Categories
Lyrics (otw) News you can use Video (otw)

Hand Washing (during these “End Times”) eer

When you want to wash your hands the right way– and you have forgotten the words to the Happy Birthday song (due to copyrights) or Twinkle Twinkle Little Star;

You can always go the Star Trek (tos) way:

“Space, the final frontier
These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise
Its five year mission
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life
And new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before”

It takes about 20 seconds to say the opening lines.

~ijs

Categories
counter-think Health and Healing News you can use Off-Track Shared Society Video (otw)

STOP the Biotech “food” takeover video (otw)

The “food” we eat is not real, and hardly fit for human (or any) consumption.

We Are What We Eat – and we are not “living” because of it.

Categories
News you can use

Video ***War On Solar

Started before him, Trump joined the War on solar

Categories
Big Brother News you can use

Landmark Decision by the NC Utilities Commission Removes Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees!

I hope those “fee removals” come to Georgia.
I hate paying extra NOT to have that meter.

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use

Sugar and Teeth

‘The reality is sick, overweight people with tooth decay’

*** personally, I believe the “acid” has more to do with tooth decay than the sugar, ~jmt ***

We’ve all seen images of sexy young people radiating happiness and vitality while sipping sugar-sweetened drinks with sparkly white teeth. The reality lurking behind these glossy advertisements is sick, overweight people with tooth decay.

But according to a new research paper, released today, artificial sweeteners are just as bad, if not worse, for the body.

A new study, led by Brian Hoffmann, assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette University, is being presented today at the Experimental Biology conference in San Diego.

Described as “the largest examination to date that tracks biochemical changes in the body”, the study compared the biological effects of diets high in glucose versus aspartame or acesulfame potassium – common artificial sweeteners – in rats.

After three weeks, increased concentrations of glucose and the sweeteners adversely impacted metabolism in ways associated with diabetes and obesity.

Hoffman explains, “In our studies, both sugar and artificial sweeteners seem to exhibit negative effects linked to obesity and diabetes, albeit through very different mechanisms from each other.”

“We observed that in moderation, your body has the machinery to handle sugar; it is when the system is overloaded over a long period of time that this machinery breaks down,” Hoffmann said. “We also observed that replacing these sugars with non-caloric artificial sweeteners leads to negative changes in fat and energy metabolism.”

According to a new study, released today, artificial sweeteners are just as bad, if not worse, than sugar.

According to a new study, released today, artificial sweeteners are just as bad, if not worse, than sugar.

His team’s research is unique because of the methods they used. “Researchers now have advanced technology at their fingertips to test the biochemical changes in the body at a much greater depth than previously possible.”For decades, foods and drinks with non-caloric sweeteners have pervaded supermarket shelves to replace sugar and appease concerns about weight gain and diabetes. Yet waistlines and diabetes have grown despite these sugar surrogates. One in four Australian children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese with amplified risk of chronic disease.Addressing this health crisis, Britain’s sugar tax has just come into effect, while Australia debates taxing sugar.

His team’s research is unique because of the methods they used. “Researchers now have advanced technology at their fingertips to test the biochemical changes in the body at a much greater depth than previously possible.”For decades, foods and drinks with non-caloric sweeteners have pervaded supermarket shelves to replace sugar and appease concerns about weight gain and diabetes. Yet waistlines and diabetes have grown despite these sugar surrogates. One in four Australian children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese with amplified risk of chronic disease.Addressing this health crisis, Britain’s sugar tax has just come into effect, while Australia debates taxing sugar.

Britain gave the industry two years to reformulate their products and bring sugar below the taxable threshold. How are they reducing it? With artificial sweeteners, by and large.

The research being presented today comes hot on the heels of a human study with similar findings, released last month. Sabyasachi Sen, associate professor at George Washington University, reported that his team found increased fat-producing genes and glucose transport into cells of obese people who consumed low calorie sweeteners. The greater the dose, the greater the effect.

These studies extend other research linking artificial sweeteners with weight gain, heart disease and diabetes via various biological mechanisms.

