Many professionally trained health care practitioners and doctors say therapy is a body, mind and self matrix solution which - help individuals to optimally detoxify their body - teach how to continue detoxify at home with raw foods - empower individuals to take responsibility for their health - motivate individuals to make positive lifestyle changes. All these processes intertwine into an exhilarating comfort zone and feel good factor of all over body well being.
We are not going to use ambitious words to promote the reviews of colon cleansing but the efficacy of this therapy produces very basic negative and positive results. In a mini poll we conducted with 100 people who had experienced colon cleansing we recorded 86 percent positive feedback – 14 percent undecided feedback waiting to see how long they felt as good as they do now – Zero percent negative feedbacks.
We will call time on this article at this point as there is not much more we can say with our limited knowledge on the subject but please come back in two months and revisit us as a group of five from our office 2 guys and 3 girls have ordered a colon cleaner a safe, effective detoxifying program. We will be back later with our personal findings.
The top colon cleaners have been filtered down to three specialist products which reviews colon cleansing.
Internal body care …
It is for these reasons that colon cleansing has become a great tool for those wanting to have their intestines cleared from any impurities brought about by daily activities and lifestyle. Colon cleansing involves the use of a drug, herbal supplement or drinks that promote the expulsion of the contents of the intestine. Literally, the colon is swept off of all the impurities and dirt inside it and a clean colon is left. However, a home remedy for colon cleansing has become a growing trend since many people tend to go organic and natural. Here are some natural home remedies for colon cleansing that you may give a try:
Detox Diets. A detox diet is a common home remedy for colon cleansing. We are all aware as to how this modern and fast paced living can bring toxins to our body, especially the colon. Because of these chemicals and substances, our colon becomes so unhealthy and prone to digestive system related diseases. Detox diet includes a strict intake of fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as their natural juices. Whole grains are also included in this home remedy for colon cleansing.
Herbal Cleansing. The use of herbs like garlic, flax seeds, ginger, fennel and the like are common methods of colon cleansing the natural way. Many of these herbs work by stimulating the colon to work and expel the toxins and wastes. In fact, some of the common herbal home remedy for colon cleansing are laxatives, thus preventing constipation and promoting a regular bowel movement.
Colon Cleansing With Juices and Fluids. If one is able to tolerate several days without food and only taking in fluids and juices, a fluid home remedy for colon cleansing is best for you. This is considered similar to fasting but only with the use of fruit or vegetable juices and plain water. The use of fruit and vegetable juices is efficient in removing toxins because of their high fiber content.
Saline Solution Cleansing. Boiling two liters of water and adding a couple tablespoons of sea salt is an effective home remedy for colon cleansing. Try to drink as much of the solution in the first hour and soon you will realize the urge to do your thing in the bathroom in the succeeding hours.
In any form of herbal remedy for colon cleansing, it is very important to always sustain hydration because one can get dehydrated from too much expulsion of body fluids. Do not forget to always consult your doctor before engaging in such treatments.
A day later, she was standing outside a Food and Drug Administration office building in Silver Spring, Maryland, where a panel of six experts was getting ready for an unusual hearing: two days of discussion and a vote on the fate of Avastin, the drug that Howard says saved her life.
"I want to explain to them the quality of life that I have. ... I play golf, I shop. It's amazing," she says. "My scans were completely clean, which means there is no evidence of cancer. I attribute this to taking the drug Avastin."
Some might catch a whiff of Bill Murray's "Groundhog Day" in the proceedings.
In July 2010, a similar advisory panel voted 12-1 to withdraw the specific approval of Avastin as a therapy to treat advanced, or metastatic, breast cancer -- cancer that has spread from its original site. The reason: Four clinical studies showed that the drug did not, on average, make patients live longer.
The panel also cited dangerous side effects, including increased risks of internal bleeding and high blood pressure. In December, the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) took the panel's advice and proposed that Avastin's approval to treat advanced breast cancer be taken away.
In most cases, the story would end there. This time, before FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg could make the recommendation final, Avastin's maker, Genentech, filed an appeal, exercising its right under the law that created the "accelerated approval" process under which the drug was approved.
The panel's vote last July has already steered many doctors away from prescribing Avastin, according to Charlotte Arnold, a Genentech spokeswoman. She said the number of patients receiving the drug dropped from about 60 percent of new cases to only 20-25 percent. Metastatic breast cancer is diagnosed in approximately 29,000 women in the U.S. every year.
Avastin, which works by restricting blood flow to tumors, was first approved as a cancer therapy in 2004. It has since been approved to treat certain cancers of the lung, kidney, colon and brain. In 2008, it was given provisional approval to treat breast cancer, on the strength of two studies that showed it increased the length of time that women went without their symptoms getting worse
Approval came on the condition that Genentech continue research, and report the findings. When those results became public last year, the initial excitement was gone. The delay in symptoms was much more modest. In neither study did women live significantly longer.
Some cancer specialists, and patients, say that buried in the larger group are a number of "super-responders," women who show dramatic improvement. Pat Howard calls her own response to the drug "nothing short of miraculous." At the July hearing, some panel members said they hoped Genentech would conduct research to see if it can identify the patients most likely to respond.
But Dr. Joanne Mortimer, a breast cancer specialist in California who was on the panel and voted to reverse the approval, said the overall ratio of risk to benefits was out of whack. "There was no improvement in survival, and practically 1 percent of the women [taking Avastin in combination with another drug] died. When you weigh the benefits and the toxicity, it was pretty hard to support full approval."
Karuna Jaggar, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, an advocacy group based in San Francisco, says CDER made the right decision. "We cannot settle for hope. We need treatments that perform, that actually improve overall survival and which improve the quality of life for women. Avastin has not been demonstrated to do that."
While some see the science as cut and dry, others see an unholy connection between the panel's vote, the new health care law and Avastin's imposing price tag, which runs as high as $88,000 for a full year of treatment.
As petition drives got under way last July, Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, wrote to the FDA complaining that "the (FDA advisory) committee's concerns appear to have been based on cost-effectiveness." More recently, conservative writers have described the FDA's moves as heavy-handed government interference. In a much-discussed Washington Times piece last week, Milton Wolf called Dr. Richard Pazdur, director of the FDA's cancer drug division, a "one-man death panel."
Avastin's cost was mentioned in passing at the September meeting, but it was not a focus of discussion, and according to FDA policy and officials the agency does not take cost into account when deciding drug approvals.
Since Avastin is approved for other uses, doctors would still be allowed to prescribe it, whatever the FDA's decision in this case. However, many insurance companies would likely be reluctant to pay nearly $90,000 for a treatment not approved by the FDA. There was a hint of this in January, when Palmetto GBA, a large Medicare provider, said it was taking steps to no longer cover Avastin as a breast cancer treatment.
