Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
The Plain Truth: It's the most immoral, shocking practice that Big ...
The Plain Truth: It's the most immoral, shocking practice that Big ...: In April I first told you the horrifying fact that certain vaccines given to babies and children contain ingredients that come from abor...
It's the most immoral, shocking practice that Big Pharma has ever engaged in!
The vaccines are the MMR shot (measles, mumps and rubella), Merck's "ProQuad," the one for varicella (chickenpox) and the one for hepatitis-A.
When I first found out that these shots contain components of cells, including the "DNA and protein" from a 14-week old healthy baby boy aborted in 1966, and "cell cultures" from a 16-week-old baby girl aborted in 1961, I was as stunned and shaken as you were.
But I've just learned more terrible news about these vaccines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lives in the balance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the most immoral, shocking practice that Big Pharma has ever engaged in.
And now, a just-out study is showing that this horrific method of making certain vaccines, ones given to infants and children, could be the real reason behind the autism epidemic.
And if it's possible to break even more terrible news to you, these vaccine "contaminants" have also been found to be associated with childhood cancers.
When I first found out about these vaccine ingredients, I was outraged.
But this scandal goes way beyond being morally wrong. It's criminal.
And those who allowed it to happen at the FDA and CDC should be put behind bars.
The study just published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology has found that autism rates significantly jumped each time another vaccine made with these fetal cell lines was introduced.
The first big rise came in 1980 to 1981 after Merck put its rubella and MMR vaccine on the market. That's made with an "ingredient" called WI-38, the "cell culture" I told you about that came from an abortion in 1961 of a healthy baby girl in Sweden.
Not only did each vaccine made with ingredients from aborted babies cause a huge surge in autism rates, but the rate went up again when the CDC added a second MMR shot to kids' vaccine "schedules" in the early 1990s.
But this goes way beyond autism.
Because Dr. Theresa Deisher, the lead author of the study said, "Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas."
It seems that the WI-38 cell line -- the one that came from the aborted baby girl in Sweden -- is "contaminated," according to Dr. Deisher, with a retrovirus. One that can be reactivated and is well-known to be associated with lymphomas in children.
To think that precious little children are risking cancer because the FDA puts Big Pharma first. It's almost too terrible to believe.
It was in the late 1970s that drug companies started using these fetal cells and DNA to make vaccines. It was much easier and faster to make the drugs with these "ingredients" from aborted babies.
And the FDA didn't bother worrying too much about this frightening new way of making these shots either. In fact, it didn't require even one study to see if it was "safe."
Not one!
Instead, it set a random number for the amount of human DNA that would be allowed. An arbitrary figure based on nothing.
And even that so-called "safe" number is meaningless. Because Dr. Deisher's team found human DNA in these vaccines to be up to 200 times the permitted amount!
For a very long time now we've been looking and searching for answers about what could be causing this epidemic of autism.
We looked at vaccine preservatives and we looked at mercury.
And all the while the FDA, which knew full well that these shots contained unknown amounts of shocking ingredients, looked the other way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How to say NO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're a parent or grandparent caring for a child, there's a very good chance you do not have to allow them to be given these fetal-cell vaccinations.
All 50 states allow medical exemptions for kids, but you must be prepared to show a letter outlining those reasons from an M.D. or D.O. And 48 states allow "religious exemptions" (Mississippi and West Virginia are the only two that don't) and 19 states also allow "philosophical exemptions."
Each state will have its own way of applying for an exemption, although some make it harder than others. A 2012 study found that 9 states, including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland and Missouri, allow for an exemption with just a parent or guardian's signature.
But other states like Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Utah, will require a lot of paperwork and forms. And depending on how hard state officials are being lobbied by the vaccine mongers, these rules can change from year to year.
California, for example, passed a law in 2010 making it much harder to get a personal belief exemption. This is why we must let elected officials know exactly what is in some of these shots -- and why we don't want to be forced to inject it into our kids.
So the next step is to tell our state legislators. This is especially important because right now state lawmakers are being hounded and coerced by lobbyists from Big Pharma. Those lobbyists are trying to get laws passed that will do away with your constitutional right to get a vaccine exemption for your child.
You should also contact members of Congress and tell them how you feel about fetal cells and DNA in vaccines. It's quite possible they have absolutely no idea that this is going on. It may be as shocking to them as it is to you and me.
I know, you probably think that won't make a difference. But if enough of us do this, it will have an effect. As Always The Plain Truth!
