Friday, May 31, 2013
Does salt cause hypertension and heart disease?
Many people are unaware that refined table salt is dried at more than
1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. When consumed, this highly-toxic (processed)
salt, commonly found in most restaurants and processed foods, will lead
to cellular inflammation; water retention and cardiovascular disease.
Keep in mind, the human body can NOT properly digest
commercially-produced table salt, which is 97.5% sodium chloride, other
chemicals plus sugar. (pure crap!)On the other hand, Himalayan crystal salt is a much better salt. And, best of all, this salt has the same 84 natural minerals and elements found inside the human body.
Some of the health benefits of Himalayan crystal salt include: the control of water levels within the body; promotes a stable pH balance inside cells (including the brain); supports excellent blood sugar health; improves cardiorespiratory function; helps to reduce muscle cramps and increase bone strength.
The importance of iodine for healthy thyroid function
The thyroid gland synthesizes thyroid hormones and iodine is an essential trace mineral that is crucial in order for the thyroid to work properly. In order for your thyroid to manage metabolism, detoxification, growth and development - you must have a sufficient amount of iodine within the body.
A lack of iodine can lead to a swollen thyroid gland, fatigue, weakened immunity, metabolic disorders, weight gain and even anxiety or depression. If you or someone you love is suffering with iodine deficiency, try to find a qualified, healthcare provider to assist in the healing process.
If you're looking for iodine-rich foods - try: sea vegetables like arame, kombu or wakame; organic cranberries; organic yogurt; organic navy beans; organic strawberries; Himalayan crystal salt or potatoes - to name a few. And, of course, you may want to consider a good quality iodine supplement after talking to your healthcare provider.
Educate yourself on the health benefits of proper salt consumption; how to improve thyroid function plus much more on the next NaturalNews Talk Hour with Dr. David Brownstein. (Invite your friends!)
alternative for human consumption. Himalayan salt has matured over millions of years without many of the toxins and pollutants that pervade other forms of ocean
California Senate approves 8 gun control bills, including ammo registry
Under Senate Bill 53, responsible gun owners would be required to
submit personal information to the state, undergo a background check and
pay a $50 fee before being allowed to buy ammunition. Their information
would be stored in a state database
controlled by the Justice Department and the individual would have to
present photo ID at a gun store upon making an ammo purchase.
Additionally, gun dealers and ammo vendors would be required to obtain special permits to sell ammunition. Those gun owners or gun dealers/ammo vendors who fail to follow the law would face misdemeanor charges.
Excerpt from SB 53:
SB 374, which as the NRA-ILA noted, essentially bans the sale, purchase and manufacture of virtually all semi-automatic rimfire and centerfire rifles that do not have a fixed magazine and requires those who currently own such firearms (so called ‘assault weapons’) to register them with the state.
SB 396, a ban on standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
SB 47, a bill that places onerous restrictions on “bullet buttons.”
SB 567, a bill that would reclassify certain shotguns as :assault weapons.”
SB 683, a bill that would require all gun buyers to take a firearm-safety certificate
class.
SB 755, which would expand crimes that would result in a 10-year ban on owning or buying firearms. Additions include drug- and alcohol-related offenses, hazing, violations of protective orders and court-ordered mental health treatment.
controlled by the Justice Department and the individual would have to
present photo ID at a gun store upon making an ammo purchase.Additionally, gun dealers and ammo vendors would be required to obtain special permits to sell ammunition. Those gun owners or gun dealers/ammo vendors who fail to follow the law would face misdemeanor charges.
Excerpt from SB 53:
SB 374, which as the NRA-ILA noted, essentially bans the sale, purchase and manufacture of virtually all semi-automatic rimfire and centerfire rifles that do not have a fixed magazine and requires those who currently own such firearms (so called ‘assault weapons’) to register them with the state.
SB 396, a ban on standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
SB 47, a bill that places onerous restrictions on “bullet buttons.”
SB 567, a bill that would reclassify certain shotguns as :assault weapons.”
SB 683, a bill that would require all gun buyers to take a firearm-safety certificate
class.SB 755, which would expand crimes that would result in a 10-year ban on owning or buying firearms. Additions include drug- and alcohol-related offenses, hazing, violations of protective orders and court-ordered mental health treatment.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Obama to Pick Former Bush Official (former hedge fund executive) to Lead F.B.I.
By choosing Mr. Comey, a Republican, Mr. Obama made a strong statement
about bipartisanship at a time when he faces renewed criticism from
Republicans in Congress and has had difficulty winning confirmation of
some important nominees. At the same time, Mr. Comey’s role in one of
the most dramatic episodes of the Bush administration — in which he
refused to acquiesce to White House aides and reauthorize a program for
eavesdropping without warrants when he was serving as acting attorney
general — should make him an acceptable choice to Democrats.
It is not clear when Mr. Obama will announce the nomination. Senior
F.B.I. officials have been concerned that if the president does not name
a new director by the beginning of June, it will be difficult to get
the nominee confirmed by the beginning of September, when Mr. Mueller by
law must leave his post.
The White House declined to discuss Mr. Comey on Wednesday. But
according to the two people briefed on the selection, Mr. Comey traveled
from his home in Connecticut in early May to meet with the president at
the White House to discuss the job. Shortly afterward, he was told that
he was Mr. Obama’s choice, and they met again for a further discussion.
Mr. Comey, 52, was chosen for the position over the other finalist, Lisa
O. Monaco, who has served as the White House’s top counterterrorism
adviser since January. Some Democrats had feared that if the president
nominated Ms. Monaco — who oversaw national security issues at the
Justice Department during the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, last September
— Republicans would use the confirmation process as a forum for
criticism of the administration’s handling of the attack.
In the 2004 episode that defined Mr. Comey’s time in the Bush
administration, the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, and Mr.
Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., sought to persuade Attorney
General John Ashcroft — who was hospitalized and disoriented — to
reauthorize the administration’s controversial eavesdropping program.
Mr. Comey, who was serving as the acting attorney general and had been
tipped off that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were trying to go around him,
rushed to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to thwart them. With Mr. Comey as
well as Mr. Mueller in the room, Mr. Ashcroft refused to reauthorize
the program. Mr. Bush later agreed to make changes in the program, and
Mr. Comey was widely praised for putting the law over politics.
According to testimony Mr. Comey provided to Congress in 2007, Mr.
Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed when Mr. Gonzales and Mr.
Card approached and refused to approve the program.
“I was angry,” Mr. Comey said in his testimony. “I had just witnessed an
effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the
powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I
thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I
had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper.”
Mr. Comey, whose nomination was first reported by NPR, will inherit a
bureau that is far different from the one Mr. Mueller took over a week
before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In the aftermath of those attacks,
Mr. Mueller undertook the task of remaking the bureau into an
intelligence and counterterrorism agency from one that had concentrated
on white-collar crime and drugs. The number of agents has grown to
roughly 14,000 from 11,500 under Mr. Mueller, and the bureau has heavily
invested in its facilities and capabilities, improving its computer
systems, forensics analysis and intelligence sharing.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Scandal at the FDA: board members with drug maker ties voted to approve Birth Control drug that's killing women
Translation: as long as the drug is profitable,
the women who take this form of birth control are completely expendable,
period, end of discussion!