Under pressure, three days later the company reversed course and said it would continue to pay for Avastin, while the Genentech appeal is pending.
Howard and some other women taking Avastin feel like their success stories are being ignored. Marcia Gilbert, 57, saw her breast cancer recur in 2004, and learned it had spread to her bones. After several miserable rounds of chemotherapy, she started receiving Avastin in 2008 as part of a clinical trial at Duke University. The side effects were negligible, she says, and her tumors actually started to shrink.
"Pulling one of the few options for someone with metastatic breast cancer smells of government control of our health care and, ultimately, our lives," says Gilbert. "I'm concerned this committee is just looking at statistics, and not the individuals. We're all individuals and we respond individually to treatments."
Jaggar says she understands why women such as Gilbert are upset, but says "Avastin can have terrible side effects. It can even be fatal, and we can't just look at a single person's experience. ... If Genentech is able to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the risks for a certain subgroup of women, we would not oppose approval, but we haven't seen that evidence."
The accelerated approval program was established in 1992 as a way of shortening the wait for patients to receive new, promising treatments. In the world of cancer therapy, four drugs approved under the "accelerated" approvals have been withdrawn by the companies who make them, all since 2005, according to Erica Goode, an FDA spokeswoman.
In 2005, MedImmune said the drug Ethyol should no longer be used to prevent kidney damage in patients receiving chemotherapy treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer.
In 2010, Pfizer voluntarily withdrew the indication for Celebrex to be used to reduce a certain type of polyps in the colon.
Also in 2010, Pfizer withdrew the indication for its drug Mylotarg, as a treatment for some older leukemia patients.
In January of this year, AstraZeneca said it would no longer market the drug Iressa, a therapy for some types of non-small-cell lung cancer. An FDA decision in 2005 had already restricted the drug to certain patients. Since January, about 200 patients -- who have shown a good response to Iressa -- continue to have access to it, under a special program.
In each case, the drug company accepted evidence that early results were no longer as promising as they had once appeared. Not Genentech.
To date, Arnold says, no other medicine has been shown to work better against a certain type of breast cancer. She says the panel should leave Avastin available, at least while research continues.
"Ultimately, maintaining accelerated approval while we conduct a new trial is allowed by law, supported by science and is in the best interest of the patients who may need this medicine," she wrote in an e-mail. "The company will present its case based on the scientific data."
Arnold says Genentech will present new analyses to "help clarify some of mischaracterizations that have been made about Avastin's data."
The company faces a tough audience. Of the six voting members, five were on the panel that rejected Avastin last summer; all five voted to remove the breast cancer indication.
Whatever the vote, no final decision will be forthcoming this week. CDER will weigh the new vote; no expected date was given for a decision, but it's expected to take at least several weeks. At that point, the call will once again belong to Commissioner Hamburg.
This is the first time a company has appealed a reversal of an "accelerated" approval in the program's 19 years of existence. According to Karen Riley, another FDA spokeswoman, it is not the first time a company has appealed an FDA decision, but neither she nor John Jenkins -- the director of the FDA's Office of New Drugs -- could immediately recall another example.
The hearing Tuesday morning was more charged than most at the FDA. It opened with a string of patients and other advocates for Avastin, alternately telling personal stories and berating the panel.
Patricia Howard was third to the microphone. "According to that data, I should have been dead years before... I'm still in the game," she told the panel in a crisp voice. "I never thought in the United States of America I would have to beg for a drug that keeps me alive."
Howard moved to Florida last year. Aside from this week's hearing, her biggest frustration is that she hasn't been able to get her golf handicap down. Since starting Avastin in 2007, she's experienced only a mild rise in blood pressure. With a chuckle, she says, "I'm on medication, but then so is half the world."
She says she treats her cancer as a chronic disease but like most breast cancer patients she feels a sense of walking on pins and needles. Once you know you have it, she says, "It's always there in the middle of the night. It creeps in."
She's unhappy that Genentech hasn't performed studies that might explain why she, and some other patients, seem to do so well. But most of her anger is directed at the FDA, and she'll make her case at the hearing.
"If it's working, why force us to try something else?"
Basel, Switzerland-based Roche is contesting the FDA's Dec. 16 decision to withdraw Avastin's conditional approval in breast cancer after the agency said follow-up studies failed to show benefits to justify potential risks. Smith speaks with Betty Liu and Shannon Pettypiece on Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop." (Source: Bloomberg) (Bloomberg)
Newly required safety tests are so stringent that few cribs in American homes — even those that have escaped recall after recall — are sturdy enough to pass them. As a result, federal regulators recommend that families that can afford to do so buy new cribs and destroy their old ones.
"I know times are tough, but I always felt like the price of a crib is minuscule compared to the price of your child's life," said Susan Cirigliano, a mother from New York's Long Island who has pushed for tougher standards after her son Bobby died in a defective crib in 2004. "I was a normal mom raising her kids. Never in a million years would I have thought that could happen to me."
The Cirigliano family and friends participate in a charity walk Sunday at Cedar Creek Park in Seaford, N.Y., to draw attention to the new crib safety standard that takes effect Tuesday. The Ciriglianos fought for tougher safety standards after their 6-month-old son Bobby died in a defective crib in 2004. (Jennifer S. Altman, for Chicago Tribune / June 24, 2011)
Over the last four years, Tribune investigations have reported that a product supposed to be the safest item in the nursery — the one place where a parent can leave an infant unattended for hours — had become a deathtrap for some babies thanks to bad designs, defective hardware and flimsy parts.
Those stories prompted congressional hearings and recalls, and ultimately led to the new standards.
The new rules address all of the major hazards that have killed infants in recent years, including traditional sides that move up and down. While convenient for parents, those so-called "drop sides" too often broke, creating deadly gaps in which babies got trapped, including Bobby Cirigliano. Drop sides are now forbidden.
The law effectively eliminates the secondhand market for cribs — at least for the near future — because on Tuesday it becomes illegal to sell a crib that fails to meet the new standards. It will likely take more than a year for the new cribs to find their way to garage sales and auction sites as hand-me-downs.
In addition to checking stores that sell new cribs, Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, says his agency will be monitoring eBay, Craigslist and other sites to make sure older cribs are not resold. The agency can assess civil penalties but in practice rarely does so, preferring to work with retailers to remove unsafe products from the marketplace.
Under the new standard, labeling will make it easier to assemble a crib without missing a key step. Many babies died when the sides of their cribs were put on upside down, leaving the beds structurally unsound. The new rules mandate that sides clearly show which way is up or that they function well both ways.
