Music – Written & Recorded by: Steve Phillips
Title: Dumbing Down

http://www.youtube.com/user/StevePhillips11
http://www.stevephillips-music.com/

Song Lyrics:
They’re dumbing us down
putting aspartame in our drinks
and fluoride in our toothpaste and the water
until we can’t even think straight any more

Taking prozac when we’re down
ritalin for the kids and
tamiflu for the swine flu scare
we just can’t feel no more

Things are not what they seem
It’s all a dream

There’s chemtrails in the sky and
pollution in the sea
there’s Monsanto taking over the food chain
but we just don’t see the lies

The TV and the newspapers
they’re keeping us all asleep
the bankers and the oil men
they’re feeding off our sheep mentality

Things are not what they seem
It’s all a dream

An eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth
we’re so busy fighting each other that we don’t see
only the truth will set us free

Things are not what they seem
It’ all a dream

I like the idea of this campaign because it is trying to cause everyone to act in the Right during a time when people are so content to do nothing when government is acting in the Wrong. The problem I have with the posters is that when you remove the URL to infowars.com the message does not stand on it’s own. You need to visit infowars to get the rest of the information that supports the story.

I am a fan of infowars and I think people should be reading the news that’s posted there, however, if the campaign really wants to cause people to act it should be planting seeds into every viewer of the poster, regardless of the websites they visit. You should be showing the V sign because you want Victory, Freedom and everything it represents – not because someone told you to.

That’s why I took some time this afternoon to remix the posters. They look very much the same as what Infowars has created. I changed the text, removed the website address and added a circle to the background, to pay homage to “V is for Vendetta.”

What are My Human Rights?

The following reproduces the articles of the Declaration which set out the specific human rights that are recognized in the Declaration.

Article 1

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

Article 4

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

• Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Almost daily I read the World, Political, Health, Social and Tech news from various news feeds. Often I will read the entire article, watch the linked video and then share it with friends, or, just post it to facebook. I have made several observations while traveling along this path. It is as though these news sources are all coming from completely different societies, and the people I share them with are largely silent about what they’re seeing.

In The News

World: talks a lot about why global governance is important.
Political: abstractly talks about which party is better.
Health: talks about fitness fads.
Social: talks about the latest apps and games and staying connected.
Tech: talks about the millions in investments to startups and iPhone vs the Android.

There’s no substance to it any of it. The news is very, very, obviously for entertainment purposes, not actual information distribution. What is there to gain from these talking points? They are just that – points to talk about. There is a very strong emphasis on being entertained as opposed to being educated and informed. Evidence of this point is ample – you may have noticed I left out the category of Entertainment, which takes precedence over all other ‘news’ categories. There is a greater desire to learn about celeb drama than there is about real world issues such as the Gulf.

And don’t bullshit me as say that there is nothing you can do as an individual about the Gulf (or any other large issue). As much as that might be true it is then equally true about any bit of celeb news too. The difference between the two is the fundamental shift in the way people view the news and information, and ultimately human evolution:

a.) If the news is short, entertaining and accepting of what the reader is currently doing or is interested in, then the reader becomes a consumer of it. This is a lot like social drinking or social smoking. It is simple, and the group’s acceptance of it makes it easier to justify partaking in it. Not much thought or effort required.

b.) But if the news is long, is text rather than video, or not in line with the reader’s predefined paradigms, interests or habits, then the reader is already disinterested. A lot of the time they reveal themselves to be an opponent of the idea AND the source. “Hey, did you read that article I sent to you?” “No, it was too long, I didn’t have time.” and/or, “You’re a fool for believing shit like that. Are you one of those conspiracy guys?”

c.) However, if the reader has the attention span/interest to commit to something with substance (usually controversial and rarely part of the mainstream), and the reader is a proponent of it (in agreement), the reader usually will not make their agreement public. That creates the risk of them being categorized as conspiracy theorist. Good old peer pressure in action.