A 2014 paper published in Nature by Professor Eran Elinav and colleagues reported that three common non-caloric artificial sweeteners – aspartame, sucralose and saccharin – caused glucose intolerance in mice and humans. In a series of experiments, raised blood sugar levels were consistently accompanied by disrupted gut bacteria (dysbiosis). The same altered gut bacteria profile has previously been observed in people with type 2 diabetes.

Commenting on their findings in light of obesity and chronic disease, the authors suggested that the artificial sweeteners “may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intending to fight”. They concluded that their results “link [artificial sweetener] consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive [artificial sweetener] usage”.

But research on non-caloric sweeteners has been controversial and plagued by contradictory findings.

A meta-analysis of available studies and large population-based research reported them as safe for humans, resulting in artificial sweeteners being given the OK by government bodies in the US and Europe, and our Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Reviewing the evidence, FSANZ concluded in September 2017 that “all scientific evidence to date supports the safety of aspartame as an artificial sweetener”.

In 2016, in the same week, researchers disclosed that the sugar industry paid scientists to downplay sugar’s adverse health effects. A Sydney University study explored whether financial conflicts of interest biased outcomes of artificial sweetener research. Analysing 31 studies from 1978 to 2014, investigators found that industry-funded research was 17 times more likely to produce positive results than independent research. They concluded that “financial conflicts of interest introduced a bias at all levels of the research and publication process … affecting the outcomes of reviews and possibly undermining the quality and transparency of public health evaluations that are reliant on these reviews”.

Now more than ever, science needs to provide a clear answer, independent of invested interests, about the health effects of artificial sweeteners.

Fuelled by increasing evidence that verifies excess sugar’s ill-health effects, the Australian Medical Association recently supported a sugary drink tax. The tax is unlikely to be enacted by our government in the short term. But it may only be a matter of time. The reportedly successful drive to tax sugar has been taken up by 28 countries and seven US cities to date.

Meanwhile, Professor Susan Swithers from Purdue University proposes: “Current evidence suggests that a focus on reducing sweetener intake, whether the sweeteners are caloric or non-caloric, remains a better strategy for combating overweight and obesity than use of artificial sweeteners.”

Or perhaps, as Michael Pollan said, “If it’s a plant, eat it. If it was made in a plant, don’t.

His team’s research is unique because of the methods they used. “Researchers now have advanced technology at their fingertips to test the biochemical changes in the body at a much greater depth than previously possible.”For decades, foods and drinks with non-caloric sweeteners have pervaded supermarket shelves to replace sugar and appease concerns about weight gain and diabetes. Yet waistlines and diabetes have grown despite these sugar surrogates. One in four Australian children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese with amplified risk of chronic disease.Addressing this health crisis, Britain’s sugar tax has just come into effect, while Australia debates taxing sugar.

Britain gave the industry two years to reformulate their products and bring sugar below the taxable threshold. How are they reducing it? With artificial sweeteners, by and large.

The research being presented today comes hot on the heels of a human study with similar findings, released last month. Sabyasachi Sen, associate professor at George Washington University, reported that his team found increased fat-producing genes and glucose transport into cells of obese people who consumed low calorie sweeteners. The greater the dose, the greater the effect.

These studies extend other research linking artificial sweeteners with weight gain, heart disease and diabetes via various biological mechanisms.

A 2014 paper published in Nature by Professor Eran Elinav and colleagues reported that three common non-caloric artificial sweeteners – aspartame, sucralose and saccharin – caused glucose intolerance in mice and humans. In a series of experiments, raised blood sugar levels were consistently accompanied by disrupted gut bacteria (dysbiosis). The same altered gut bacteria profile has previously been observed in people with type 2 diabetes.

Commenting on their findings in light of obesity and chronic disease, the authors suggested that the artificial sweeteners “may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intending to fight”. They concluded that their results “link [artificial sweetener] consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive [artificial sweetener] usage”.

But research on non-caloric sweeteners has been controversial and plagued by contradictory findings.

A meta-analysis of available studies and large population-based research reported them as safe for humans, resulting in artificial sweeteners being given the OK by government bodies in the US and Europe, and our Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Reviewing the evidence, FSANZ concluded in September 2017 that “all scientific evidence to date supports the safety of aspartame as an artificial sweetener”.