A new battery of tests will better simulate the long life of a crib, finding screws that come loose, mattress supports that separate and slats that break. Each of those hazards can create a deadly gap that babies' bodies can slip through. When their heads get caught, they can hang to death or otherwise suffocate.
The old rules allowed manufacturers to tighten screws between different tests. Under the new rules, the crib has to pass all of the tests without any adjustments along the way. In one test, the crib is pushed repeatedly in eight different directions for a total of 72,000 movements to simulate wear and tear. Separately, a 45-pound weight is dropped on the mattress support 750 times.
"These new cribs are going to be so much better than what's out there in terms of the testing," said Nancy Cowles, executive director of Kids In Danger, a Chicago-based consumer advocacy nonprofit that has pushed for tougher crib tests for more than a decade.
The biggest challenge for parents will be to verify that the crib they are buying meets the new rules. There is no standard label to distinguish a crib made under the new rules from an older one. Parents should not rely on a simple label that says the crib "meets or exceeds" federal and voluntary standards; millions of cribs recalled for deadly hazards carried such assurances.
Manufacturers are required to provide a certificate to retailers that lists where and when samples of their crib models were tested under the new standards. Although the law does not require retailers to provide those certificates to customers, safety commission spokesman Wolfson says consumers can ask for them if they want documented proof that the cribs meet the new rules.
But Target, Wal-Mart and Babies R Us — among the largest sellers of cribs — told the Tribune they don't plan to provide the certificates in stores. All three chains said the models in their stores and sold on their websites meet the new standards, and all said they have programmed registers to block sales if any older cribs slip through the cracks.
A Target spokeswoman said its customers will have to contact manufacturers for the certificates. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the chain does not plan to provide them but might devise a system for doing so if enough customers start asking for them.
Customers at Babies R Us and Toys R Us starting Tuesday can request the certificates from the chain's guest services phone line, which will work with the company's safety team to obtain them, a corporate spokeswoman said.
Cowles, of Kids In Danger, recommends that consumers demand proof in writing. "I would not buy a crib if the retailer can't show you proof that it meets that mandatory standard," Cowles said. "I would not take people's word for it."
While stores have known this day was coming for six months, some smaller retailers last week asked federal regulators to give them more time to sell off their inventory of older cribs. In a 3-2 vote, the safety commission denied that request.
On Sunday, Cirigliano and another New York mother whose son died in a crib that broke organized a charity walk on Long Island to draw attention to the new crib rules.
"I know we've saved a lot of lives doing this," Cirigliano said of the new safety standard. "The thing I'm happy about is I'll never know how many. That's the greatest thing in the world not to know."
What is the best once monthly colon cleanse to use? I would prefer not to use an enema. Thanks.
why do think you need to clean out your colon once a month? not necessary. Just eat high fiber diet and the colon will take care of the rest. taking laxatives will change the lining of your colon. It can also make your colon dependent on these laxatives. your body was designed to take care of its self with proper diet.
Bromalite is the best colon cleanse I ever came across. It is effective to it's core. Helps to cleanse the colon, get rid of any parasitic presence inside the colon and at the same time relieve the users from stress. It has a natural composition which contains probiotic and antioxidants to create a feeling of wellness. It helps reduce fats and help to discard the harmful deposits from our body without any side effects. It has natural ingredients like grape seed extracts, mangosteen and many more essential and beneficial micro products.
An outbreak that has sickened 20 people in five states with Salmonella Enteritidis -- which is not related to the outbreak of E. coli O104:H4 attributed to sprouts in Europe -- may be linked to the Idaho-grown sprouts, the FDA said, echoing similar warnings issued last week by the Idaho Department of Health. Idaho officials said six of the case patients reported eating the sprouts.
FDA said it is investigating the outbreak along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and public health agencies in Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota and Washington state.
The FDA said one of the 20 people has been hospitalized.
"The strain of S. Enteritidis is rarely seen at this frequency," the agency said in a news release, without further explanation.
The FDA did not respond to inquiries about why the suspect sprouts aren't being recalled. Its news release said only that the agency is "also working with state authorities to take appropriate action to address any product that may be remaining on the market."
The agency usually issues such a warning when a food producer refuses to voluntarily recall a potentially contaminated product. Although the FDA now has the authority to impose mandatory recalls, it typically tries to work cooperatively with food producers to ensure that possibly dangerous food is removed from the market.
In an interview with the Spokesman Review in Spokane, WA., the owner of Evergreen Produce said she has temporarily stopped selling alfalfa sprouts but wants "concrete evidence" that her sprouts are causing the problem.
She told the newspaper, "Our company's name has been smeared and it makes me think, the way they are going about this, that maybe they just want to shut us down. We're just hanging by a thread."
Evergreen Produce, according to the report, sells about 6,000 pounds of mung beans, clover, broccoli and alfalfa sprouts each week.
The alfalfa sprouts or spicy sprouts were sold in plastic bags labeled "Evergreen Produce" or "Evergreen Produce Inc." The alfalfa sprouts are packaged in 4-ounce and 16-ounce plastic bags with pre-printed labels. They are also packaged in 1-pound and 5-pound plastic bags with stick-on labels. The spicy sprouts are packaged in 4-ounce plastic bags with pre-printed labels and 1-pound plastic bags with stick-on labels.
FDA said the suspect sprouts should be discarded in a sealed container so people and animals, including wild animals, cannot eat them.
Tonsillectomy – surgical removal of the tonsils –before the age of 20 raised the odds of a heart attack before the age of 47 by 44%.
People who had an appendectomy were at 33% greater risk than people who had not.
However, the chances of a heart attack were small even among those who had undergone the operations in childhood and the researchers said parents should not be worried.
Professor Imre Janszky, lead author of the study, said: “So far what we have found is the risk of a premature heart attack is very rare.The risk of them just increases a bit.”
A team from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm monitored the national health records of millions of Swedish residents for an average of 23 years.
Among them were more than 27,284 people whose tonsils had been removed and 54,449 who had undergone appendectomies before the age of 20. Of these, 89 of the appendectomy group and 47 of the tonsillectomy group had an acute myocardial infarction, or heart attack, before the age of 47.
Their likelihood of suffering an attack was compared with that of randomly chosen “controls” who had not undergone tonsil or appendix operations.
Studies suggest between 10% and 20% of all young people have their tonsils or appendix removed, usually because of infections.
Both organs are part of the body’s immune system.
The findings were published yesterday in the European
Q: Why did Dodgers owner Frank McCourt file for bankruptcy in Delaware?
