section.

D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to authorize a school board or school division to receive, hold or invest funds in its own name, nor to expend funds in the absence of a specific appropriation by the governing body of the locality in accordance with applicable law. “

The county intends to sign a letter of intent to sign the contract to build the Swamp School?  Again they violate their oath of office.  Is our county attorney trying to prove to us he is a full time County Jester and not a lawyer?  Or do they all have a total disregard for the laws of Virginia? Maybe we should let them sign the letter of intent violating the law and then let them pay for the building out of their personal funds?

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  Our founding fathers used common sense and Christian scripture when establishing our founding documents. 

“For the Common Good. “

Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay

P.S.  "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."  --Thomas Jefferson,letter to John Taylor, 1816

Our Notes:  During the 17th and 18th century, the colonies, the world, dealt with pirates who swindled anything they could get their hands on.  Today, the pirates wear ties and suits and try to convince us that what they are doing is in the best interest of the children, the community, the state or the entire country.  

Related articles

• Page Middle School News, Gloucester, VA
• Gloucester, VA School Board Ready To Contract Construction Without Funds
• Gloucester, VA More Page Middle School Corruption?
• Constitution Day
• Criminals with no regard for the law
• Rights of Victims of Crime

THE FLAX-COTTON REVOLUTION. BY HORACE GREELEY

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

London, Wednesday, June 4, 1851.

Although I have not yet found time for a careful and thorough examination of the machinery and processes recently invented or adopted in Europe for the manufacture of cheap fabrics from Flax, I have seen enough to assure me of their value and importance. I have been disappointed only with regard to machinery for Flax-Dressing, which seems, on a casual inspection, to be far less efficient than the best on our side of the Atlantic, especially that patented of late in Missouri and Kentucky. That in operation in the British Machinery department of the Exhibition does its work faultlessly, except that it turns out the product too slowly. I roughly estimate that our Western machines are at least twice as efficient.

M. Claussen is here, and has kindly explained to me his processes and shown me their products. He is no inventor of Flax-dressing Machinery at all, and claims nothing in that line. In dressing, he adopts and uses the best machines he can find, and I think is destined to receive important aid from American inventions. What he claims is mainly the discovery of a cheap chemical solvent of the Flax fiber, whereby its coarseness and harshness are removed and the fineness and softness of Cotton induced in their stead. This he has accomplished. Some of his Flax-Cotton is scarcely distinguishable from the Sea Island staple, while to other samples he has given the character of Wool very nearly. I can imagine no reason ]why this Cotton should not be spun and woven as easily as any other. The staple may be rendered of any desired length, though the usual average is about two inches. It is as white as any Cotton, being made so by an easy and cheap bleaching process. M. Claussen's process in lieu of Rotting requires but three hours for its completion. It takes the Flax as it came from the field, only somewhat dryer and with the seed beaten off, and renders it thoroughly fit for breaking. The plant is allowed to ripen before it is harvested, so that the seed is all saved, while the tediousness and injury to the fiber, not to speak of the unwholesomeness, of the old-fashioned Rotting processes are entirely obviated. Where warmth is desirable in the fabrics contemplated, the staple is made to resemble Wool quite closely. Specimens dyed red, blue, yellow, &c., are exhibited, to show how readily and satisfactorily the Flax-Cotton takes any color that may be desired. Beside these lie rolls of Flannels, Feltings, and almost every variety of plain textures, fabricated wholly or in good part from Flax as prepared for Spinning under M. Claussen's patent, proving the adaptation of this fiber to almost every use now subserved by either Cotton or Wool. The mixtures of Cotton and Flax, Flax-Cotton and Wool, are excellent and serviceable fabrics.

The main question still remains to be considered—will it pay? Flax may be grown almost anywhere—two or three crops a year of it in some climates—a crop of it equal to three times the present annual product of Cotton, Flax and Wool all combined could easily be produced even next year. But unless cheaper fabrics, all things considered, can be produced from Flax-Cotton than from the Mississippi staple, this fact is of little worth. On this vital point I must of course rely on testimony, and M. Claussen's is as follows:

He says the Flax-straw, or the ripe, dry plant as it comes from the field, with the seed taken off, may be grown even here for $10 per tun, but he will concede its cost for the present to be $15 per tun, delivered, as it is necessary that liberal inducements shall be given for its extensive cultivation. Six tuns of the straw or flax in the bundle will yield one tun of dressed and clean fiber, the cost of dressing which by his methods, so as to make it Flax Cotton, is $35 per tun. (Our superior Western machinery ought considerably to reduce this.) The total cost of the Flax-Cotton, therefore, will be $125 per tun or six cents per pound, while Flax-straw as it comes from the field is worth $15 per tun; should this come down to $10 per tun, the cost of the fiber will be reduced to $95 per tun, or less than five cents per pound. At that rate, good "field-hands" must be rather slow of sale for Cotton-planting at $1,000 each, or even $700.