In 2016, in the same week, researchers disclosed that the sugar industry paid scientists to downplay sugar’s adverse health effects. A Sydney University study explored whether financial conflicts of interest biased outcomes of artificial sweetener research. Analysing 31 studies from 1978 to 2014, investigators found that industry-funded research was 17 times more likely to produce positive results than independent research. They concluded that “financial conflicts of interest introduced a bias at all levels of the research and publication process … affecting the outcomes of reviews and possibly undermining the quality and transparency of public health evaluations that are reliant on these reviews”.

Now more than ever, science needs to provide a clear answer, independent of invested interests, about the health effects of artificial sweeteners.

Fuelled by increasing evidence that verifies excess sugar’s ill-health effects, the Australian Medical Association recently supported a sugary drink tax. The tax is unlikely to be enacted by our government in the short term. But it may only be a matter of time. The reportedly successful drive to tax sugar has been taken up by 28 countries and seven US cities to date.

Meanwhile, Professor Susan Swithers from Purdue University proposes: “Current evidence suggests that a focus on reducing sweetener intake, whether the sweeteners are caloric or non-caloric, remains a better strategy for combating overweight and obesity than use of artificial sweeteners.”

Or perhaps, as Michael Pollan said, “If it’s a plant, eat it. If it was made in a plant, don’t.

But research on non-caloric sweeteners has been controversial and plagued by contradictory findings.

A meta-analysis of available studies and large population-based research reported them as safe for humans, resulting in artificial sweeteners being given the OK by government bodies in the US and Europe, and our Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Reviewing the evidence, FSANZ concluded in September 2017 that “all scientific evidence to date supports the safety of aspartame as an artificial sweetener”.

In 2016, in the same week, researchers disclosed that the sugar industry paid scientists to downplay sugar’s adverse health effects. A Sydney University study explored whether financial conflicts of interest biased outcomes of artificial sweetener research. Analysing 31 studies from 1978 to 2014, investigators found that industry-funded research was 17 times more likely to produce positive results than independent research. They concluded that “financial conflicts of interest introduced a bias at all levels of the research and publication process … affecting the outcomes of reviews and possibly undermining the quality and transparency of public health evaluations that are reliant on these reviews”.

Now more than ever, science needs to provide a clear answer, independent of invested interests, about the health effects of artificial sweeteners.

Fuelled by increasing evidence that verifies excess sugar’s ill-health effects, the Australian Medical Association recently supported a sugary drink tax. The tax is unlikely to be enacted by our government in the short term. But it may only be a matter of time. The reportedly successful drive to tax sugar has been taken up by 28 countries and seven US cities to date.

Meanwhile, Professor Susan Swithers from Purdue University proposes: “Current evidence suggests that a focus on reducing sweetener intake, whether the sweeteners are caloric or non-caloric, remains a better strategy for combating overweight and obesity than use of artificial sweeteners.”

Or perhaps, as Michael Pollan said, “If it’s a plant, eat it. If it was made in a plant, don’t.

Read all about it here:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/the-reality-is-sick-overweight-people-with-tooth-decay-20180422-p4zb2m.html

*** As always… DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use

Artificial sweeteners and you

Artificial sweeteners in diet soda may lead to weight gain and other health problems the same way regular sugar does

Aspartame and other calorie-free sugar substitutes can change the way a body processes fat and likelyprompt diabetes and obesity, justlike real sugar does.

The way artificial sweeteners are digested inside the body is different from how real sugar is processed, but the negative outcomes may be nearly identical.

Artificial sweeteners may also make people hungrier and, in turn, eat more. Scientists think that’s because the zero-calorie treats turn on neural pathways that tell us to fuel up when we’re starving.

If you’re adding artificial sweeteners like aspartame into your coffee or tea, or sipping diet sodas to stay slim, you may not be doing your body any long-term favors.

Scientists have suspected for years that artificial sweeteners may stimulate our appetites and make us eat more. But forthcoming research suggests that’s not the only piece of bad news about fake sugar.