Question: Where are all of the critical thinkers? Where are those people who are not afraid to hold an idea that is contrary to popular belief? It is that kind of thinking, it is that kind of person, who leads society forward. You don’t even have to be right – you just have to be honest with yourself and have the guts to say, “I can think for myself, and Mel Gibson doesn’t matter! I don’t need to be told what to eat, buy, wear, think or feel.”

Anyone with children wants the best for their children, however no one seems to look at that idea in reverse: If it is not good enough for children, then why is it good enough for You?

Thursday, February 11, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

To hear the vaccine pushers say it, all the recent outbreaks of mumps and measles are caused by too few people seeking out vaccinations. It’s all those “non-vaccinated people” who are a danger to society, they say, because they can spread disease.

Reality tells a different story, however: It is the vaccinated people who are causing these outbreaks and spreading disease!

Just this week, an outbreak of mumps among more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York has raised alarm among infectious disease authorities. The outbreak itself is not unusual, though. What’s unusual is that the health authorities slipped up and admitted that most of the people infected with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.

In Ocean County, New Jersey, county spokeswoman Leslie Terjesen told CNN that 77 percent of those who caught mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.

77 percent of those infected had been vaccinated

Usually this information is censored out of the press. The vaccine industry wants the public to believe that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. So the media typically refrains from reporting what percentage of the infected people were already vaccinated against the infectious disease.

But in this case, the 77 percent figure slipped out. And now intelligent observers are increasingly seeing the truth about these vaccines:

• Infectious disease vaccines simply don’t work. If they did, then why did all these children who were already vaccinated still get mumps?

• Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?

• The people who administer vaccines never tell you that their vaccines don’t really work. They tell you that you’ll be “protected” with the vaccine, implying a near-100% level of protection (which is blatantly false).

• Even if you’re vaccinated against a disease, you may still catch that disease anyway! So what’s the point of the vaccine?

The lies of the CDC

The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called “scientific” evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary.

I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H…). To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I’ll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!

Does being vaccinated raise your risk of infection?

The CDC also says that 2009 was a bad year for mumps outbreaks. They blame all the people who refuse to be vaccinated for causing these outbreaks. Their theory, of course, is based on the imaginary idea that mumps vaccines halt mumps infections. But once again, it’s all imaginary! As we saw this week in New Jersey, most of the people who get infected in these outbreaks are the very people who were vaccinated!

If mumps vaccines actually worked, then what you should see instead is the mumps infection spreading among those who refused the vaccines, right? It’s only logical.

In fact, if vaccines really work, then why should the vaccinated people be bothered at all by those who don’t get vaccinated? After all, if their vaccines protect themselves from disease, then non-vaccinated people are no threat to them, right? So why are vaccinated people so pushy about forcing non-vaccinated people to get vaccinated?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 1, 2010

Naked body scanning will now be compulsory at two of Britain’s biggest airports after the government announced people who refuse to let security thugs ogle their genitalia will be treated like terrorists and barred from flying.

“It is now compulsory for people selected for a scan to take part, or they will not be allowed to fly,” reports the BBC.

That ‘s right – no optional pat down as we were told, if you think that having strangers leer over your naked body is an invasion of privacy and refuse, you’ll be treated the same way as a suspected terrorist.

Manchester Airport’s head of customer experience, Sarah Barrett, told the BBC that the scanners do not allow security staff to see passengers naked. This of course is a complete lie. The images produced by the scanners provide high resolution crisp images of your genitalia. This was confirmed by London Guardian writer Helen Carter who investigated trials of the scanners at Manchester Airport and said genitals were “eerily visible” in the images.

Indeed, as we have previously highlighted, when the scanners were first introduced at Australian airports in 2008 it was admitted that the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible. “It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said Melbourne Airport’s Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

Despite objections on the grounds that the images produced violate child porn laws, the UK government has simply gone ahead anyway and overturned a previous ban on under 18′s being forced to use the scanners. This will now give free reign to the kind of control freak thugs who like to sexually harass 13-year-old girls to ogle your naked daughter’s breasts while sitting alone in a back room enjoying themselves.