Monday, October 13, 2014
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Thursday, July 10, 2014
The Plain Truth: Research that shows how dangerous carrageenan is!!...
The Plain Truth: Research that shows how dangerous carrageenan is!!...: Study after study -- for over 40 years -- have shown this common food ingredient to be deadly. It can cause GI problems, stomach inflammati...
Research that shows how dangerous carrageenan is!!
Study after study -- for over 40 years -- have shown this common food ingredient to be deadly.
It can cause GI problems, stomach inflammation, intestinal lesions and even colon cancer!
That's right, colon cancer.
So what is it doing in ice cream, cottage cheese, yogurt, and, believe it or not, baby food? I even found it in one of those almond "milk" drinks.
And because it's called "all natural" it can turn up anywhere -- even organic products!
The FDA has been sitting on its hands about this additive for decades. Top scientists have even asked that it be banned from our food supply, but were ignored.
So before you take another spoon of ice cream, sip of soymilk or pour any more creamer in your coffee, here's what you need to know about the easy way to get this dangerous additive out of your diet.
Like poison ivy
It sounds innocent enough -- after all, it's "natural" and is made out of seaweed. What could be wrong with that?
It turns out, plenty. And researchers have been sounding the alarm about carrageenan for decades.
Dr. Joanne Tobacman is a well-respected scientist at the University of Illinois. Over six years ago she sent a petition in to the FDA asking that carrageenan be banned from food. It's just too dangerous, she said.
And Dr. Tobacman should know. For 20 years she's been researching how this extract from seaweed can damage the intestines. It does that by causing inflammation, especially in the colon.
After her petition sat at the FDA for almost five years, the agency turned her down. It said that all the studies she submitted -- ones showing how carrageenan can cause cancer, inflammation and allergic reactions -- just weren't good enough.
The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit research group, was outraged at the FDA's position. It sent a letter to the agency asking it to reconsider.
The group said "When a body of publicly funded scientific literature points to harm from consuming a common, widely used yet unnecessary food ingredient, the FDA should act in the interest of public health."
The group also said that "carrageenan appears to do to your gut what poison ivy does to your skin."
Carrageenan is "unnecessary" because it doesn't add any taste or even extra nutrients to food. All it is used for is to make food thicker. What the industry calls "mouth feel." For that reason, it's put in a lot of diet and low-fat dishes to make them seem more appetizing.
But Big Food likes carrageenan -- a lot. When it's used in a beverage, things will stay all mixed together and you won't have to shake the carton. Well, that's certainly hard to do!
But while the FDA has pretty much ignored Dr. Tobacman, there's one group that follows her every move. Wait till you hear this one!
The Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines (yes, there is such an association!) is hopping mad at her. They claim that all the "fisher folks" there are not going to be able to make a living if people listen to her and stop eating foods with carrageenan in them. They've even threatened to sue her.
Are you kidding me! This industry group in the Philippines wants us to risk bowel disease and colon cancer so they can keep selling seaweed?
And despite all the research that shows how dangerous carrageenan is, it's even allowed to be added to organic foods!
But there is an easy way to avoid it. By law, it has to be listed on a product's ingredient label. And there lots of brands that have stopped using it -- you don't have to give up ice cream, soup, yogurt or even that almond drink.
Also, the Cornucopia Institute recently issued a shopping guide that lists foods and beverages that don't have carrageenan in them. It makes avoiding it that much easier.As Always The Plain Truth!
It can cause GI problems, stomach inflammation, intestinal lesions and even colon cancer!
That's right, colon cancer.
So what is it doing in ice cream, cottage cheese, yogurt, and, believe it or not, baby food? I even found it in one of those almond "milk" drinks.
And because it's called "all natural" it can turn up anywhere -- even organic products!
The FDA has been sitting on its hands about this additive for decades. Top scientists have even asked that it be banned from our food supply, but were ignored.
So before you take another spoon of ice cream, sip of soymilk or pour any more creamer in your coffee, here's what you need to know about the easy way to get this dangerous additive out of your diet.
Like poison ivy
It sounds innocent enough -- after all, it's "natural" and is made out of seaweed. What could be wrong with that?
It turns out, plenty. And researchers have been sounding the alarm about carrageenan for decades.
Dr. Joanne Tobacman is a well-respected scientist at the University of Illinois. Over six years ago she sent a petition in to the FDA asking that carrageenan be banned from food. It's just too dangerous, she said.
And Dr. Tobacman should know. For 20 years she's been researching how this extract from seaweed can damage the intestines. It does that by causing inflammation, especially in the colon.