In a new study, rats who were fed the common sweeteners aspartame and acesulfame K — found in products like Equal, NutraSweet, Sunett, and Sweet One — changed the way their bodies processed fat and energy. In the rats, this also led to muscle breakdown. The researchers think that the rats might’ve been tapping into their muscles as an alternative energy source, since the no-calorie sweeteners don’t provide any nutrition.

The changes they saw in the rat bodies also appeared to set them up for developing chronic weight and sugar-processing problems, namely, diabetes and obesity. Those same mechanisms could be at work when humans drink fake sugar, though more research is needed to know for sure.

Brian Hoffmann, a biomedical engineer who studies high-sugar and high-sweetener diets at the joint Department of Biomedical Engineering at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette University, presented his yet-to-be published research at the 2018 Experimental Biology conference in April.

“Non-caloric artificial sweeteners are foreign chemicals that your body does not have the machinery to deal with,” Hoffmann said in a Q&A with Research Features. “Even those marketed as ‘natural’ because they are from a plant are foreign and it does not mean your body has the machinery to process them,” he said.

But the International Sweeteners Association was quick to point out that this study didn’t examine people.

“The ISA would like to highlight that this study does not provide evidence that low calorie sweeteners could adversely affect obesity or diabetes in humans,” the trade organization told Business Insider in an email.

The research to date on artificial sweeteners like aspartame has been conflicting and confusing. Some studieshave suggested that zero-calorie sweeteners can help people lose weight, but even that research points out that reduced calorie beverages won’t dampen your appetite. French scientists have discovered a link between artificially sweetened beverages and higher rates of type 2 diabetes, but they’re still not positive the artificial sweeteners are actively causing the diabetes.

The potential problems with artificial sweeteners don’t stop at the digestive tract. One small study of a dozen women at the University of California San Diego found that while artificial sweeteners taste sweet, they don’t satisfy our brains in the same way as sugar.

Researchers who asked people to sip sugar water or sucralose (Splenda-sweetened) water noticed that only those who swallowed sugar activated the region of the brain associated with food rewards. That suggests zero calorie drinks may not satisfy the mind’s craving for something sweet. Otherstudies in fruit flies have suggested that when we eat or drink artificial sweeteners, we are likely tricking our bodies into thinking we’re starving. This could potentially make people eat more, too (that said, humans aren’t fruit flies, so more research is needed).

“It is not as simple as ‘stop using artificial sweeteners’ being the key to solving overall health outcomes related to diabetes and obesity,” Hoffmann said in a release. “As with other dietary components, I like to tell people moderation is the key if one finds it hard to completely cut something out of their diet,” he said.

Original article came from:
http://www.businessinsider.com/aspartame-sugar-artificial-sweeteners-bad-for-boy-2018-5

*** As always… DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use

The Fluoride Deception

The Fluoride Deception: How a Nuclear Power And Atomic Bomb Making Industry Toxic Waste Byproduct Made Its Way Into the Nation’s Drinking Water, Via The Debunked Hormesis Theory; Poisons Are Good For People

http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2014/06/the-fluoride-deception-how-nuclear.html

*** As always… DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use

Caffeine & Sugar

Back in the eighties, Jolt Cola was all the rage and it was vilified because of its “All The Sugar And Twice The Caffeine” content… laughable by today’s standard. hahahahahahaha

Jolt Cola 16 oz (2- servings)
Calories 200
Carbs 50 g
— sugar 50 g
Caffeine 160 mg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola

Red Bull 20 oz (2.5- servings)
Calories 275
Sodium 250 mg
Carbs 67.5 g
— sugar 65 g
Caffeine 189 mg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull

Mt Dew 12 oz (1 serving)
Calories 170
Sodium 60 mg
Carbs 46 g
— sugar 46 g
Caffeine 54 mg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Dew

Coffee 8 oz (black)
Caffeine 95 mg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee

***While too much of anything is bad, I’ll still take the sugar over what man-kind has created as a substitute.***

I have my favorite caffeine+sugar vice, do you?