Now, please don't get me wrong: I understand about the need for SAFE birth control products. But I do have to wonder if the chemical assault on women's hormones which birth control medication creates may not, in some way, be responsible for the huge increases in uterine, cervical, and breast cancers we've seen over the years?
Of course, that is someone no one wants to research, because this product line is so profitable for large pharmaceutical houses.
An investigation by the Washington Monthly and the British Medical Journal determined that at least four members of an FDA advisory board which voted to approve a drug used in the birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin had either done work for the drugs' manufacturer or received research funds from the manufacturer. Though the four committee members disclosed their ties to the FDA, the FDA decided that the ties did not matter and did not make the disclosures public. Tragically, the drugs the committee endorsed have been killing the women who take them.
The birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin contain a drug called drospirenone, which the FDA advisory committee endorsed last December. According to the Alliance for National Health (ANH), women who take drospirenone are nearly seven times more likely to develop thromboembolism (obstruction of a blood vessel by a blood clot, which can cause deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, heart attack, and death) than women who do not take any contraceptive pill. Women who take drospirenone have twice the risk of developing thromboembolism than women who take widely prescribed contraceptive pills containing levonorgestrel.
FDA OK's votes by members with financial ties to drug makers but not members who oppose dangerous drugs
Each of the four advisory board members with ties to the pills manufacturer voted in favor of the pills. The committee's decision that the drug's benefits outweighed the risks was decided by a four-vote margin. Interestingly, while the FDA allowed the four members with financial ties to vote on the drug, it barred another member and former researcher, Sidney M. Wolfe, from voting on the grounds that he had "an intellectual conflict of interest". Based on several years of data, Wolfe had advised his readers six years earlier not to take Yaz. Because of this "conflict", he was barred from voting.
In other words, the FDA apparently believes that there is no conflict when someone gets paid by a drug manufacturer but there is a conflict when someone has researched a drug and found it to be dangerous.
The FDA also failed to provide the panel with recently unsealed court documents which revealed that former FDA commissioner David Kessler had accused Bayer of hiding data on blood clot risks associated with the birth control pills. The court documents also revealed that Kessler reported that Bayer paid $450,000 to a high profile gynecologist to sponsor the pill, including off-label use of the drug, during her book tour.
It is far from the first time that the FDA has approved a dangerous drug or overlooked conflicts of interest. It is also far from the first time that drug companies have hid evidence of harm. Think of Vioxx, Fosamaxx, Avandia, and Gardasil to name just a few examples.
It is a common practice for drug companies to pay doctors and scientists to endorse their drugs, the same as it is common for drug companies to offer kickbacks and rewards to doctors who prescribe their drugs. Drug companies also pay doctors, researchers, and other medical experts for "consulting jobs" and speaking engagements to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars - which is considered legal despite the obvious blatant conflict of interest.
With Yaz being the top-selling birth control pill in the US, Bayer has quite the strong vested interest in getting endorsements for Yaz and Yasmin. Though thousands of women have filed lawsuits against Bayer, saying they were injured by Yaz or Yasmin, as we have seen with other highly profitable dangerous drugs, drug makers typically consider such lawsuits merely part of the price of doing business.
Sources included:
http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-huge-conflicts-of-interest-with-big-pharma/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/01/the_yaz_men_members_of_fda_pan034651.php
http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/FDA_Panel_Judging_Bayer_Contraceptive_Risk_Had_Ties_to_Bayer_120112
http://www.naturalnews.com/034443_FDA_advisory_panel_corruption.html
Now, please don't get me wrong: I understand about the need for SAFE birth control products. But I do have to wonder if the chemical assault on women's hormones which birth control medication creates may not, in some way, be responsible for the huge increases in uterine, cervical, and breast cancers we've seen over the years?
Of course, that is someone no one wants to research, because this product line is so profitable for large pharmaceutical houses.
An investigation by the Washington Monthly and the British Medical Journal determined that at least four members of an FDA advisory board which voted to approve a drug used in the birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin had either done work for the drugs' manufacturer or received research funds from the manufacturer. Though the four committee members disclosed their ties to the FDA, the FDA decided that the ties did not matter and did not make the disclosures public. Tragically, the drugs the committee endorsed have been killing the women who take them.
The birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin contain a drug called drospirenone, which the FDA advisory committee endorsed last December. According to the Alliance for National Health (ANH), women who take drospirenone are nearly seven times more likely to develop thromboembolism (obstruction of a blood vessel by a blood clot, which can cause deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, heart attack, and death) than women who do not take any contraceptive pill. Women who take drospirenone have twice the risk of developing thromboembolism than women who take widely prescribed contraceptive pills containing levonorgestrel.
FDA OK's votes by members with financial ties to drug makers but not members who oppose dangerous drugs
Each of the four advisory board members with ties to the pills manufacturer voted in favor of the pills. The committee's decision that the drug's benefits outweighed the risks was decided by a four-vote margin. Interestingly, while the FDA allowed the four members with financial ties to vote on the drug, it barred another member and former researcher, Sidney M. Wolfe, from voting on the grounds that he had "an intellectual conflict of interest". Based on several years of data, Wolfe had advised his readers six years earlier not to take Yaz. Because of this "conflict", he was barred from voting.
In other words, the FDA apparently believes that there is no conflict when someone gets paid by a drug manufacturer but there is a conflict when someone has researched a drug and found it to be dangerous.
The FDA also failed to provide the panel with recently unsealed court documents which revealed that former FDA commissioner David Kessler had accused Bayer of hiding data on blood clot risks associated with the birth control pills. The court documents also revealed that Kessler reported that Bayer paid $450,000 to a high profile gynecologist to sponsor the pill, including off-label use of the drug, during her book tour.
It is far from the first time that the FDA has approved a dangerous drug or overlooked conflicts of interest. It is also far from the first time that drug companies have hid evidence of harm. Think of Vioxx, Fosamaxx, Avandia, and Gardasil to name just a few examples.
It is a common practice for drug companies to pay doctors and scientists to endorse their drugs, the same as it is common for drug companies to offer kickbacks and rewards to doctors who prescribe their drugs. Drug companies also pay doctors, researchers, and other medical experts for "consulting jobs" and speaking engagements to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars - which is considered legal despite the obvious blatant conflict of interest.
With Yaz being the top-selling birth control pill in the US, Bayer has quite the strong vested interest in getting endorsements for Yaz and Yasmin. Though thousands of women have filed lawsuits against Bayer, saying they were injured by Yaz or Yasmin, as we have seen with other highly profitable dangerous drugs, drug makers typically consider such lawsuits merely part of the price of doing business.
