Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Do you feel that your government has the right to medicate you and your children with the idea that there is little that you can do about it? If you found out that this was happening today, would that upset you? What if there were thousands of medical doctors, scientists and toxicologists who claim that the medication that you are being given is causing damage to your internal organs, increasing your risks for bone cancer, increasing risks of hip fractures, and decreasing the intelligence of your children?

It should be interesting to know that most all of Western Europe as well as many cities in the United States are refusing to administer the same medication by force to their public because they either feel it is ineffective, dangerous, or simply an inappropriate infringement on basic human rights.

Sodium Fluoride is an extremely toxic poison which is added to Cambridge’s public water supply not to treat the water, but instead to treat the person consuming the water. It is specifically used to alter the physical bodies of you and your family.

Used topically on the teeth there is little doubt that it strengthens the enamel and is effective in helping to prevent tooth decay. However, there is quite a bit of controversy over the systemic use of this chemical (consuming it). It is similar to the effective use of sun block topically applied to your skin to prevent overexposure of the sun, but you wouldn’t dream of drinking it.

When a medical doctor prescribes medication, they must take into consideration the patient’s medical history, age, weight, etc. This critical step is not performed when medication is added to the water supply. Some people consume much more water than others (e.g. laborers, athletes, diabetics, etc), children obviously weigh less than adults; people react differently. When you put medication in the public water supply you have no control over the dose, nor any effective way to follow up with the “patients” (all of us) to monitor side-effects.

Is it appropriate for your government to dispense this chemical to you and your children through your tap?

Personally I feel that we pay an awful lot for our water, and I expect it to be a pure as safety permits. Fluoride is most effective when topically applied and is readily available in any brand of toothpaste (by the way, if you doubt the toxicity of fluoride, read the warning label on the back of your toothpaste, It tells you to call the poison control center if you swallow more than the recommended dose of a pea sized amount).

Topical or systemic fluoride is also available from your dentist or pharmacy if you choose to have higher doses. The point is that it should be your choice.

Who are the experts that are actively speaking out against the fluoridation of public water? One website that has done a wonderful job of pulling together an incredible amount of resources including peer reviewed medical reports from scientists, toxicologists, dentists, and medical doctors is www.fluoridealert.org . There you can find a list of over 2,000 professionals actively fighting for the removal of this toxic poison from our water. Why?

I am asking that you do the research and make your own informed opinion known.

If you feel as I do that it is not ethical to force medicate the public, regardless of your opinion on the safety or effectiveness of the chemicals being used, then please speak up and let your local government know. This is a decision that is made at the local level. There is no law requiring its use and many municipalities across the US have decided that today’s science does not support the old argument that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The bottom line is this: Regardless of proclaimed benefits vs. toxic side-effects, I do not feel that it is appropriate in a free society for the government to medicate the public through their water supply. If you feel the same, then I urge you to let your elected officials hear about it.

Steve Dake

The following is the letter sent to the Audit and Finance Committee regarding the 2010 budget.
________________________

My Budget Recommendations for 2010

Audit and Finance Committee:

Balancing a budget is never fun unless you have more money than you know what to do with, but I have never been in that situation. Currently we are experiencing the same tight economic situation shared by most municipalities across the nation, and there is little indication that this trend will reverse itself significantly any time soon.

As you all know, working with less money coming in combined with increased costs of necessary expenses often times forces responsible people into making tough decisions.

I certainly do not need to remind anyone that the economic conditions mentioned above are not unique to municipalities but are directly representative of the taxpayers themselves. Many of our taxpayers are finding themselves in situations of pay freezes, lost bonuses, no COLA increases and, unfortunately too many have lost their jobs all together. Asking them to provide more money should be the very last option. And I believe that is the consensus of the Village Board.

That being said, I have two specific recommendations which I will ask for serious consideration from the audit and finance committee. I feel these two changes will free up $11,500 and potentially earn an additional $5,000.[i]

1. Interest on our money being saved

I would like us to shop around for the best places to save our reserves and cash on hand. Currently we are earning a rate of 0.3% interest on our savings. My bank, ING, will pay 1.30% on a basic savings account (no fees, no minimum) and up to 1.85% on 12 month CDs[ii]. That averages out to about a 500% increase on our interest potential annually. As an example, at 1.5%, $500,000 would yield $7500 in a year. Even if we do not want to move our money, we should use this potential to leverage higher rates locally.

2. Encouraging Voluntary Contributions

Most people are kind hearted enough to want to help out their neighbors when it is needed. This is an admirable quality, and one I personally hope never leaves our culture. It is easy to understand that in times of surplus, individuals as well as municipalities want to give a little extra to help those in need.

We live in a free society. Our freedom is ultimately based on individual rights. I would like to preface my recommendation with a brief allegory:

If a man is walking down our main street and another man forces him to hand over his wallet, we would appropriately label the second man a thief. The thief would not be able to justify his act simply by stating that he was giving the money to what he felt was a good cause. Even if the man being robbed thought it was a good cause, it does not change the fact that a crime had taken place. It is a crime, because the man who was robbed earned his money and has a right to use it in any legal way he chooses. The thief, no matter how altruistic he feels he is, is not justified. He has no right to decide how to use the produce of the man he robbed.

Why am I mentioning this? Because there is very little difference in principle between that scenario and one that we perform every year in the taxing of our citizens for the purpose of funding a good cause which does not represent a vital and direct function to all citizens. In my mind, the primary difference sadly is that the thief has only affected one individual and did not use the law to enforce his act of plunder.

We have included in our budget several items which are each very good, very worthwhile causes. However, I argue that it is not ethical in a free society to force the taxpayers to fund them. Even if you can argue that the majority of the people agree that they are good causes, we have only helped to build the case that a ruling mob should be considered a just form of government. Should 51% of the people decide that they are justified in looting the homes of the other 49%? Of course not! Individual rights are not determined by majority and certainly not by the minority group selected to represent the people.

I believe that we should encourage our citizens to give freely to local charity. I believe that we should come together as a community to donate what we can whenever we can, but it must be done voluntarily.

It is because of the reasons outlined above that I am recommending a complete cut in the funding for the Cambridge food pantry as well as the Senior Citizens and Youth programs.

Again I would like to state clearly, it is not because I feel these are unworthy causes. I believe 100% in their function and their ability to directly affect peoples’ lives in a positive way. I want them to continue and to thrive. But they need to be funded voluntarily by others like myself who believe in their value.

Additionally, individual contributions to charitable organizations are a tax write off which will provide more direct value to the people who personally fund these worthwhile causes. This is a benefit that is not seen when our tax money is used to fund the same organizations by force.

This proposed cut alone will provide one substantial step in staving off a tax increase allowing us to use the extra $11,500 in other areas which are needed and expected by the citizens as a whole.

I realize that this proposal may be seen at first by some as a drastic or unfair measure. But these are tough times, and anyone who is opposed should be equally willing to step up and contribute strongly to these causes voluntarily. The sad truth is that if no one is willing to fund them voluntarily then how could we ever justify taxing everyone to fund it against their will?

Sincerely,

Stephen Dake, Trustee
Cambridge, WI

________________________________________
[i] Depending on amount saved and product selected.
[ii] Based on rates from ING Direct published on 09/09/2009 https://secure.ingdirect.com/myaccount/INGDirect/static_container.vm?start=https://home.ingdirect.com/products/products.asp?nf=false&link=3