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use Society

To solve problems caused by sitting, learn to squat

Our failure to squat has biomechanical and physiological implications, but it also points to something bigger. In a world where we spend so much time in our heads, in the cloud, on our phones, the absence of squatting leaves us bereft of the grounding force that the posture has provided since our hominid ancestors first got up off the floor. In other words: If what we want is to be well, it might be time for us to get low.

read all all about it… click below

https://quartzy.qz.com/1121077/to-solve-problems-caused-by-sitting-learn-to-squat/

Categories
News you can use

Tesla’s Powerwall Will Let Households Run Entirely On Solar Energy!

Powerwall is a home battery that charges using electricity generated from solar panels, or when utility rates are low, and powers your home in the evening. It also fortifies your home against power outages by providing a backup electricity supply. Automated, compact and simple to install, Powerwall offers independence from the utility grid and the security of an emergency backup.

… 

check out the link below:

https://www.solairehomebuilders.com/2015/07/teslas-3500-powerwall-will-let-households-run-entirely-on-solar-energy/

Categories
Big Brother News you can use Society

Cryptocurrency as the lure, an ISO as the attachment – why not open it? – Naked Security

My  money sits in a bank, and is (for what it’s worth) federally insured. Bitcoin (and others) sits where, and is insured by what? ***

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/01/12/cryptocurrency-as-the-lure-an-iso-as-the-attachment-why-not-open-it/

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use Off-Track

Video (otw) PSA: Hair Dye and Sunscreens Are Killing You


Categories
Health and Healing News you can use Shared

Aspartame:  Decades of Science Point to Serious Health Risks

Dr Betty Martini Aspartame Splenda Artificial Sweetner Banner Warrior and Scientific Truth

Categories
News you can use Off-Track Shared Society

Keeping Hackers Out of Your Social Media Accounts… 

Hackers rarely invent new tricks. Rather, they just find new ways to use old ones.
When Tom Van de Wiele — F-Secure Principal Security Consultant — was growing up, taking over IRC accounts and channels was the thing. “Now people amuse themselves with social media accounts and bribing,” he told me.
If you have a Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Pinterest or Instagram account with a lot of content and/or followers, you are at risk of being hacked and extorted. And even if you don’t have a lot of followers but still place a lot of value in your account, you could become target of a motivated attacker.
So how will you be hacked?
If you don’t have 2FA — two-factor authentication — it’s pretty easy. “The password will be guessed,” Tom said.
“The ‘guessing’ is the result of the criminal going through all email addresses and accounts you own and seeing what passwords you chose in the past. The attacker will then try to bruteforce into the account using a password you used for other services combined with other keywords and mutations you might have chosen.”
Where can criminals find which passwords you’ve used in the past?
“Websites like have Have I Been Pwned? are great to see where your data might have been exposed. But the same lists that website uses are downloadable, and the cracked passwords from those lists are being traded on-line as you read this.”
So what can you do to prevent your social media accounts from being hacked?
*** check out the link below, to see…

Tom’s best practices for social media (and other online service) hygiene

https://safeandsavvy.f-secure.com/2017/08/02/how-to-keep-hackers-out-of-your-social-media-accounts/

Categories
Big Brother counter-think News you can use Society

Father Of 8 Sentenced To Jail For Distributing Jury Nullification Pamphlets

A former pastor from Michigan discovered the hard way that informing people of their rights under the law as jurors doesn’t sit well with the U.S. government when a judge sentenced him Friday to eight weekends in jail, six months of probation, and fines — all for passing out pamphlets discussing jury nullification.
Keith Wood contends passing out the information is well within his constitutional rights to inform potential and selected jurors that, enshrined in the Bill of Rights lies the potent ability to find a defendant not guilty if the law in question is unjust, flawed, or otherwise untenable — even if the accused indeed technically violated.
Jury nullification thus arguably acts as citizens’ access to checks and balances: When legislators craft worthless, harmful, inequitable, or just plain ‘bad’ laws, jurors can, in essence, refuse to enforce any punitive measures — refusing to find a person guilty of breaking a law that never should have been inked into the books.
This tool shines most prominently when used consistently to thwart oppressive policy. Illustrative of this principle is continued federal prohibition of cannabis and transformed public sentiment, as anti-marijuana propaganda falls apart at its politicized roots for the incarceration nightmare it created — among many others. Jurors faced with a choice in guilt of sending a nonviolent drug offender to prison might instead find the concept of incarcerating this petty ‘criminal’ who had done no harm to another unethical and ill-conceived — and choose instead a finding of not guilty to compensate for the unjust law.