Sources included:
http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-huge-conflicts-of-interest-with-big-pharma/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/01/the_yaz_men_members_of_fda_pan034651.php
http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/FDA_Panel_Judging_Bayer_Contraceptive_Risk_Had_Ties_to_Bayer_120112
http://www.naturalnews.com/034443_FDA_advisory_panel_corruption.html
The 71 sellout senators named that sided with Monsanto on the GMO labeling bill
The U.S. Senate recently had an opportunity to vote on a farm bill
amendment that would have supported the rights of states to mandate GMO
labeling laws. The amendment, S.AMDT.965, was introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders with
the aim “…to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other
edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the
food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically
engineered ingredient.”
This amendment quickly separated the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, on which U.S. senators believe in the rights of the people vs. the domination of corporations like Monsanto. Astonishingly, it also revealed that the two darling senators of the liberty movement — Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz — were willing to sell out the people and vote in favor of Monsanto. (They both voted against the amendment to allow states to set GMO labeling laws.)
In all, seventy-one U.S. Senators, both democrats and republicans, voted against that amendment, selling out the American people to the interests of Monsanto. Many said they did so because they didn’t want food labeling to be fragmented state by state. Food labeling is an issue the FDA should tackle, they explained. Yet the FDA is just another corporate sellout, we all know.
Waiting around for the FDA to mandate GMO labeling is as foolish as waiting around for the Democratic party to endorse the Bill of Rights and follow the Constitution. Or waiting around for Republicans to endorse gay marriage of illegal immigrants on food stamps. It ain’t gonna happen, folks. The FDA has long sold out to corporate interests, and it is involved in making sure the American people have no real clue what they’re eating.
Keep that in mind the next time Rand Paul or Ted Cruz talks about “liberty and justice” Where was their justice on the issue of GMO labeling? How does keeping people in the dark on what they’re eating create a more free society?
For God’s sake, what does it take to get somebody in Washington D.C. to consistently and unswervingly vote on the side of liberty and freedom every single time? (Bring back Ron Paul!)
Yes, it is true that many of these senators have done commendable work on other issues. Sen. Grassley, for example, has a solid track record of investigating the FDA and blowing the whistle on other federal fiascos.
But there is no excuse for betraying the American people on this issue. There is no excuse for selling out to Monsanto and the GMO industry. Don’t the American people deserve to know what they are eating? Don’t moms of autistic children deserve to have accurate food labels so they can avoid bt toxin when shopping for their kids?
And my message to the Monsanto 71 is that you’d better rethink your positions very carefully (especially Cruz, Paul and Grassley). Your vote puts you on the wrong side of history… and the wrong side of public opinion. We expect better of you. We expect you to be champions for the People, not puppets for Monsanto.
Sure, for senators like McCain and McCaskill, we expect them to be sellouts. Their souls are already slated to rot in Hell for their conscious commitment to evil. But for those who offer real hope for liberty — like Cruz and Ryan – we expect you to do better!
If you continue to disappoint us on this issue, we will fight like mad to remove you from office at the next voting opportunity. And for me personally, as the editor of Natural News, there are only two issues that really determine our endorsements for the next election: GMO labeling and Second Amendment. We the People want our food labeled and our rifles protected. We want the freedom that comes from government getting out of our private lives but the accountability that comes from government forcing large corporations to at least tell the truth about what’s in the food they’re selling us.
Yes, government has a role in a free society: Protect liberties from tyranny and protect consumers from corporate deceptions. Regardless of party affiliation, Senators who endorse GMO labeling while protecting the Bill of Rights will receive support from Natural News. Those who do not will be publicly shamed for selling out.
Here’s the list of the Monsanto 71:
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cowan (D-MA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Wicker (R-MS)
How to contact your senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/040523_Monsanto_71_farm_bill_Senators.html
This amendment quickly separated the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, on which U.S. senators believe in the rights of the people vs. the domination of corporations like Monsanto. Astonishingly, it also revealed that the two darling senators of the liberty movement — Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz — were willing to sell out the people and vote in favor of Monsanto. (They both voted against the amendment to allow states to set GMO labeling laws.)
In all, seventy-one U.S. Senators, both democrats and republicans, voted against that amendment, selling out the American people to the interests of Monsanto. Many said they did so because they didn’t want food labeling to be fragmented state by state. Food labeling is an issue the FDA should tackle, they explained. Yet the FDA is just another corporate sellout, we all know.
Waiting around for the FDA to mandate GMO labeling is as foolish as waiting around for the Democratic party to endorse the Bill of Rights and follow the Constitution. Or waiting around for Republicans to endorse gay marriage of illegal immigrants on food stamps. It ain’t gonna happen, folks. The FDA has long sold out to corporate interests, and it is involved in making sure the American people have no real clue what they’re eating.
71 senators betray the people and sell out to Monsanto
The only way to get GMOs labeled is to get it done state by state, and these 71 U.S. Senators have now thrown down the gauntlet, stating they believe states have no right to mandate GMO labeling at the local level!Keep that in mind the next time Rand Paul or Ted Cruz talks about “liberty and justice” Where was their justice on the issue of GMO labeling? How does keeping people in the dark on what they’re eating create a more free society?
For God’s sake, what does it take to get somebody in Washington D.C. to consistently and unswervingly vote on the side of liberty and freedom every single time? (Bring back Ron Paul!)
The “Monsanto 71″
Today, Natural News publishes the list of these 71 U.S. senators, and we will re-publish this list several times leading up to the 2014 elections. Our goal is to make sure these senators change their position on GMO labeling or lose their seats if they don’t change.Yes, it is true that many of these senators have done commendable work on other issues. Sen. Grassley, for example, has a solid track record of investigating the FDA and blowing the whistle on other federal fiascos.
But there is no excuse for betraying the American people on this issue. There is no excuse for selling out to Monsanto and the GMO industry. Don’t the American people deserve to know what they are eating? Don’t moms of autistic children deserve to have accurate food labels so they can avoid bt toxin when shopping for their kids?
And my message to the Monsanto 71 is that you’d better rethink your positions very carefully (especially Cruz, Paul and Grassley). Your vote puts you on the wrong side of history… and the wrong side of public opinion. We expect better of you. We expect you to be champions for the People, not puppets for Monsanto.
Sure, for senators like McCain and McCaskill, we expect them to be sellouts. Their souls are already slated to rot in Hell for their conscious commitment to evil. But for those who offer real hope for liberty — like Cruz and Ryan – we expect you to do better!
If you continue to disappoint us on this issue, we will fight like mad to remove you from office at the next voting opportunity. And for me personally, as the editor of Natural News, there are only two issues that really determine our endorsements for the next election: GMO labeling and Second Amendment. We the People want our food labeled and our rifles protected. We want the freedom that comes from government getting out of our private lives but the accountability that comes from government forcing large corporations to at least tell the truth about what’s in the food they’re selling us.
Yes, government has a role in a free society: Protect liberties from tyranny and protect consumers from corporate deceptions. Regardless of party affiliation, Senators who endorse GMO labeling while protecting the Bill of Rights will receive support from Natural News. Those who do not will be publicly shamed for selling out.