“A rule which meant under 18s were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government,” according to the BBC report.

This now sets the precedent for every other UK and US airport to follow the same guidelines, meaning that if you want to escape from Airstrip One or the United States of Amerika, you must submit to a virtual strip search. There seems little doubt that the naked scanners will eventually be rolled out at other transport hubs and after another staged terror attack, on the streets, in shopping malls, at sporting events and any other places of public congregation, as has already been proposed.

Three years ago, leaked documents out of the Home Office revealed that authorities in the UK were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”.

Dutch authorities have also announced their intention to use mobile body scanners in “high risk areas” and “mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches.”

Experts agree that naked body scanners would not even have stopped accused underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding Delta Flight 253. Maybe the fact that he was on a terror watch list, had no passport, and was accompanied by a suspicious well-dressed man should have provided some kind of warning.

The blatantly staged Christmas Day incident has been ravenously exploited to the full by the same mouthpieces for the military-industrial complex that own a stake in the body scanners, and now we the browbeaten public are being forced to suffer yet another disgusting indignity as we move one step further to a society that outstrips George Orwell’s worst nightmare.

1.) Am I wrong to teach my 6 and 7 year old girls that people can LOOK good but might not BE good?

2.) Am I wrong to bring my 6 and 7 year old girls with me while I distribute H1N1 posters (at the grocery store, door to door etc)?

3.) Am I wrong to allow my 6 and 7 year old girls to hand out the H1N1 posters?

4.) Am I wrong to allow my 6 and 7 year old girls to take H1N1 posters to school with them to give to their friends?

5.) Am I wrong to teach my 6 and 7 year old girls what I honestly think about the Government, Global Warming, Vaccines, Religion, War, or the Military?

Please answer. I could really use some perspective.

Lance

Honesty is more appreciated than well padded politically correct replies.

I’ve already been called crazy by hundreds, called an asshole by countless others.

November 6, 2009 at 5:58pm ·

Becky

1.) Nothing wrong with telling them this. I think this is something they NEED to know.

2.) No, I think this is helping people to see that you really believe in what you’re talking about.

3.) I think you’re setting up a very positive path for your daughters growth. You’re teaching them to stand up for what they believe in, and not be afraid of the masses. They may end up becoming just the people we need in this world to make a real change.

4.) I’m not sure about this one. Will this effect their friendships or prevent them from being invited to b-day parties etc? Then again, do you care to have them hang around with or be invited to people’s houses who don’t believe in looking outside the box?

5.) Definitely teach them your opinions, but also make sure they know that it’s important to form their own.

November 6, 2009 at 6:30pm ·

Rose

as long as they are eventually able to form their own informed opinions without fear of judgement from the one they love. questioning authority is a good practice. saying that, it is my belief that extreme attitudes about anything is not healthy in childhood since kids often see the world in black and white and may not understand all shades of gray. not judging you or anything, just my opinion. I’d rather my kid see the world through rose-coloured glasses while still innocent and not have anxiety over things he can’t control.

November 6, 2009 at 7:15pm ·

Lana

My younger sister and I, though raised by the same parents, experienced very different upbringings. In my case, I was treated in a very “adult” fashion: watched the news with my parents, had exposure to their ideas about government, politics, religion/philosophy, etc. When my sister came along 6 years later, they decided they want to “keep her innocent”, and let her “be a child” for as long as possible. The end result? I’m fiercely independent, question everything that goes on around me (intent on being educated about it, rather than just accepting what is doled out by media and the like), am well read, and make a point of being aware and active in terms of the world I live in. My sister is an anxiety-riddled escapist who needs to be constantly reassured and told what to do. She has no opinions of her own (and doesn’t want them), because thinking outside the box is scary. She wants her answers spoon fed to her, believes that doctors and news media know best…
I am grateful for the upbringing that I received, and I agree with Becky that it’s important for your girls to hear your opinions, but to be encouraged to form their own (even if they differ from yours). Keeping children in a rosy happy place to somehow save them from the big bad world around them just seems to create simpering waifs with no coping mechanisms.