Read *more* by clicking the link:

Father of 8 Sentenced to Jail for Distributing Jury Nullification Pamphlets

Categories
News you can use Society

Natural News: spreading doom (again) 

Natural News has its place when I comes to (natural) health, it really shouldn’t dabble in doom and gloom, not of this nature.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

(Natural News) According to David Wright, physicist and co-director of the UCS Global Security Program, North Korea’s latest ICBM — tested just days ago — has the capability to strike almost half of the largest U.S. cities, including Chicago, Denver and possibly even New York City.
As reported by Zero Hedge, North Korea now states:
…we have demonstrated our ability to fire our intercontinental ballistic rocket at any time and place and that the entire U.S. territory is within our shooting range.
…Melissa Hanham, a researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California, confirmed the findings saying that the test showed North Korea is now capable of hitting U.S. cities such as Denver or Chicago.
Essentially, Kim Jong-Un just declared, “All your base are belong to us.”
Washington D.C. appears to be just out of range for the moment, as the missiles fly over the North Pole and enter the atmosphere over the Northwest portion of the United States. This means Miami is the farthest away from North Korea’s reach. Houston, New Orleans and other Southern cities are also on the extreme edge of potential range.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

***read all about it he clicking below***

http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-30-north-korea-nuclear-missiles-can-now-reach-new-york-city-boston-and-los-angeles.html

Categories
Big Brother News you can use Shared Society

“If you can keep it…” | Sovereign Man

*************

https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/if-you-can-keep-it-21776/

*************

On September 17, 1787 on the final day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a woman as he walked out of Independence Hall.

“Well Doctor, what have we got– a republic, or a monarchy?” she asked.

It was a burning question on everyone’s mind: what form of government would the Constitutional delegates establish for the new country?

Franklin didn’t hesitate. “A republic– if you can keep it.”

(The exchange was noted by Maryland delegate James McHenry and included in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787.)
Franklin’s answer spoke volumes.

The Constitutional Convention had just ended, and it had been a bitter four months as the delegates fought and argued over every single word in the draft.

Factions had developed. Some delegates wanted a federal government with absolute power. Others wanted fewer guaranteed liberties for individuals.

Franklin knew that the representative government he had worked so hard to establish was incredibly fragile, and that it could easily slip away.

It was the same fight two years later when the 1st United States Congress fought over whether or not to establish a Bill of Rights.

As one delegate wrote, “Bill of Rights– useful, but not essential.”

Once again, after months of bitter arguments, Congress finally reached a compromise in September 1789, approving ten Constitutional amendments that guaranteed certain freedoms for the people.

More than two centuries later it’s clear that most of what they worked to achieve has completely changed.
The First Amendment, which ensures that Congress can make no law restricting freedom of speech, press, religion, and peaceable assembly, has become almost a punch line.

Ironically the greatest assault on Free Speech today doesn’t even come from government, but from university students who protest against any ideas they find offensive.

Violence on university campuses is now common as students come out of their Safe Spaces to physically obstruct and violently impede controversial speakers.

Any statement that doesn’t conform to their very narrow agenda is now considered hate speech.

And it’s the students themselves who want any sign of dissent banned, and more mandatory indoctrination of their newspeak ideology.

Then there’s the Second Amendment, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This one seems to be under fire on a regular basis, with mainstream media from Rolling Stone to Vanity Fair calling for its outright repeal.

The Third Amendment guarantees that no soldier shall be quartered in any home without the consent of the owner.

This seems almost a quaint, obsolete historical reference at this point given that the US military hasn’t had to be housed among the civilian population… ever.

So, OK, great. The Third Amendment is still in-tact.