Here’s the list of the Monsanto 71:
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cowan (D-MA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Wicker (R-MS)
How to contact your senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/040523_Monsanto_71_farm_bill_Senators.html
Monday, May 27, 2013
Illinois illegally seizes Bees Resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup; Kills remaining Queens
The point of this confiscation can not possibly be clearer: Monsanto wants no honeybees resistant to their Roundup product to continue to exist.
A certified letter from the Ag Dept.’s Apiary Inspection Supervisor, Steven D. Chard, stated:
Ingram
can prove his bees did not have foulbrood, and planned to do so at a
hearing set in April, but the state seized his bees at the end of March.
They have not returned them and no one at the Ag Dept. seems to know
where his bees are.
The bees could have been destroyed, or they could have been turned over to Monsanto to ascertain why some of his bees are resistant to Roundup. Without the bees as evidence, Ingram simply cannot defend against the phony charges of foulbrood.
Worse, all his queens died after Kivikko and Balson “inspected” his property, outside of his presence and without a warrant.
Of note, Illinois beekeepers are going underground after Ingram’s experience and refuse to register their hives, in case the state tries to steal their private property on phony claims.
The Illinois Ag Dept. illegally
seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram,
without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing
on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News.
Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is
Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundup’s effects on bees, which he’s
raised for 58 years. “They ruined 15 years of my research,” he told
Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock.A certified letter from the Ag Dept.’s Apiary Inspection Supervisor, Steven D. Chard, stated:
“During a routine inspection of your honeybee colonies by … Inspectors Susan Kivikko and Eleanor Balson on October 23, 2011, the bacterial disease ‘American Foulbrood’ was detected in a number of colonies located behind your house…. Presence of the disease in some of your colonies was confirmed via test results from the USDA Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland that analyzed samples collected from your apiary….”
Ingram
can prove his bees did not have foulbrood, and planned to do so at a
hearing set in April, but the state seized his bees at the end of March.
They have not returned them and no one at the Ag Dept. seems to know
where his bees are.The bees could have been destroyed, or they could have been turned over to Monsanto to ascertain why some of his bees are resistant to Roundup. Without the bees as evidence, Ingram simply cannot defend against the phony charges of foulbrood.
Worse, all his queens died after Kivikko and Balson “inspected” his property, outside of his presence and without a warrant.
Of note, Illinois beekeepers are going underground after Ingram’s experience and refuse to register their hives, in case the state tries to steal their private property on phony claims.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Cartoon De Jour
Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
“Gitmo has become a symbol around the world of an America that flouts the law.”
- President Obama
The Truth Comes Out: Former IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary
Steve Miller, former Director of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), admitted at a Congressional hearing that the taxes collected by the IRS are not mandatory – but voluntary.
When questioned at the House Ways and Means Committee (WMC) hearing last week, Miller told House Representative Devin Nunes that “America’s tax system is ‘voluntary’”. When Nunes remarked for clarification that the US tax code is a “voluntary system”, Miller said, “Agreed.”
House Representative Xavier Becerra commented that the ruse of the IRS is kept as a public confidence in the system scheme to keep Americans paying money to the IRS.
Miller confirmed this is so.
The shuffle at the IRS has landed Danny Werfel as the new acting director.
Cops Being Trained To Treat Cell Phones Like Guns To Stop From Being Recorded
You have a right to record police officers, and this right has been
verified by numerous legal cases. But now cops are being trained to
treat cell phones as weapons, in an effort to prevent themselves from being recorded.
Detective Todd did, indeed, fear being shot — but not by a gun. Rather, she feared being shot by a camera, and becoming a detested viral YouTube star.
Clearly, Todd did not get her wish… The rest of the Newark incident is below:
There are least three other cases where police have tried to stop recording by claiming a camera or cell phone may be a gun: a Sony camera was confiscated by an South Florida officer; an Arizona cop took a man’s phone while he was recording the Exxon oil spill near Little Rock a San Diego; and a cop slapped a cell phone out of a man’s hands, and arrested him for recording while the offer was writing a minor citation. Of course, all of these incidents resulted in exactly what the offers were trying to prevent: YouTube infamy. In the Little Rock case, the cop told the recording man that he had been trained to assume cell phones could be guns. He said that it was a tactic to ensure safety. We all want to live in a safe society, but where is the line between reasonable suspicious and an outrageous police state?
FBI Agents Killed in Virginia Were Investigating the Boston Bombing
During an apparently training mission in the Virginia area 2 FBI
agents were killed after falling from a helicopter into the water.
41-year-old Christopher Lorek, and 40-year-old Stephen Shaw both
belonged to an experienced hostage rescue team that was involved in the
arrest of Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Pilot Online reported that:
In interviews Monday, the founder of the Hostage Rescue Team and other former special agents called the unit “elite” while outlining the difficult training exercises members must endure.
“It’s the most rigorous training regiment in law enforcement, probably in the world,” said Danny Coulson, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI who started the team 30 years ago and served as its first commander. “They have to be able to do any mission, at any time.”
Among other things, members of the Hostage Rescue Team are trained to rappel from helicopters, scuba dive and use explosives to break down doors and walls. When needed, the team can deploy within four hours to anywhere in the U.S.
“It sounds risky, and it absolutely is,” Coulson said. “They have the same skill sets as SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force.”
Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.
There have been a series of suspicious deaths surrounding people who were close to the investigation and the arrests. Just yesterday we reported that a former MMA fighter was killed by the FBI when they payed him a visit for “questioning.
As Shepard Ambellas reported, “In what continues to be the most bizarre series of ongoing events, Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter, Ibragim Todashev, was shot and killed in his apartment by the FBI just before midnight last night. Authorities believed the man to be a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the alleged Boston bombing suspects.”
And if that’s not enough. It was also reported by Infowars.com on April 29, 2013 that the original bombing suspect, Sunil Tripathi, was found dead in Providence River.
We will be keeping a close eye on this story and this case in general as the establishment moves in to cover up their tracks and tie up loose ends.
In interviews Monday, the founder of the Hostage Rescue Team and other former special agents called the unit “elite” while outlining the difficult training exercises members must endure.
“It’s the most rigorous training regiment in law enforcement, probably in the world,” said Danny Coulson, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI who started the team 30 years ago and served as its first commander. “They have to be able to do any mission, at any time.”
Among other things, members of the Hostage Rescue Team are trained to rappel from helicopters, scuba dive and use explosives to break down doors and walls. When needed, the team can deploy within four hours to anywhere in the U.S.
“It sounds risky, and it absolutely is,” Coulson said. “They have the same skill sets as SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force.”
Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.
There have been a series of suspicious deaths surrounding people who were close to the investigation and the arrests. Just yesterday we reported that a former MMA fighter was killed by the FBI when they payed him a visit for “questioning.
As Shepard Ambellas reported, “In what continues to be the most bizarre series of ongoing events, Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter, Ibragim Todashev, was shot and killed in his apartment by the FBI just before midnight last night. Authorities believed the man to be a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the alleged Boston bombing suspects.”