A: The Dodgers are a limited liability company organized in Delaware, Ristaino says. That gives them access to the Delaware bankruptcy courts, which have experience dealing with some of the largest and most sophisticated cases in the world, so they will not be awed by Major League Baseball and its lawyers. In addition, Ristaino said, "The courts have a general reputation of being pro-debtor."
Q: How long will the process take?
PHOTOS: Los Angeles Dodgers gallery
A: The Dodgers will have 120 days to file a plan of reorganization, but the case has the potential to last for years. That gives McCourt leverage in his dispute with Commissioner Bud Selig, who presumably would prefer a quick resolution. "That's the beauty of McCourt's strategy," Sabino says. "He forces Selig to deal with him now on the Fox TV deal."
Q: Can the court force MLB to approve McCourt's TV deal with Fox, which he says could be worth $3 billion?
A: Yes. The court's main concern is that the creditors get paid, not whether the Dodgers get the best TV rights contract out there. If McCourt can find the money, the court is likely to OK the agreement.
Q: Can McCourt take money from that deal for his personal use?
A: Not likely, and certainly not until the creditors have been paid in full. As Sabino points out, "Everything McCourt does now is subject to strict scrutiny by the judge and creditors. Yet again, he's not under Selig's thumb anymore. It's the court, and clearly he prefers that."
Q: What are MLB's options?
A: Baseball could oppose the Fox deal in court, arguing it does not favor the team's creditors, or find a buyer with deep pockets and try to broker a sale. Selig's power to act in "the best interests of baseball" is curtailed because the court's authority generally overrides his.
Q: What happens next?
A: McCourt will seek court approval today for $150 million in interim financing he has obtained. That would allow him to make payroll Thursday and buy him time to negotiate a TV rights deal. That money could be used to pay the creditors. MLB figures to oppose that arrangement.
Q: Will McCourt get to keep the team?
A: Probably not, Ristaino says, noting that in the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy case, "that court gave great weight to the NHL constitutional bylaws making the NHL commissioner the exclusive arbiter of disputes between the league and teams."
Q: Will the Dodgers be put up for auction?
A: Possibly, but not for a while. "A cardinal rule of bankruptcy is 'maximize value for creditors,'" Sabino says. "If selling the Dodgers would do so, they will go on the auction block."
Q: How does this filing impact the divorce settlement between McCourt and his ex-wife, Jamie McCourt?
A: It doesn't. The issue of who owns the team still needs to be resolved in California court.
Q: How does the bankruptcy filing affect the team's daily operations?
A: In a team release, McCourt said the Dodgers would "continue to operate in the ordinary course of business." Even if that's the case, increased scrutiny from the courts and creditors could limit the scope of the team's transactions.
Q: Who are the major creditors?
A: According to the filing, the vast majority of the money the team owes is to players, including more than $40 million to those no longer with it. Manny Ramirez ($21 million) and Andruw Jones ($11 million) head that list. The Dodgers still owe $2.7 million to Marquis Grissom, an outfielder who last played for them in 2002, as well as $240,563 to the city of Los Angeles for business taxes.
A vast wildfire has been burning around the United States' research plant where the first atomic bomb was developed. The science lab is one of the world's biggest. Los Alamos National Laboratory in the state of New Mexico has the country's largest nuclear weapons arsenal. In a constantly changing situation on Monday, buildings were not touched by flame, and authorities said the threat was low. The fire started in the Bear Wallow Wilderness area, to the west, in neighbouring Arizona -- the biggest fire that state has ever had.
As our US editor Toby Harnden reports, Michele Bachmann has declared her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Comedians will be overjoyed. Mrs Bachmann lends herself to satire – the twinset and pearls, the cheerful fanaticism, those unblinking eyes that seem to rage with holy fire. When she gave the Tea Party response to the State of the Union address back in January, she was filmed at an angle that had her staring off into the distance, as if she were channeling the angry ghost of Barry Goldwater. Her copybook is blotted with errors: calling liberals “un-American”, defending the reputation of carbon dioxide, launching a blood feud against Obamacare. Mrs Bachmann’s rhetoric can be crude. This is the best of the worst: “During the last 100 days we have seen a [spending] orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed … The government spent its wad by April 26.”
So why is the smart money on Mrs Bachmann emerging as the real Right-wing rival to Mitt Romney? For starters, she’s a much better candidate than her critics think. She enjoys a rapport with the Tea Party people that escapes the top-tier candidates. She’s an experienced legislator who can claim to have led the fight in the House against Obamacare. She is consistent and has never yet U-turned. Mitt Romney’s biggest handicap is his flakiness, so a Bachmann/Romney match-up puts people of principle on Bachmann’s side. Mrs Bachmann has a Girl Guide’s enthusiasm about the issues that exhausts her opponents: her performance in the first debate eclipsed everyone else with its pep. There are hidden weaknesses that will be exposed in the coming weeks. Mrs Bachmann once worked as a federal tax attorney, an odd job for an opponent of the IRS, and she cut her teeth campaigning for Jimmy Carter in 1976. It seems like the big bad government gave her family farm $260,000 in subsidies, and her husband’s clinic $30,000. But the Bachmann biography also reveals an unusually decent human being for a federal tax lawyer: she and her husband have provided foster care to 23 children.
Mrs Bachmann will ride out these scandals because her candidacy has an electoral logic that gives it powerful momentum. Historically, Republican primaries almost always come down to the establishment candidate vs the outsider conservative. Think Ford vs Reagan (1976), Bush vs Robertson (1988), Bush vs Buchanan (1992), Dole vs Buchanan (1996), McCain vs Huckabee (2008). The identity of the establishment candidate is determined early; the big beast wanders the country gobbling up money and endorsements long before voting starts. The interesting battle for the title of conservative outsider comes much later, in the first-in-the-nation-caucus in Iowa. And Iowa is hot for Bachmann.
Some commentators have been dismissing the Hawkeye State because the local GOP is dominated by religious conservatives. The caucus system favours energising small numbers of activists over wooing large numbers of woolly moderates. All of this is bad for Romney, who was beaten in Iowa in 2008 by a preacher man called Huckabee. It is rumoured that this time round Romney might stay out of the caucus altogether. If he does, he’s a fool. Such a move would give another moderate like Jon Huntsman the chance to poll well, attract media attention and establish himself as a credible alternative to Romney. Presuming Romney stays on in Iowa and Bachmann either beats him or comes close, then she’ll be propelled forward as the conservative candidate of choice headed into New Hampshire and South Carolina. Ergo, Iowa has to be taken seriously and how Iowa plays will probably define the rest of the contest because it will assign roles in the historical binary of Right vs Left. The good news for Mrs Bachmann: right now she’s just one point behind Romney in Iowa polls.