November 6, 2009 at 8:58pm ·

Rose

i think it is more of a personality thing. And also a moderation thing. i want to encourage my son to be independent, but at the same time protect him while he can still be protected. i know as a kid i worried a lot about things I couldn’t control and I don’t want the same for my child. At the same time, exposing the kid to politics etc and making them socially responsible is a good thing…i totally agree. But letting your 4 year old watch Schindlers list and explaining in detail what they did to the children isn’t exactly my cup of tea…..I prefer the rosy glasses. (this is an example from real life:S)

November 6, 2009 at 9:30pm ·

Lana

**chuckle** It also boils down to what is age appropriate. Schindler’s List for a 4 year old? Not so much. An 8 year old? Better. Still shitty, and would be best to wait ’til they’re older, but ultimately it depends on the child. I could have done without the nightmares wrought from Vietnam horror stories I heard from Daddy-O when I was 10 or so, but they certainly helped to instill a monumental sense of compassion for others, and a desire to fight against cruelty.

November 6, 2009 at 10:05pm ·

Tim

1: Definately not wrong (imo). I believe that may be one of the, if not the most important thing to teach your children. It is unbelievable the amount of time myself and people around me have been hurt, or betrayed by someone that they least expected it from. This will affect us in many ways. When it happens (weather we like to believe it or not) we automaticaly put up a wall to protect ourselves. Which will then lead us to maybe not trusting that person in the future, who very well could have been that “good person” in our lives.
I am very busy, but i will get back to you with the rest. (baby’s crying). again, not saying my answers will necessarily correct, but i agrre that it’s always good to have the opinion of peers.
If you believe you are being a good parent, then you most likely are. dn’t be so hard on yourself brotha from anotha motha!!!

November 6, 2009 at 10:17pm ·

Spencer

I haven’t ready everyone else’s comments (it’s early and I have to get to work), but I think these are really fair questions to ask and, in my view, demonstrates your thoughtfulness as a parent. A lot of parents bombard their kids with ideas without ever asking these questions, so good on ya.

First, as a caveat, I think “wrong” might be a heavy term and be careful not to be too hard on yourself if you discover after this inquiry that people you truly care about think that you are “wrong”.

From my perspective: I think #1 is a definite, *No it’s not wrong* to each them that just because people look good doesn’t mean that they ARE good. Every kid needs to learn that and if their parents don’t teach it to them, then they’ll learn it the hard way.

As for 2, I think it depends on why you’re bringing them with you. If it’s because you can’t find daycare or because you’re going anyway, that’s one thing, but if you’re bringing them with you to show that you in fact are a parent or otherwise to “further the cause” I think it’s a bit darker grey. No kid should be used as a weapon, be it in actual combat, political sparring, post-divorce family wrangling, or marketing, social or otherwise.

For 3, 4, & 5 I feel that it’s really a question of how ready your 6 & 7 year old girls are to think critically and decide for themselves what they think about the issues and the information they are able to collect. I know it’s possible for a 6 or 7 year old to be a genius, but the people whose responsibility it is to make decisions on these issues and topics (doctors, voters, and adults in general) are all 18+ so I do feel that it might be bit much to involve them in all this stuff when they’re still eleven years away from being in a position to choose for themselves, (“officially” speaking of course).

I think it’s perfectly natural for you to want what’s best for your girls and to help other parents find information to help them make decisions for their kids is a nice way to help other kids too. You’re also pretty good at respecting people who think and feel differently than you, and THAT’s something your girls can learn at ANY age.

November 8, 2009 at 8:44am ·

Screenshot of the letter being written

My children come home from school with letters telling me to get them the swine flu vaccine, and that I should too.

These letters do not provide any facts or figures that can be backed up. It is always simple propaganda style instructions on what I should do.