And if that’s not enough. It was also reported by Infowars.com on April 29, 2013 that the original bombing suspect, Sunil Tripathi, was found dead in Providence River.
We will be keeping a close eye on this story and this case in general as the establishment moves in to cover up their tracks and tie up loose ends.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Dang That Global Warming! - Spring on track to be coldest for 30 years
Early figures from the Met Office show spring (March, April and May) 2013 is on course to be the coldest in the UK since 1979.
Estimates of the mean temperature for the whole season have been made based on data from 1 March up to 15 May as well as an assumption of average conditions through to the end of this month. The final figures could therefore be different, depending on the temperatures we actually see up to the end of May.
The estimates suggest the mean UK temperature for spring will be
around 6.1 °C, which would make it the 6th coldest spring in national
records dating back to 1910 and the coldest since 1979 when the mean
temperature was 6.0 °C.
The estimated figure this year goes against recent form for spring, with eight of the past ten years being above the long-term (1981-2010) average for the season of 7.7 °C.
However, looking further back, the most recent colder spring of 1979 came in the middle of a long run, lasting from 1962 to 1989, of springs which were almost all colder than the current average*.
This year’s particularly cold spring was heavily influenced by an exceptionally cold March which had a mean temperature 3.3 °C below the long-term average. April and May (so far) have been less cold, but have also registered slightly below average mean temperatures.
The colder than average conditions have been caused by frequent east and northerly winds which have brought cold air to the UK from polar and northern European regions.
This spring also looks to be slightly drier than average, with an estimate of about 214 mm of rain which would be roughly 90% of the average amount we would expect through the season. This isn’t that notable when compared with the the springs of 2010 and 2011, which were much drier – notching up 79% and 70% of the average respectively.
Estimated provisional statistics for spring 2013
*The Met Office operates 30-year climate averages which
are updated every decade. Looking at the 30-year averages of 1961-90,
1971-2000 and the current climate averages of 1981-2010, you can see the
average mean temperatures for spring have increased over that period.
This means defining what is ‘below-average’ depends on which 30-year
period is used. All references in this article use the current 1981-2010
climate averages.
Estimates of the mean temperature for the whole season have been made based on data from 1 March up to 15 May as well as an assumption of average conditions through to the end of this month. The final figures could therefore be different, depending on the temperatures we actually see up to the end of May.
The estimated figure this year goes against recent form for spring, with eight of the past ten years being above the long-term (1981-2010) average for the season of 7.7 °C.
However, looking further back, the most recent colder spring of 1979 came in the middle of a long run, lasting from 1962 to 1989, of springs which were almost all colder than the current average*.
This year’s particularly cold spring was heavily influenced by an exceptionally cold March which had a mean temperature 3.3 °C below the long-term average. April and May (so far) have been less cold, but have also registered slightly below average mean temperatures.
The colder than average conditions have been caused by frequent east and northerly winds which have brought cold air to the UK from polar and northern European regions.
This spring also looks to be slightly drier than average, with an estimate of about 214 mm of rain which would be roughly 90% of the average amount we would expect through the season. This isn’t that notable when compared with the the springs of 2010 and 2011, which were much drier – notching up 79% and 70% of the average respectively.
Estimated provisional statistics for spring 2013
| UK | England | Wales | Scotland | NI | |
| Mean temp (° C) | 6.1 | 6.8 | 6.2 | 4.7 | 6.3 |
| Diff from avg (° C) | -1.7 | -1.7 | -1.8 | -1.6 | -1.5 |
| Coldest since: | 1979 | 1962 | 1979 | 1979 | 1986 |
| Rainfall (mm) | 214 | 158 | 246 | 292 | 240 |
| % of avg | 89.8 | 87.3 | 84.3 | 92.3 | 99 |
30-year period Average spring UK mean temperature
1961-1990 7.1 °C
1971-2000 7.4 °C
1981-2010 7.7 °C
Related articles
Teaching Kids To Go To FEMA Camps In a Time of Crisis
Public schools in cooperation with the department of homeland security are now teaching kids safety measures, and advising that they seek relief in FEMA camps in a time of crisis. But are these post disaster relief camps, or military internment camps?
The Red Cross, and the department of homeland security are now using taxpayer money to educate children in public schools about ‘getting ready for disaster’. But why would government agencies hold interest in this? Is it because they want schools to be safer, or because they want citizens to flee to FEMA camps in a time of crisis?A disaster that very well could be orchestrated by a government agency, one might add. So what are these ‘disaster relief’ camps like? A quick google search for ‘FEMA camps’ would turn up thousands of results. Yet contrary to what one may think, leaving these camps may not be voluntary.
To sum it up, this leaked document confirms plans by the department of defense to operate internment prison camps for citizens during a crisis . But why would they need a crisis to imprison large amounts of people, and why would they imprison large amounts of people in the first place? But the real question is, do these prison camps tie in with FEMA?
And if so, is FEMA preparing children in public schools to accept going to an internment camp if there is a disaster? Perhaps the military internment camps to be used for disasters, and the FEMA camps to be used in times of crisis, are unrelated. But given the recent NDAA , allowing for the legal indefinite detainment of American citizens, and the political weather, it seems this isn’t such a far out possibility. It isn’t a nice issue to think about, but spreading the word about the possibility of an American holocaust would be arguably the most effective way to stop such an event.
Quote De Jour
"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation
of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity;
both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and
economic opportunists." - Ernest Hemingway
Thursday, May 23, 2013
WWII vet, 91, 'saved from daughter's eviction' after $138,000 raised online
Donations immediately poured in from around the world from those touched
by the military veteran in Zaleski, Ohio whom they too called
'grandpa.'
This week the fundraiser passed its goal just in time for Mr Potter's 92nd birthday on Thursday.
In 2004, as Ms Fraley tells, Mr Potter was battling a serious illness
when he handed his general power of attorney rights to his daughter,
Janice Cottrill.
Unbeknownst to Mr Potter, she used that power to convey the deed to the
one-story, three-bedroom home he built 56-years ago to herself.
Mr Potter says he can't understand how his family would turn on him like this.
'When I got out of the army and got on my feet on the ground, I rented a
power shovel and dug a hole in the ground, built a basement and built a
house on top of it,' he told ABC of the home.
He doesn't believe the house is worth all that much, having built it with the sole and simple purchase of housing his family.
When Mr Potter learned of the deed transfer in 2010 he switched power of attorney to his granddaughter, Jaclyn, who's now 35.
 |
| Jaclyn Fraley, 35, hasn¿t spoken to her mother and stepfather in two years since she learned about their plan to place her grandfather in a nursing home |
 |
| Early
this year Janice Cottrill and her husband Dean sent her father an
eviction notice, saying she they had terminated his 'existing lease' |
She hasn’t spoken to her mother and stepfather in two years since she
learned about their plan to sell her grandfather's home and place him in
a nursing home.
Mr Potter has already attempted to sue to get his home back, arguing
that his daughter had transferred the deed to herself illegally.