For the next few weeks, Mrs Bachmann would be wise to ignore Romney. Instead, she should rain the wrath of God down on Barack Obama and establish herself as the loudest and toughest of the conservative candidates. Throwing red meat to the lions will keep her media profile and her donations up. Meanwhile, let her glide under the radar of liberal contempt. In their treatment of Bachmann and their dismissal of Iowa, too many Republican insiders and media commentators are projecting their own snobberies onto the race. Bachmann’s tone matches the anger of conservative voters in this election cycle better than Romney’s technocratic optimism. The unemployment rate is now 9.1 per cent. Some $23.7 trillion dollars has been distributed to Wall Street while one quarter of America’s children lives below the poverty line. New York has just legalised gay marriage. There is a sense of economic and moral panic in the living rooms of Middle America. Michele Bachmann may sound shrill, but she understands that.
In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an Arizona law offering extra 'matching funds' to candidates who face a well-heeled opponent.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, closely divided along ideological lines, made it harder for states and cities to use public funding of campaigns to limit the effect of private money on elections.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices struck down an Arizona law offering extra "matching funds" to candidates who opted to accept only public funds and who faced a free-spending opponent who relied on personal money. The matching funds were designed to make sure the publicly funded candidates could keep pace with their opponent.
While the court's conservatives called the Arizona law an unconstitutional effort to "level the playing field," its liberals said it was a step toward a government "accountable to the many" and not just the wealthy.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court's conservative bloc, said the extra boost for the publicly funded candidates is unconstitutional because it "imposes a substantial burden on the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups." The chief justice said the government cannot "attempt to equalize electoral opportunities in this manner. … 'Leveling the playing field' can sound like a good thing. But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game. It is a critically important form of speech."
Roberts said the court was not calling "into question the wisdom of public financing," but its decision will limit the use of matching funds to allow publicly funded candidates to keep pace.
The court noted that both Maine and North Carolina have adopted matching funds laws similar to Arizona's. Minnesota, Connecticut and Florida did the same, the court said, but their laws have been blocked by courts.
Justice Elena Kagan took on Roberts directly in her dissent for the court's liberal wing. She said Arizona's law, adopted by voters in 1998 after an election scandal in which state legislators were caught on video stuffing campaign cash into gym bags, would produce more speech by the candidates, not less.
"Less corruption, more speech," Kagan wrote. "Robust campaigns leading to the election of representatives not beholden to the few, but accountable to the many. The people of Arizona might have expected a decent respect for those objectives," she wrote. "Today, they do not get it. …Truly, democracy is not a game." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined her dissent in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club vs. Bennett.
The ruling was the first major campaign finance ruling since the 5-4 Citizens United decision last year which said corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on campaign ads.
The split among the justices mirrored the dispute between the Republican Party, which has opposed strict campaign laws, and the Democratic Party, which has supported those measures. The five justices who were appointed by Republican presidents voted to strike down Arizona's law, while the four Democratic appointees would have upheld it.
(CBS/WKMG) ORLANDO, Fla. - On day 29 of the Casey Anthony trial the defense called Dr. Kenneth Furton, a professor of chemistry, who claims a prosecution witness's method for determining human decomposition was flawed.
Pictures: Casey and Caylee Anthony, Personal Photos
Furton studies chemistry of human decomposition and the scent of human remains and was accepted as a forensic chemistry expert, reports CBS affiliate WKMG.
He testified that many of the compounds that were found in the trash of Anthony's trunk are the same that Dr. Arpad Vass is relying on to claim that there was a decomposing body in the trunk, reports the station.
Vass has previously testified that air samples taken from the trunk of Anthony's car indicate human decomposition had taken place. He also said there was an unusually high level of chloroform in the air sample.
"It's my expert opinion that there's currently no instrumental method that has been scientifically validated to the level that it could be used to identify the presence or absence of human decomposition," Furton said, according to the station.
Several other state witnesses, including an entomologist and an FBI hair and fiber analyst, testified that evidence in the trunk shows a decomposing body was placed there for several days.
Lead detective Yuri Melich was the defense's first witness of the day. The defense questioned him about why he did not request phone transcripts for Roy Kronk through December 2008. Kronk is the meter reader who found Caylee's body on Dec. 11, 2008, reports the station.
The defense claims that Kronk placed Caylee's body in the woods, so he could receive the reward money for finding the toddler.
Melich said he requested Kronk's records from June and July. Melich previously testified that he requested the records through December 2008, but on Monday acknowledged that he misspoke. He clarified that the error was not intentional, but the result of testifying on an extensive, three-year investigation, the station reports.
Kronk had reported finding a body in the same location in August 2008, but the deputy dispatched to look into his claim said he found nothing.
When attorney Jose Baez asked Melich if any of the Anthony family's cars were searched by cadaver dogs, he said no. During cross-examination, prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick pointed out that the other Anthony cars were not searched because none were reported to smell of a dead body.
Th trial resumed Monday after abruptly being put on hold over the weekend so that Casey Anthony could examined for mental competency
Anthony, 25, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and could face the death penalty if convicted of that charge. Her defense attorneys claim Caylee Anthony accidentally drowned in the family's swimming pool.
(STR/REUTERS)A water-filled flood berm at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station was punctured by machinery and deflated Sunday, according to Mike Jones, aspokesperson from Omaha Public Power District. But officials say the seepage at the station, which has been shut down for refueling since April, posed no safety risk. “The plant is still protected. This was an additional, a secondary, level of protection that we had put up,” Jones said toCNN. “The plant remains protected to the level it would have been if the aqua berm had not been added.” The Cooper Nuclear Station,located about 80 miles south of Omaha, is still dry and operating.Since the deadly earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan in March caused meltdowns and radiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, a debate over the safety of nuclear energy has been raging.Andrew C. Kadak, a former professor of nuclear engineering at M.I.T., told theNew York Times that nuclear plants can sit until water recedes as long as there’s power. “The Fukushima lesson is really that you’ve got to have electricity,” he said.
CHICAGO (AP) — More than two years after his arrest while still in office, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will hear the verdict in his corruption retrial Monday, after jurors informed the judge that they had reached agreement on 18 of the 20 counts against him.
Judge James Zagel said the verdicts will be read Monday afternoon. The jury had returned to the federal courthouse Monday morning after nine days of deliberations. They had been talking through the evidence over a three-week period.
Blagojevich, 54, faces allegations that he sought to sell or trade an appointment to President Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat in exchange for a high-paying job, and schemed to shake down executives for campaign donations. He took the stand at the retrial and denied all the charges.