Then there’s the Fourth Amendment, which ensures “the Right of the People to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

Forget it. The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars each year to illegally spy on EVERYONE, including Americans and American allies. This one is a total joke.

The Fifth Amendment is a big one.

It ensures that no one can be held to answer for a crime, including a felony, without grand jury indictment.

This protection died a few years ago when Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which authorized the military detention of US citizens on US soil, no due process required.

The Fifth Amendment also famously protects against self-incrimination, ensuring that an individual cannot be called as a witness against himself.

This provision is also gone, considering that legal precedent now exists for police to force you to give up your mobile phone or computer password.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees due process, that in a criminal trial, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . .”

This is now a complete farce given the widespread use of top-secret FISA courts, military detention facilities, and drone-strike assassinations.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial if there’s a dispute over property that exceeds $20.

Now, the $20 threshold might be a little bit outdated (not that there’s any inflation!)

But considering that the government has stolen billions of dollars worth property from Americans through Civil Asset Forfeiture in recent years, all without a trial, it seems the Seventh Amendment isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Then there’s the Eight Amendment, which protects against “cruel and unusual punishment.”

I thought about this one the other day when I was walking through the terminal at DFW International Airport.

A sign caught my eye that as prominent displayed on an emergency exit door, warning passers-by that opening the door was a violation of the law and subject to up to one year in prison.

I was dumbfounded. A year in prison for opening a door?

People go to jail and do hard time for smoking certain plants (but not others), failing to file tax forms, and a number of completely obscure and innocuous crimes.

There were four federal crimes when the Constitution was ratified. Today there are thousands. On any given day you and I probably commit several of them without even knowing. And each comes with absolutely insane penalties.

The reality is that you cannot even apply for a passport anymore in the Land of the Free without being threatened with fines and imprisonment.

Last were the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which were supposed to limit the power of the federal government in favor of the states and the people.

Those went out the window a LONG time ago, especially after 9/11.
Look, don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting that America is some vicious, brutal dictatorship. It’s not.

But anyone who has the courage to be honest and objective can see the obvious decay.
Benjamin Franklin’s warning is coming true. And the trend is accelerating.

*************

“If you can keep it…”


*************

Categories
Accidental Farmer Health and Healing News you can use Shared Society

The Real Reason Wheat is Toxic (it’s not the gluten)

Chemicals have their place, but some should not be covering my food! ***


The stories became far too frequent to ignore. Emails from folks with allergic or digestive issues to wheat in the United States experienced no symptoms whatsoever when they tried eating pasta on vacation in Italy.

Confused parents wondering why wheat consumption sometimes triggered autoimmune reactions in their children but not at other times.

Is Your Home Making You Sick?

In my own home, I’ve long pondered why my husband can eat the wheat I prepare at home, but he experiences negative digestive effects eating even a single roll in a restaurant.

There is clearly something going on with wheat that is not well known by the general public. It goes far and beyond organic versus nonorganic, gluten or hybridization because even conventional wheat triggers no symptoms for some who eat wheat in other parts of the world.

What indeed is going on with wheat?

For quite some time, I secretly harbored the notion that wheat in the United States must, in fact, be genetically modified.  GMO wheat secretly invading the North American food supply seemed the only thing that made sense and could account for the varied experiences I was hearing about.

I reasoned that it couldn’t be the gluten or wheat hybridization. Gluten and wheat hybrids have been consumed for thousands of years. It just didn’t make sense that this could be the reason for so many people suddenly having problems with wheat and gluten in general in the past 5-10 years.

Finally, the answer came over dinner a couple of months ago with a friend who was well versed in the wheat production process. I started researching the issue for myself, and was, quite frankly, horrified at what I discovered.

The good news is that the reason wheat has become so toxic in the United States is not because it is secretly GMO as I had feared (thank goodness!).

The bad news is that the problem lies with the manner in which wheat is grown and harvested by conventional wheat farmers.

You’re going to want to sit down for this one.  I’ve had some folks burst into tears in horror when I passed along this information before.

Common wheat harvest protocol in the United States is to drench the wheat fields with Roundup several days before the combine harvesters work through the fields as the practice allows for an earlier, easier and bigger harvest.