He initially won a county court ruling, but last year an appeals court
ruled that because the statute of limitations of four years had passed
on the accusation of fraud the deed could not be handed back to Mr
Potter.
Early this year, Janice Cottrill and her husband Dean sent her father an
eviction notice, saying she they had terminated his ‘existing lease.’
Ms Fraley said her grandfather and her mom had argued over visitation
rights for Mr Potter's autistic son, Joe, who Mrs Cottrill took over
custody for in 2008.
‘I laid awake at night trying to figure out what in the world I could
have done to these people to make them so angry at me,’ he told WCMH
earlier this year.
Autistic boy with higher IQ than Einstein discovers his gift after removal from state-run therapy
In yet another example of how an out of control goliath state system can
cause more harm than good, a teenage boy who was diagnosed with autism
at a young age has risen to stellar heights after quitting the special
ed system with the help of his concerned mother. State therapy
specialists claimed Jacob Barnett would never tie his shoes, read or
function normally in society.
But the boy's mother realized when Jacob
was not in therapy, he was doing "spectacular things" completely on his
own. She decided to trust her instinct and disregard the advice of the
professionals. Instead of following a standardized special needs
educational protocol, she surrounded Jacob with all the things that
inspired passion for him - and was astonished at the transformation that
took place.
She let him explore the things he wanted to explore. He studied patterns and shadows and stars. At the same time, she made sure that he enjoyed "normal" childhood pleasures - softball, picnics - along with other kids his age. "I operate under a concept called 'muchness'," Kristine said. "Which is surrounding children with the things they love - be it music, or art, whatever they're drawn to and love."
By the time Jacob reached the age of 11, he entered college and is currently studying condensed matter physics at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis. According to an email Professor Scott Tremaine wrote to Jacob's family, "The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics ... Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize."
Jacob also has an IQ of 170 - higher than that of Einstein. He is history's youngest astrophysics researcher, has spoken at a New York TED conference and appeared on a variety of news interviews, including 60 Minutes and the Time magazine website. Not bad for someone who was classified by state experts as so severely disabled that he would never tie his own shoes or learn to read. If Jacob had stayed within the system, the prediction may very well have come true.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.nydailynews.com
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22477958
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE
Don't fix what's not broken
Following a diagnosis of autism at age two, Jacob was subjected to a cookie cutter special education system that focused on correcting what he couldn't do compared to normal children. For years, teachers attempted to convince Kristine Barnett that her son would only be able to learn the most basic of life skills. When exposed to the state system of educational therapy, Kristine noticed Jacob would withdraw deeply and refuse to speak with anyone. Even though she found it "terrifying to fly against the advise of the professionals," she knew in her heart "that if Jake stayed in special ed, he would slip away," Kristine relates in her memoir, The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius. So began a journey for Jacob that would lead to such unexpected achievement that the whole premise of standardized therapy for this 'special needs' child would be blown to bits.A path of passion and discovery
After years of frustration and little progress, Kristine made a radical decision in the eyes of the special ed system -- she took Jacob out of school and prepared him for kindergarten herself. As described in the New York Daily Times:She let him explore the things he wanted to explore. He studied patterns and shadows and stars. At the same time, she made sure that he enjoyed "normal" childhood pleasures - softball, picnics - along with other kids his age. "I operate under a concept called 'muchness'," Kristine said. "Which is surrounding children with the things they love - be it music, or art, whatever they're drawn to and love."
By the time Jacob reached the age of 11, he entered college and is currently studying condensed matter physics at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis. According to an email Professor Scott Tremaine wrote to Jacob's family, "The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics ... Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize."
Jacob also has an IQ of 170 - higher than that of Einstein. He is history's youngest astrophysics researcher, has spoken at a New York TED conference and appeared on a variety of news interviews, including 60 Minutes and the Time magazine website. Not bad for someone who was classified by state experts as so severely disabled that he would never tie his own shoes or learn to read. If Jacob had stayed within the system, the prediction may very well have come true.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.nydailynews.com
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22477958
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
YOU ARE CRAZY: New Psychiatric Guidelines Target Hoarding, Child Temper Tantrums, and a Host of Other “Illnesses”
It’s not a stretch to suggest that Americans are over medicated. In 2011 doctors across the nation wrote an astounding four billion medical prescriptions, amounting to an average of 13 prescriptions for every man, woman and child in the United States.
In the next few weeks the American Psychiatric Associations is
releasing their updated fifth version their Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5); the so-called ‘bible’ of psychiatric
diagnoses. The new manual promises to take mental illness and the use
of prescription drugs to a whole new level.
You may not be considered “crazy” or “mentally ill” today, but under the new guidelines experts say half of us will be diagnosed with a psychiatric condition in the future.
The odds will probably be greater than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you’ll have a mental disorder in your lifetime.
…
The increasing number of disorders comes about because some “problems” that were not previously considered to be mental illness were reclassified as such by their inclusion in the DSM—and it is the DSM that functionally defines mental illness in the United States.
You see, in the DSM-5 the definitions for mental illness have been expanded to include a whole host of new symptoms and conditions.
For example, under the new guidelines if your 6 to 18 year-old child throws a temper tantrum from time to time or has a mood swing, a psychiatrist could diagnose the condition as a “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” requiring professional treatment. Keep in mind that in psychiatry “professional treatment” almost always means prescription drugs.
Are you over the age of 55 and have “senior moments” like forgetting where you put your keys? If so, then in all likelihood you have a neurocognitive disorder.
Do you stockpile food, supplies or other items in anticipation of a disaster? If so, you may have what’s called an obsessive compulsive hoarding disorder.
“The reality shows have raised awareness, but they tend to sensationalize the patients, and they rarely talk about treatment.”
“The big change,” Dr. Saxena said, “will be an official recognition of hoarding as an important neuropsychic disorder that will increase screening, increase detection and diagnosis, and refer patients in for treatment.”
While the new hoarding guidelines don’t specifically target “preparedness,” the fact is that some ‘professionals’ have already suggested that if you have any level of anxiety about the possibility of a major catastrophe, or your motivation for preparing for unforeseen events includes a distrust of the government, then you’ve got psychological problems.
Now, with the DSM-5, they can officially diagnose you as crazy.
Dr. Allen Frances, the author of Saving Normal, says that the new requirements will, ”turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting and bad eating habits into mental disorders.”
The changes being introduced by the DSM-5 are nothing short of a sweeping overhaul of our mental health care system,
and they will have effects that many experts can’t even fathom. But
those behind the DSM, who work very closely with government experts,
know exactly what they’re doing.
Let’s connect the dots a little bit to get an idea of how this is going to have a direct impact on your life in the very near future.
Under the new regulations set forth by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, certain groups of Americans like school children, seniors, those on government health plans, active-duty military personnel, and veterans will be required to submit to mental health screenings.
Page 1137 of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides grants for the operation of school-based health centers required to include “mental health and substance abuse disorder assessments” for children and adolescents.