Prosecutors, defense attorneys and dozens of reporters filed into the courtroom Monday after the court announced it had received word of a note from jurors.
"The jury has come to a decision on 18 of the 20 counts," Zagel said, clutching the note and reading it aloud. Jurors added they were deadlocked on two counts and "were confident" they couldn't agree on those charges "even with further deliberations."
The note didn't say which charges they agreed on or disagreed on.
Asked how he should respond, both prosecutors and the defense indicated to Zagel that the jury had deliberated long enough and should be asked to deliver the verdicts.
It was only the third note from jurors in their deliberations. The two other gave no hint about how deliberations were proceeding.
Jurors at Blagojevich's first trial last year came back deadlocked after deliberating for 14 days. They agreed on just one of 24 counts, convicting Blagojevich of lying to the FBI. He faces up to five years on that conviction.
If found guilty on all the counts this time, he faces up to 350 years in prison — though guidelines would dictate he get far less.
Blagojevich was arrested in December 2008, after the FBI had wiretapped hundreds of his telephone calls at work and home. The Illinois Legislature impeached him a month later.
Both trials hinged on whether the former governor's bold ramblings to aides and others on the telephone was just talk, as he insisted, or part of "a political crime spree," in the words of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
Before a national audience, the Blagojevich saga exacerbated Illinois' reputation for graft. A conviction would mean Blagojevich is the second Illinois governor in a row facing a prison sentence for corruption. His predecessor, former Gov. George Ryan, is serving a 6½ year sentence.
The case also became a media spectacle, as the indicted governor and his wife, Patti, appeared on TV reality shows, and as the loquacious Blagojevich made theatrical appearances daily outside the courthouse during the first trial to profess his innocence and hug his remaining fans.
In a case full of high-level name dropping, defense attorneys in the retrial pulled into court Chicago's new Mayor Rahm Emanuel and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Emanuel's appearance on the witness stand, the most anticipated by a Chicago mayor in a federal courtroom in decades, was over in just five minutes. Jackson was done in about half an hour.
Overall, though, the retrial had far less of the circus-like atmosphere that accompanied the initial trial. Blagojevich himself also was more subdued this time.
Other major differences were in the prosecution's dramatically streamlined case, and the fact that the defense put on a case after not doing so the first time around.
Prosecutors dropped racketeering counts against the ex-governor and dismissed all charges against his then co-defendant brother, Robert Blagojevich. They presented just three weeks of evidence — half the time taken at the first trial. They called fewer witnesses, asked fewer questions and played shorter excerpts of FBI wiretaps that underpin most of the charges.
There was also a new variable at the retrial: The testimony from Blagojevich himself. At the first trial, the defense rested without calling any witnesses and Blagojevich didn't testify despite vowing that he would.
Retrial jurors saw a deferential Blagojevich look them in the eyes and deny every allegation, telling them his talk on the recordings was mere brainstorming. This time, jurors must decide if they believe him.
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Lose Weight Fast
In this article we are going to show you some sensible PROVEN Ways to lose weight fast.
1. Drink water
2. Eat regularly
3. Eat lots of fibre
4. Consume more good fats
5. Get plenty of quality protein
6. Carbohydrates can help you lose weight
- Healthy life every day!
Unless 'super' suggests a name brand, there is no such thing as super colon cleanse. If you are planning to Cleanse your Colon, make sure that you :
1. Follow the manufactures guide properly,
2. Taking more does not mean that the job is being done any faster or more effectively, as a matter of fact, taking more than the required amount may be harmful to your health, and
3. Make sure you choose a natural Cleanser, I do recommend Bowtrol Colon Cleanser
Finally, Yes, colon cleansing sure do make you lose weight due to the complete removal of years build up of decayed fecal matter and their toxins.
There isn't even a NEED to cleanse your colon. Your body does that on it's own just fine. In fact, you may actually GAIN weight from it.
It's basically a huge scam.
There are a lot of scams out there...do any of you know any SAFE, colon cleansing recipes? Preferably herbal.
I would recommend staying away from all packaged "colon cleanse" products as most are simply a waste of money - with a few being potentially dangerous to your health.The absolute best choice is to speak with a naturalpathic doctor about it. He/she would review your overall health, medications, medical needs, lifestyle etc and make an educated recommendation.But if you aren't able to do that, there is a simple one day cleanse that should be safe for you. for one day only - eat only oranges and drink only white grape juice and water. It will clear out anything that may be blocked, sticking to the sides etc. As it is an only a one-day cleanse its easy to fit into your schedule.That being said, I would like to say that I agree with some of the other answerers who listed that a diet with lots of fresh fruit, veggies and water will also work. this is quite true but sometimes people don't eat as well as they should, so a periodic cleanse is usually ok to do. But again, only a qualified Naturalpathic Doctor could say for sure.I hope that helps.
Your colon does not need cleansing. If you eat a healthy mix of foods, including plenty of fruits and vegetables and grains, your colon will do just fine. There is nothing in there that doesn't belong there. Please appreciate the wonderful body nature has given you. Your teeth do not need whitening, your natural hair color is perfect for you, your breasts are just the right size and natural small beats fake large any day.
Its safe and less painful than a prostate exam. lol
I am young and I have never had my colon cleanse but they say it is healthy to have it done when you get around your thirties to help prevent prostate and colon cancer. I say get it done with a product that gives at least a free trial offer. Ima look for sum and if i find one I will post a link for it.
lots of water and lots of resh fruits and veggies.
I'm in the process of doing a diet but first want to do a colon cleanse. I want to clean out my system before dieting. Which colon cleanser works best and helps you lose weight too?
Colon cleansing has absolutely no medical benefit and is in fact harmful to the digestive tract.There is no "build up" of bad plaque or sludge in a normal system. If this was the case we would have people dying left and right from malnutrition since their bodies couldn't absorb nutrients.We "cleanse and detox" 24 hours a day through respiration, sweat, liver, and kidneys.We can help by eating a healthy diet with minimal added sugar and salt. Lots of fresh fruit, vegetables, whole grain foods, beans, peas, and brown rice keep a system as healthy as it can be.Minimal alcohol, caffeine, soda.Read food labels. If you can't pronounce it, don't put it in your body.Colon cleanses actually flush out the beneficial bacteria and enzymes in the digestive system.These con artists have perfected a formula for coagulating your waste to make it look like the gross pictures they present, not to do anything else.Spend your money in the produce department instead of giving it away.