I want to know WHY I should do this. Don’t point to the TV or newspaper reports that say I should. A mass media campaign only proves that the talking heads are all reading from the same scripts. We have all had the flu in the past and we all got over it. The seasonal flu complications are contributors to more than 30,000 deaths per year in North America, but this swine flu does not have those kinds of numbers and at this rate it will not by the time the flu season has passed.

This has been blown out of proportion and you are failing in your duties as a public servant. Your job is not to tell us what to do. You’re supposed to know both the pro and con arguments and present the populous with that information, ideally with references, so that we can make our own choices. To ignore the fundamental right we have, through the Canadian Constitution, to freedom of conscience is to violate it. A violation of one person’s rights is a violation of every person’s rights.

Perhaps there is more time being spent with consideration to the income generated for the medical and pharmaceutical industries than there is for the actual health of the people.

Before passing me off as an oddball or some other derogatory expression it would only reflect on your intelligence if you considered the following:

Child Being Vaccinated

Doctors say the swine flu is a threat and vaccination is needed.
Doctors say the swine flu is NOT a threat and vaccination is worse than getting sick.

With those two points in mind people are likely to immediately fall back onto their pre-conceived notions about which could possibly be right or wrong. That mentality would do well with a small paradigm shift. Both groups of Doctors are smart, skilled and reputable so you cannot easily discount one over the other but what you can do is analyze the science they’re basing their statements on, and then from there you can make an informed choice that is free from fear and pre-conceived opinion and propaganda.

When the mass media pushes only one side of the story it is clear that there is an agenda at work. The mass media does not give the same air-time to Dr. Ron Paul, Dr. Len Horowitz, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny ect., as anyone working for a government agency or pharmaceutical company. ALL of these doctors are credible, intelligent and successful in their fields, but there is a glaring difference between them and the government/corporate reps: None of them seek gains of any kind by way of vaccination and/or drug prescriptions. Their goals are clearly defined and the most basic: Keep the good health of the people. If something is dangerous, don’t do it. If something is unproven, prove it. If something is untested, test it. If someone is not informed, inform them.

I discovered a poster created by Dr. Joseph Mercola on one of his websites, http://swineflu.mercola.com, and I paid out of my pocket to have 500 copies printed. I took 100 of them to the grocery store and my children passed them out to the shoppers by saying to them, “Hi, this will keep you healthy!” It generated lots of great conversation, and do you know what most people were saying to us?

“Wow, this is a great thing you’re doing here.”
“People are confused by the media. They don’t know what to do because no one is telling them the truth.”
“You’re really teaching your kids a great lesson here.”
“Oh my goodness I didn’t know any of this!”

We handed out about 80 of them and one lady asked for some so she could pass them around her social circles so we gladly gave her about 20 copies. Every single person who took a copy said, “Thank you.” I think they honestly appreciated the effort on our part to help people, and that became evident when after numerous people asked me if I worked for the government or hospital. I told them all, “No, I am just a concerned citizen.” When they heard that they let their guard down because I wasn’t pushing something on them. The poster we were giving out was a fact sheet that, after reading, would allow them the chance to verify the information and make an intelligent, informed decision about getting the shot… or not.

Screenshot of the submitted letter

There were only 3 people who refused a copy of the poster, and one offered the fact that she already had her shot. The mass media does not show that kind of real, grass-roots level numbers.

When we got home the kids were so excited about giving people the chance to be healthy that they wanted to go door-to-door and give them to even more people. So we did. Not one person refused to take a poster and everyone was appreciative – even those out for an evening stroll and those walking their dogs.

Before bed the kids asked if they could take some posters to school to give to their friends. You see what’s happening here? People feel good about helping people. People feel good when someone else cares enough to offer them the help, even if they didn’t know any was needed.

We were not running around telling people what to do. We simply handed out some information that they could then use to “stay healthy.”

I hope you stay healthy too. Look up those Dr. names I listed. Visit their websites. Search for their videos/documentaries on YouTube. Be informed.

Swine Flu Posters for you to Download, Print and Share