On page 1191 is found a section on Mental Health Screening that refers to a program called “Healthy Aging, Living Well”. Persons ages 55-64 are being targeted for screening activities that can include “mental health/behavioral health and substance use disorders.”
Obamacare requires mental health services for many other groups.
These include Medicaid recipients, addicts, mothers with postpartum depression, the elderly, and soldiers. There’s even has a section called “Mental Health in Small Businesses” which awards grants to small businesses willing to provide workplace wellness programs that encourage “healthy lifestyles, healthy eating, increased physical activity and improved mental health.”
Are you starting to see where this is going?
You’ll be forced by your child’s school, by the government, and even your private employer to be involuntarily screened. And the psychiatrists who’ll be performing the diagnoses will be utilizing the criteria outlined in the DSM-5.
According to the afforementioned statistics, there’s a 50% chance that those being screened will be found to have some type of mental health condition.
But that’s just the beginning.
As we know, once diagnosed, failure to take the treatment (e.g. medication) prescribed could then be deemed unlawful behavior, especially in the case of children.
Not possible in America? Think again:
It’s important to understand, however, that they’re not just targeting our children. They’re coming after all of us.
The DSM-5, coupled with Obama Care legislation, will allow the government unprecedented control over lives.
One such example is the targeting of America’s gun owners. Legislation is in the works in many states, as well as the U.S. Congress, that would require mental health screenings for firearms ownership. Should these bills pass, then about half of America’s gun owners would immediately lose their right to bear arms for any manner of “disorders” that could include stress, anxiety, depressed mood or even poor eating habits!
And while gun control proponents would applaud the victory, what they fail to understand is that by green-lighting such a government intrusion, they are setting themselves up for future legislation that may restrict their own rights for activities that may include maintaining employment or caring for their children.
Once a diagnoses is made the government will then have the ability to enforce it at the barrel of a gun.
If your child is diagnosed with ADHD or separation anxiety disorder, and you refuse to feed them their prescription cocktail, then the government will step in and take your children under the guise of protecting them… from you!
Likewise, you may one day be forced to be screened by your employer and found to be mentally ill (remember, 50/50 shot!). If you refuse the professional treatment that’s recommended, you could lose your job as a result. And because the Department of Homeland Security has been busy creating a Domestic No-Work List all prospective employers will know of your condition and your refusal to seek professional treatment.
The possibilities, now that the door has been opened, are endless.
You may not be considered “crazy” or “mentally ill” today, but under the new guidelines experts say half of us will be diagnosed with a psychiatric condition in the future.
The odds will probably be greater than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you’ll have a mental disorder in your lifetime.
…
The increasing number of disorders comes about because some “problems” that were not previously considered to be mental illness were reclassified as such by their inclusion in the DSM—and it is the DSM that functionally defines mental illness in the United States.
You see, in the DSM-5 the definitions for mental illness have been expanded to include a whole host of new symptoms and conditions.
For example, under the new guidelines if your 6 to 18 year-old child throws a temper tantrum from time to time or has a mood swing, a psychiatrist could diagnose the condition as a “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” requiring professional treatment. Keep in mind that in psychiatry “professional treatment” almost always means prescription drugs.
Are you over the age of 55 and have “senior moments” like forgetting where you put your keys? If so, then in all likelihood you have a neurocognitive disorder.
Do you stockpile food, supplies or other items in anticipation of a disaster? If so, you may have what’s called an obsessive compulsive hoarding disorder.
“The reality shows have raised awareness, but they tend to sensationalize the patients, and they rarely talk about treatment.”
“The big change,” Dr. Saxena said, “will be an official recognition of hoarding as an important neuropsychic disorder that will increase screening, increase detection and diagnosis, and refer patients in for treatment.”
While the new hoarding guidelines don’t specifically target “preparedness,” the fact is that some ‘professionals’ have already suggested that if you have any level of anxiety about the possibility of a major catastrophe, or your motivation for preparing for unforeseen events includes a distrust of the government, then you’ve got psychological problems.
Now, with the DSM-5, they can officially diagnose you as crazy.
Dr. Allen Frances, the author of Saving Normal, says that the new requirements will, ”turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting and bad eating habits into mental disorders.”
The changes being introduced by the DSM-5 are nothing short of a sweeping overhaul of our mental health care system
,
and they will have effects that many experts can’t even fathom. But
those behind the DSM, who work very closely with government experts,
know exactly what they’re doing.Let’s connect the dots a little bit to get an idea of how this is going to have a direct impact on your life in the very near future.
Under the new regulations set forth by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, certain groups of Americans like school
children, seniors, those on government health plans, active-duty military personnel, and veterans will be required to submit to mental health screenings.Page 1137 of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides grants for the operation of school-based health centers required to include “mental health and substance abuse disorder assessments” for children and adolescents.
On page 1191 is found a section on Mental Health Screening that refers to a program called “Healthy Aging, Living Well”. Persons ages 55-64 are being targeted for screening activities that can include “mental health/behavioral health and substance use disorders.”
Obamacare requires mental health services for many other groups.
These include Medicaid recipients, addicts, mothers with postpartum depression, the elderly, and soldiers. There’s even has a section called “Mental Health in Small Businesses” which awards grants to small businesses willing to provide workplace wellness programs that encourage “healthy lifestyles, healthy eating, increased physical activity and improved mental health.”
Are you starting to see where this is going?
You’ll be forced by your child’s school, by the government, and even your private employer to be involuntarily screened. And the psychiatrists who’ll be performing the diagnoses will be utilizing the criteria outlined in the DSM-5.
According to the afforementioned statistics, there’s a 50% chance that those being screened will be found to have some type of mental health condition.
But that’s just the beginning.
As we know, once diagnosed, failure to take the treatment (e.g. medication) prescribed could then be deemed unlawful behavior, especially in the case of children.
Not possible in America? Think again:
Earlier this year, administrators from the Berne-Knox-Westerlo school district called Albany County Child Protective Services, alleging child abuse when the Carrolls said they wanted to take Kyle off the drug.It’s already happening, and with nearly 4 million children every year being (mis)diagnosed with ADHD, we can expect the numbers to rise significantly under the new DSM guidelines.
As a result, the Carrolls are now on a statewide list of alleged child abusers, and they have been thrust into an Orwellian family court battle to clear their name and to ensure their child isn’t removed from their home. “It’s beyond the point of whether he should be on it. Now it’s the point of them telling us what we’re going to do,” said Michael Carroll. “They’re telling me how to raise my child.”
…
“The schools are now using child protective services to enforce their own desires and their own policies,” said David Lansner, a New York City
It’s important to understand, however, that they’re not just targeting our children. They’re coming after all of us.
The DSM-5, coupled with Obama Care legislation, will allow the government unprecedented control over lives.
One such example is the targeting of America’s gun owners. Legislation is in the works in many states, as well as the U.S. Congress, that would require mental health screenings for firearms ownership. Should these bills pass, then about half of America’s gun owners would immediately lose their right to bear arms for any manner of “disorders” that could include stress, anxiety, depressed mood or even poor eating habits!