If your suffering from unpleasant symptoms like chronic constipation, backache, continual headaches, constant fatigue, or bloated abdomen - It could be early warning signals of a dysfunctional colon at serious risk of making you sicker each day it goes untreated.Try the natural colon cleanse method is sure to make you healthier, boost your energy levels, and make you mentally sharper to take on your life's challenges. It destroys most chronic constipation (toxic buildup in the lower bowel) caused by the harmful processed foods you eat.In a high-paced modern society, most foods we eat are dangerously high in bad chemicals such as synthetic preservatives, dyes and insecticides. We're practically living in a "junk food nation" with little nutritional value and almost zero fiber intake (the colon needs a HIGH fiber diet intake to maintain a healthy function)Thankfully due to modern technology and advancements, there are a few decent colon cleanse methods out on the market today, but few are natural in it's application and has zero side effects (due to it's primary natural ingredients). A prescription for an unhealthy colon is usually the first choice that comes to mind, but few people tell you of the doctor bills and costly prescription itself.You could save several thousands on medical prescription pills and doctor visits using such ingredients like flax seeds, aloe leaf, ginger, barberry, and fennel (unless you have a serious chronic colon problem that goes beyond what any natural ingredient may be able to solve).There's several natural colon cleanse methods you can use today in combination with a great diet, healthy eating, and regular exercise. The biggest challenge is finding the right one for you and your specific needs.
The Diet Solution Program - That's all I can say. It helped me lose almost 30 lbs.I'm not sure this is what you are looking for but check it out, it has helped a lot of people.I used to try all the "house cures" like lemon water, potaoe water etc, the list is long.I urge you to have a look this, it will help you to lose weight I'm sure.
the master cleanse. aka lemonade diet. ive done it and i lost 22 pds in 10 days i only weighed 125 pds before doing it. its hard but it reallly pays off!
MANILA, Philippines - While most netizens were moved by the story of Filipino Pulitzer Prize winner and illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas, they stressed that no one is above the law and turned to the Internet to ask him to return to his home country.Comments continue to pour in on The New York Times website, where Vargas' essay on his life as an illegal immigrant was published last week.In the article, he revealed that he has been using fake IDs and documents for almost 2 decades so he can live, study, and work as a journalist in the United States.Vargas performed well in school and at work, and shared a Pulitzer Prize for the Washington Post's coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007.He also founded Define American, which aims to "bring new voices into the immigration conversation".A number of netizens expressed sympathy and support to Vargas, and hoped that he and other "deserving" illegal immigrants "will be granted the citizenship and peace they are seeking.""Jose Antonio Vargas is certainly a good citizen and somebody with guts. Well-written article but the bottom line is the author is an illegal immigrant. His parents broke the laws. David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association (AILA), earlier said it ishighly unlikely that Vargas will be deported."
The amount of weight you can lose with a colon cleanse depends on how much matter is left in your intestines. The average person has 5-20 pounds of matter, so you can lose a decent amount. I recommend Preventive Nutrition® Complete Body Cleansing Program from GNC, available for $39.99.
Elvis had 22lb of waste in his bowel, nobody can estimate,truthfully depends on how much googy stuff you eat!!!!
The best and fastest way to clean is is with water. Everyday in hospitals they give enemas to constipated people. See site below on how easy it is to do at home plus it explains how you can lose 5 to 15 pounds with an enema. It is a trick models and dancers use before an event to flatten tummy. I do not know if Britney Spears does it before her music videos but she has a flat stomach on them. Site also has info on best colon cleanser but it takes days and you can gain weight at first with it. Either way you choose the home page tells how to keep it clean.
I just finished 10 weeks on Robert Grey's colon cleansing program. You can buy his products at Holistic Horizons. I have to say the program is challenging - you take herbal tablets about 4 times a day with psyllium husks in water each time. But let me tell you, it was so worth it! You would not believe what is embedded in your colon. I "released" (another word for pooped out) approximately 47 long old ropey pieces of plasticy hardened stuff. I'm not exaggerating and I kept a journal. Day after day this very old and very hardened material passes easily from your body. Instinctively you know it has to be better out than embedded in your colon. I highly recommend Robert Grey's book, you can order it at Holistic Horizons. Good luck!!!
Pressure is growing from some quarters in Nato to find a political solution, three months into a military campaign that has cost alliance members billions of dollars, killed civilians and, so far, failed to topple Gaddafi.
Moussa Ibrahim, a spokesman for Gaddafi's administration, told reporters in Tripoli the government was proposing a period of national dialogue and an election overseen by the United Nations and the African Union.
"If the Libyan people decide Gaddafi should leave, he will leave. If the people decide he should stay, he will stay," Ibrahim said.
But he said Gaddafi - who has run the oil-producing country since taking over in a military coup in 1969 - would not go into exile, whatever happened.
"Gaddafi is not going anywhere, he is staying in this country," Ibrahim said.
The idea of holding an election was first raised earlier this month by one of Gaddafi's sons, Saif al-Islam.
The proposal lost momentum when Libyan Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi appeared to dismiss it. At the time, it was also rejected by anti-Gaddafi rebels in the east of Libya, and by Washington.
Many analysts say Gaddafi and his family have no intention of relinquishing power.
Instead, they say, he is holding out the possibility of a deal to try to widen cracks that have been emerging in the alliance.
The election proposal could find a more receptive audience this time, especially after a Nato bomb landed on a house in Tripoli on June 19, killing several civilians.
After the incident, alliance member Italy said it wanted a political settlement because civilian casualties threatened Nato's credibility.
Libyan government forces have been fighting rebels backed by Nato air power since February 17, when thousands of people rose up in a rebellion against Gaddafi's rule.
The revolt has turned into the bloodiest of the Arab Spring uprisings sweeping the Middle East and Africa.
Rebels now control the eastern third of the country and some enclaves in the west.
But they have been unable to break through to the capital, leaving Western powers banking on an uprising in Tripoli to overthrow Gaddafi.
The Libyan leader suffered a propaganda defeat when four members of the national soccer team and 13 other football figures defected to the rebels, the rebel council said.
Libyans are passionate about the sport and the national team was closely aligned with Gaddafi's rule.
At one point his son, Saadi, played in the side.
(via Times LIVE)
While California's battle on the issue has been a legislative and judiciary see-saw, with courts legalizing gay marriage in 2008, followed by a statewide referendum in 2010 that again made it illegal, several advocates told MTV News that the New York decision will add momentum to the gay rights movement across the country.
"New York is sort of a vanguard state, so it seems that the rest of the country will eventually go that direction, but we have no idea,” said Californian Orlando Soria. “In a year they could be like, 'Oh that's illegal again.' Part of me thinks it's very exciting for now, especially after Prop 8, but it's hard to get fully excited about this stuff because you never know what's going to happen. I don't know. I should just be excited, but at the same time I'm excited with trepidation."