Pre-harvest application of the herbicide Roundup or other herbicides containing the deadly active ingredient glyphosate to wheat and barley as a desiccant was suggested as early as 1980.  It has since become routine over the past 15 years and is used as a drying agent 7-10 days before harvest within the conventional farming community.

… 
Click below for the whole scoop: 

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its-not-gluten/

Categories
Health and Healing News you can use

Apple Seeds And Cancer: What The Government Has Been Hiding From You For Years

You may be too scared to try apple or apricot seeds, bitter almonds or cherry pits. It’s the cyanide content that freaks you out, right? But, the latest research will change your mind for good. Well, “latest” may not be the right word, because this theory has been here since the 1950s.
Cyanide is deadly, but not in the way it’s used in the treatment of cancer. Convincing others that cyanide will only kill you is a simple act of ignorance. It would take too many seeds before the cyanide contained in them kills you.
As they say, “ignorance is your worst enemy.” This fear has kept people away from the secret for too long. Apple/apricot seeds or bitter almonds won’t kill you. Have you ever heard of amygdalin?


Check out the rest of the information below

http://maintainingmentalhealth.blogspot.com/2017/04/apple-seeds-and-cancer-what-government.html

*******

… and for the record, I have been eating the seeds of apples since… since… well, since I have been able to eat apples.

Yes, yes, even after all the  scary story’s about the boy that died when an apple tree grew inside his stomach (or however the original story went) 

Categories
Big Brother News you can use

If Your Connected Home Could Talk – Safe and Savvy Blog by F-Secure

Oh, but IT can talk***


The old cliche “If these walls could talk…” is taking on new meaning in the world of the Internet of Things.
Smart walls that actually talk aren’t on the market yet. But your connected home is capable of listening, remembering and divulging more about you than you may have imagined, explains researcher Charles Givre, a data scientist at Booz Allen Hamilton. (Yep, the same company that employed whistleblower Edward Snowden.)
In a talk at the Make Data Work conference in New York, Givre described what IoT devices Nest Thermostat, the Automatic Car dongle and the Wink hub learned about him as he used them as designed.
His conclusion?
“‘Smart’ devices collect and broadcast a lot of information beyond what you might expect. In aggregate, this information can reveal a great deal about the device’s owner.”
This information includes:

  • Your Facebook and Twitter handles
  • What other connected devices you have in your home and when they were connected
  • Your home’s location
  • Your internet service provider
  • When you are home
  • All the trips you take in your car (depending on your privacy settings)
  • Possibly your religion (if you, like Givre and Walter from The Big Lebowski, “don’t roll on Shabbos“)

Givre pointed out that most of the information is transferred securely but is stored in the cloud. Anyone who has access to your email address and password could reach it all.
At this point, connected homes are rare enough that it’s probably more convenient for thieves to physically stake out your home to note your comings and goings. But given the explosion of connected home technology, it’s just smart security to make sure your important passwords are unique, strong and unable to be guessed by anyone. This basic step — and thinking ahead about securing your connected home — is the best you can do, now that you’re aware just how much your connected home knows about you.
The makers of IoT devices also need to do due diligence to protect the sensitive data their devices are collecting — especially since government regulation isn’t erring on the side of consumers privacy.
“The Federal Trade Commission put out a report this year with best practices about how companies should notify their customers about data retention,” ProPublica‘s Lauren Kirchner reports. “Device makers say that customers can opt in or out of sharing their personal information with developers and third-party apps.”
So your connected devices may be talking to others without you even realizing you have the choice.
“If these walls could talk…”, shouldn’t you at least have a chance to decide whom they talk to?

*******

Click the link for this article AND more

https://safeandsavvy.f-secure.com/2017/04/24/if-your-connected-home-could-talk/

Categories
News you can use Off-Track

Overpopulation (video) 

In a very short amount of time the human population exploded and is still growing very fast. Will this lead to the end of our civilization?

Are we headed towards an Inferno (book by Dan Brown) type ending?

***btw… the book was a better read then watching the movie… in my opinion, of course. The movie went “sideways” a bit too much (especially at the end).