And while gun control proponents would applaud the victory, what they fail to understand is that by green-lighting such a government intrusion, they are setting themselves up for future legislation that may restrict their own rights for activities that may include maintaining employment or caring for their children.
Once a diagnoses is made the government will then have the ability to enforce it at the barrel of a gun.
If your child is diagnosed with ADHD or separation anxiety disorder, and you refuse to feed them their prescription cocktail, then the government will step in and take your children under the guise of protecting them… from you!
Likewise, you may one day be forced to be screened by your employer and found to be mentally ill (remember, 50/50 shot!). If you refuse the professional treatment that’s recommended, you could lose your job as a result. And because the Department of Homeland Security
has been busy creating a Domestic No-Work List all prospective employers will know of your condition and your refusal to seek professional treatment.The possibilities, now that the door has been opened, are endless.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
7 Things About The Mainstream Media That They Do Not Want You To Know
Have you ever wondered who controls the mainstream media? In America
today, we are more "connected" than ever. The average American watches
153 hours of television a month, and we also spend countless hours
watching movies, playing video games, listening to music, reading books
and surfing the Internet. If someone could control the production of
all of that media, that would make them immensely powerful. They would
literally be in a position to tell people what to think. Well, what if I
told you that there are just six enormous media conglomerates that
combine to produce about 90 percent of all the media that Americans
consume. Would that alarm you? It should alarm you. The truth is that
our attitudes, opinions and beliefs are greatly shaped by what we allow
into our minds. After all, they don't call it "programming" for no
reason. Even those of us that realize that we are connected to "the
matrix" probably greatly underestimate the tremendous influence that the
media has over us. We live at a time when it is absolutely imperative
to think for ourselves, but most Americans are being absolutely
overwhelmed with information and seem more than content to let others do
their thinking for them. Sadly, this is greatly contributing to the
downfall of our society.
And of course the mainstream media desperately does not want you to look at "the man behind the curtain". They just want you to stay plugged into the "programming" that they are feeding you without asking any questions.
Fortunately, a growing minority of Americans are waking up and are starting to reject the mainstream media. An increasing number of people are beginning to recognize that the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the establishment and that it is promoting the agenda of the establishment.
So why is the mainstream media so bad? The following are 7 things about the mainstream media that they do not want you to know...
#1 The Mainstream Media Has Very Deep Ties To The Establishment
Did you know that the president of CBS and the president of ABC both have brothers that are top officials in the Obama administration?
The big news networks have developed an almost incestuous relationship with the federal government in recent years. But of course the same could be said of the relationship that the media has with the big corporations that own stock in their parent companies and that advertise on their networks.
This is one of the reasons why we very rarely ever see any hard hitting stories on the big networks anymore. The flow of information through the corporate-dominated media is very tightly controlled, and there are a lot of gatekeepers that make sure that the "wrong stories" don't get put out to the public. As a result, many of the "big stories" that have come out in recent years were originally broken by the alternative media.
#2 The Mainstream Media Gets Things Wrong Very Frequently
Even prominent members of the mainstream media admit that this is the case. For example, during a recent speech at Quinnipiac University CBS anchor Scott Pelley confessed that journalists in the mainstream media "are getting big stories wrong, over and over again"...
"Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It's a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that's what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here."#3 The American Public Does Not Consider The Media To Be Very Trustworthy
Trust in the mainstream media has definitely been slipping. In fact, a Gallup poll taken last year found that distrust of the media had reached an all-time high. According to that poll, 60 percent of Americans "have little or no trust" that the media is reporting the news accurately.
A separate Rasmussen Reports survey found that only 6 percent of all Americans consider the news media to be "very trustworthy".
Hopefully this trend will accelerate and a lot more people will stop trusting the media blindly.
#4 The Mainstream Media And The Politicians That They Worship Hate The Fact That They Cannot Control Internet News Sites
In the old days, the mainstream media had a virtual monopoly on the news. But these days, anyone with an Internet connection can put up a news site, and this is driving the establishment absolutely bonkers.
For example, Barack Obama is known to have a great dislike for the alternative media. The following is from a recent WND article...
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd says President Obama was making it “clear” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend how he feels about the rise of Internet news sites like Politico, Buzzfeed and … well, WND.#5 The Mainstream Media Is Extremely Liberal
“He hates it.”
Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning following Saturday night’s media, politics and celebrity soiree, Todd explained the president’s disdain for independent online news sources was showing during his speech.
“It did seem … I thought his pot shots, joke-wise, and then the serious stuff about the Internet, the rise of the Internet media and social media and all that stuff – he hates it, OK? He hates this part of the media,” Todd said. “He really thinks that the, sort of, the buzzification – this isn’t just about Buzzfeed or Politico and all this stuff – he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it. And I think he was just trying to make that clear last night.”
When it comes to politics, the mainstream media is far more liberal than the general population is.
For example, one survey found that 41 percent of American voters believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while only 18 percent believe that the average reporter is more conservative than they are.
A very disturbing UCLA study on media bias discovered that the vast majority of media outlets are "left of center"...
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.And even MSNBC has confirmed the liberal bias of the media. According to MSNBC, mainstream journalists are far more likely to donate their own money to Democrats than they are to Republicans...
MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.#6 Six Mammoth Media Corporations Produce About 90 Percent Of The Media That Americans Consume
As I mentioned at the top of this article, there are six giant media behemoths that control almost all of the media that we consume. These corporate giants own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, video game makers, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
The media ownership chart posted below originally comes from a previous article that I authored entitled "Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read", but it has been updated to reflect some of the latest information. The power that these companies have is so vast that it is hard to put into words...
Time Warner
CNN
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
DC Comics
People Magazine
Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
The History Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
277 Radio Stations
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books
Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1
News Corporation
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
TV Guide
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan
CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
Comcast
NBC
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Hulu
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video
#7 The American People Are Absolutely Addicted To The Mainstream Media
In a previous article about the media, I noted that the average American watches 153 hours of television a month.
When you allow that much information to be downloaded into your brain, it is going to have a dramatic impact on how you think.
Americans are more "connected" than they ever have been before. This is especially true of our kids. They are constantly on one sort of electronic device or another. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article by Daniel Taylor...
According to a 2010 LA Times report, young people spend on average 53 hours a week watching TV, playing video games, and sitting at the computer.If that Los Angeles Times report is true, that means that our young people are spending more than 200 hours a month connected to the media.
Facebook users spend about 15 hours a month on the social networking site.
People are walking – and driving – blindly while texting, sometimes walking into fountains and even falling off cliffs.
But we are only awake for about 480 hours a month.
When it comes to influencing the American people, nobody has more power than the big media companies do.
And until we can break this sick addiction to the mainstream media and get people to start thinking for themselves, we will never see widespread changes in our society. As long as people are being "programmed" by the mainstream media, they will continue to express the opinions, attitudes and beliefs that have been downloaded into their minds.
Please share this article with as many people as you can. It is crucial that we wake as many people up as possible while we still can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)