Is there any doubt that Flax-straw may be profitably grown in the United States for $15 or even $10 per tun? Consider that Flax has been extensively grown for years, even in our own State, for the seed only, the straw being thrown out to rot and being a positive nuisance to the grower. Now the seed is morally certain to command, for two or three years at least, a higher price than hitherto, because of the increased growth and extended use of the fiber. Let no farmer who has Flax growing be tempted to sell the seed by contract or otherwise for the present; let none be given over to the tender mercies of oil-mills. We shall need all that is grown this year for sowing next Spring, and it is morally certain to bear a high price even this Fall. The sagacious should caution their less watchful neighbors on this point. I shall be disappointed if a bushel of Flax-seed be not worth two bushels of Wheat in most parts of our Country next May.

Our ensuing Agricultural Fairs, State and local, should be improved for the diffusion of knowledge and the attainment of concert and mutual understanding with regard to the Flax-Culture. For the present, at any rate, few farmers can afford or will choose to incur the expense of the heavy machinery required to break and roughly dress their flax, so as to divest it of four-fifths of its bulk and leave the fiber in a state for easy transportation to the central points at which Flax-Cotton machinery may be put in operation. If the Flax-straw has to be hauled fifty or sixty miles over country roads to find a purchaser or breaking-machine, the cost of such transportation will nearly eat up the proceeds. If the farmers of any township can be assured beforehand that suitable machinery will next Summer be put up within a few miles of them, and a market there created for their Flax, its growth will be greatly extended. And if intelligent, energetic, responsible men will now turn their thoughts toward the procuring and setting up of the best Flax-breaking machinery (not for fully dressing but merely for separating the fibre from the bulk of the woody substance it incloses) they may proceed to make contracts with their neighboring farmers for Flax-straw to be delivered in the Autumn of next year on terms highly advantageous to both parties. The Flax thus roughly dressed may be transported even a hundred miles to market at a moderate cost, and there can be no reasonable doubt of its commanding a good price. M. Claussen assures me that he could now buy and profitably use almost any quantity of such Flax if it were to be had. The only reason (he says) why there are not now any number of spindles and looms running on Flax-Cotton is the want of the raw material. (His patent is hardly yet three mouths old.) Taking dressed and hetcheled Flax, worth seven to nine cents per pound, and transforming it into Flax-Cotton while Cotton is no higher than at present, would not pay.

Of course, there will be disappointments, mistakes, unforeseen difficulties, disasters, in Flax-growing and the consequent fabrications hereafter as heretofore. I do not presume that every man who now rushes into Flax will make his fortune; I presume many will incur losses. I counsel and urge the fullest inquiry, the most careful calculations, preliminary to any decisive action. But that such inquiry will lead to very extensive Flax-sowing next year,—to the erection of Flax-breaking machinery at a thousand points where none such have ever yet existed—and ultimately to the firm establishment of new and most important branches of industry, I cannot doubt. Our own country is better situated than any other to take the lead in the Flax-business; her abundance of cheap, fertile soil and of cheap seed, the intelligence of her producers, the general diffusion of water or steam power, and our present superiority in Flax-breaking machinery, all point to this result. It will be unfortunate alike for our credit and our prosperity if we indolently or heedlessly suffer other nations to take the lead in it.

P. S.—M. Claussen has also a Circular Loom in the Exhibition, wherein Bagging, Hosiery, &c., may be woven without a seam or anything like one. This loom may be operated by a very light hand-power (of course, steam or water is cheaper), and it does its work rapidly and faultlessly. I mention this only as proof of his inventive genius, and to corroborate the favorable impression he made on me. I have seen nothing more ingenious in the immense department devoted to British Machinery than this loom.

I understand that overtures have been made to M. Claussen for the purchase of his American patent, but as yet without definite result. This, however, is not material. Whether the patent is sold or held, there will next year be parties ready to buy roughly dressed Flax to work up under it, and it is preparation to grow such Flax that I am urging. I believe nothing more important or more auspicious to our Farming Interest has occurred for years than this discovery by M. Claussen. He made it in Brazil, while engaged in the growth of Cotton. It will not supersede Cotton, but it will render it no longer indispensable by providing a substitute equally cheap, equally serviceable, and which may be grown almost everywhere. This cannot be realized too soon.