A pair of women hold hands as they join advocates for gay marriage as they march in the Heritage of Pride Parade through Greenwich Village on June 28, 2009 in New York. This year's parade marks the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall riots which sparked the gay rights movement. (UPI Photo/Monika Graff)
As states such as Minnesota consider what to do about the issue, nationwide public opinion polls have showed a significant swing in favor of gay marriage in the past decade, with a May Gallup poll showing a 53 percent majority in favor of legalizing it.
"California needs to catch up. Big ups to New York for taking the lead in being the biggest state to allow same sex marriage, " said California resident Rebekah Nazarian in an MTV interview. "This is one time I don't mind being a follower, and I hope soon too California can be proud of the same beautiful accomplishment."
The floods are the biggest the area has ever seen, and floodwaters from the Souris have already destroyed thousands of homes and displaced many more.
Engineers are working around the clock to maintain a levee in Minot that is protecting what's left of Minot from imminent disaster.
Al Jazeera's Cath Turner reports from Minot.
It's easy to come up with a few reasons why Lulzsec decided to duck out while the getting was good—all of two days after the group declared that the world should appreciate its "2 months of mayhem with more to come." Was the FBI closing in on the group? Were a series of counter-hacks against Lulzsec putting the once-anonymous members into the same, uncomfortable public light as the users whose account details they've been releasing? Did they just "lack the skills to keep it going," as one anonymous Lulzsec information dump on Pastebin suggests?
The Associated Press caught up with one of the verified members of Lulzsec to find out why the group seemed to turn on a dime and announce its surprise departure. And while bits and pieces of the speculation are indeed true, the member claims that the prevailing reason for Lulzsec leaving the scene was simple: Its members didn't care anymore.
"We're not quitting because we're afraid of law enforcement," said the Lulzsec member in an interview with the Associated Press "The press are getting bored of us, and we're getting bored of us."
It seems like a strange explanation on its face, given that Lulzsec seemingly made headlines by the Twitter post. The member went on to confirm that three or four members of Lulzsec–out of six total–were taking "a breather" and that the member him- or herself was also considering dropping out of the hacking scene altogether. As for what the other sailors on the Lulzboat might do, the member suggested that they could join up with Lulzsec's hacktivist partner, Anonymous.
Lulzsec allegedly still holds a decent chunk of data that it has yet to disseminate for public use. The same Lulzsec member said in a Friday interview that the group held at least 5 gigabytes of information from governments and law enforcement agencies worldwide—the "parting gift" by Lulzsec on Saturday was only a fraction of the potential information.
It remains to be seen whether the rest of the group's plunder will ever be let out into the wild. Or what might happen to its (former?) crew: According to the anonymous Lulzsec member, parts of the information about Lulzsec members released publicly by third-party hacker groups were indeed genuine. As well, "a distraction," claimed the member.
Author : David Murphy. For more from David, follow him on Twitter @TheDavidMurphy.
Once she made the turn with a 10-stroke lead Sunday, the best female player in the world set her sights on making a little more history.
"I was like, what's a new goal for me?" Tseng said. "And that's why I told myself I wanted to set a record, to make 20 under."
She missed by one stroke in what was the only minor blemish in one of the most dominating performances to date from Tseng.
In closing with a 6-under 66 to finish at 19-under 269 at Locust Hill Country Club, Tseng matched the LPGA record low at a major, most recently by Cristie Kerr a year ago when she shot the same score to win the tournament by 12 strokes. Dottie Pepper (1999 Kraft Nabisco) and Karen Stupples (2004 Women's British Open) also finished at 19 under.
"It's very special," Tseng said. "Now I'm thinking about a grand slam."
It's one step at a time for the top-ranked Tseng, who won her second LPGA Championship and has won three of the tour's last six majors. The only major she's missing is the U.S. Women's Open title, which she'll have an opportunity to complete her career slam in two weeks at The Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Morgan Pressel (71) finished second. Kerr (69), Suzann Pettersen (67) and Paula Creamer (69) tied for third at 8 under.
"Pretty unbelievable," said Kerr, who rallied late with a birdie on No. 16 and an eagle on 17. "Yani's doing what I did last year. Obviously, it's hard to beat. I'm not surprised. Yani's a great player."
Pressel initially thought she'd have an outside chance to catch Tseng before the final round began. Pressel dropped that hope once she dropped a shot with a bogey on No. 2.
"It's definitely a dominating performance," Pressel said. "She didn't make many mistakes out there."
Tseng didn't, in claiming $375,000 at the $2.5 million event. Wearing a smile for much of the day, Tseng raised her arms and tipped her hat as she was greeted by the gallery upon arriving at the 18th green.
After a bogey on No. 1, which she chalked up to nerves, Tseng reeled off five birdies on her next seven holes to run away from the field. Tseng added three more birdies on the back nine, while bogeying 13, and had a chance to get to 20, before missing a 12-foot birdie putt on No. 18.
"The birdie on No. 2, it felt like a turning point for me because I bogeyed the first hole," Tseng said. "It was huge for me."
Tseng went wire-to-wire as the tournament leader after opening with rounds of 66, 70 and 67. In holding one-shot leads after each of the first two rounds, Tseng began running away from the field on Saturday in building a five-shot edge.
Tseng finished with 27 birdies, six bogeys and a double bogey. She hit 38 of 56 fairways and 57 of 72 greens in regulation.
No one else was close. Tseng's playing partner, Cindy LaCrosse, unraveled. She was 5 over on Sunday to tumble into 14th.
Pettersen had the best round among those at the top of the leaderboard, getting to 9 under for the tournament before a bogey on No. 18.
"I think I started too late in this tournament," Pettersen said, while also acknowledging Tseng's performance. "You take her out of consideration and I think the rest of us were fighting for second and third."
For the star from Taiwan, it was her eighth career LPGA Tour victory, second in a row and third of the season. She has three other victories this year, sweeping the Australian Open and Masters and winning in Taiwan.
With four majors, she moved into a tie for 15th among women with four majors, joining a group of six others, including Laura Davies and Meg Mallon.
"She's only 22," Kerr said, noting she played with Tseng in South Korea about seven years ago. "We knew she was going to be good. I didn't know she would be this good. She is pretty dang good."
Tseng is good friends with Sorenstam, and even bought the retired star's home in Florida two years ago.
Sorenstam paid tribute, calling Tseng "The new face of the LPGA," in a phone interview with Golf Channel during the final round.
Tseng noted she received a text from Sorenstam earlier in the day.
"She texted me, 'Great playing. Bring the trophy home,'" Tseng said. "I was smiling, saying, 'Yeah, I will.'"
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.