After her petition sat at the FDA for almost five years, the agency turned her down. It said that all the studies she submitted -- ones showing how carrageenan can cause cancer, inflammation and allergic reactions -- just weren't good enough.
The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit research group, was outraged at the FDA's position. It sent a letter to the agency asking it to reconsider.
The group said "When a body of publicly funded scientific literature points to harm from consuming a common, widely used yet unnecessary food ingredient, the FDA should act in the interest of public health."
The group also said that "carrageenan appears to do to your gut what poison ivy does to your skin."
Carrageenan is "unnecessary" because it doesn't add any taste or even extra nutrients to food. All it is used for is to make food thicker. What the industry calls "mouth feel." For that reason, it's put in a lot of diet and low-fat dishes to make them seem more appetizing.
But Big Food likes carrageenan -- a lot. When it's used in a beverage, things will stay all mixed together and you won't have to shake the carton. Well, that's certainly hard to do!
But while the FDA has pretty much ignored Dr. Tobacman, there's one group that follows her every move. Wait till you hear this one!
The Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines (yes, there is such an association!) is hopping mad at her. They claim that all the "fisher folks" there are not going to be able to make a living if people listen to her and stop eating foods with carrageenan in them. They've even threatened to sue her.
Are you kidding me! This industry group in the Philippines wants us to risk bowel disease and colon cancer so they can keep selling seaweed?
And despite all the research that shows how dangerous carrageenan is, it's even allowed to be added to organic foods!
But there is an easy way to avoid it. By law, it has to be listed on a product's ingredient label. And there lots of brands that have stopped using it -- you don't have to give up ice cream, soup, yogurt or even that almond drink.
Also, the Cornucopia Institute recently issued a shopping guide that lists foods and beverages that don't have carrageenan in them. It makes avoiding it that much easier.As Always The Plain Truth!
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
The Plain Truth: Billions are being spent on developing more and mo...
The Plain Truth: Billions are being spent on developing more and mo...: It's probably what we fear the most. Slowly losing our memories, forgetting the names of our kids, losing touch with life. We see pe...
Billions are being spent on developing more and more drugs for Alzheimer's! Do they Really Work?
Slowly losing our memories, forgetting the names of our kids, losing touch with life.
We see people with Alzheimer's disease on television, in the movies, and often in our own families. And it's terrifying.
And the disease is on the rise, in a really scary way. That makes Alzheimer's drugs a big opportunity for Big Pharma. But so far...nothing.
Billions have been spent on developing these new drugs. But experts say they have only "worsened the patient's symptoms" when tested on them.
But all this time other researchers have been busy looking at what might actually prevent the disease in the first place. And even ways to help those who already are showing signs of dementia.
It's not a drug or a vaccine.
It didn't cost billions or take years of research, and there are no side effects!
The best part is, you can start right now, without a prescription or single doctor's visit.
Food for thought!
Recently, scientists announced that they may have finally discovered the secret behind what causes Alzheimer's patients to lose their ability to remember.
Researchers from Penn State University think that the brain plaques in those with Alzheimer's trigger overproduction of a chemical in the brain that causes the memory loss.
And they can't wait to start developing drugs that might "fix" this.
Other scientists are working hard on a vaccine that would wipe out the brain plaques. So far, the vaccine "fix" hasn't worked on people who have the disease, but not to worry... The plan now is to see what happens if they start vaccinating people in their 40s and 50s!
But there has also been other research going on. And it's not about drugs.
Recently two big doctors in the field of neurology got together and looked at all the studies that have been done for the past 12 years about how diet can both lower your risk of the disease and even help those who already have it.
And what they found was amazing.
First, B vitamins -- folic acid, B6 and B12 -- can improve mental abilities in those who are having problems with their memory and understanding things.
But most exciting was how the "Mediterranean diet" can help those with Alzheimer's. Numerous studies have shown it can not only decrease the risk of the full-blown disease for people who are already showing signs, but even for those who are healthy!
Traditional Mediterranean fare includes lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, fish and small amounts of meat and milk, not too many sweets, and healthy fats -- mostly the kind that come from olive oil and fish.
The doctors looking at this research also found that studies show omega-3 fatty acids -- the kind you can get from certain fish and nuts -- can slow down the signs of Alzheimer's and that regularly eating blueberries and strawberries can "delay symptoms."
So what's being done with all these exciting discoveries about how we may be able to prevent this terrible disease?
So far, not much.
The doctors who analyzed all these studies said they are currently looking at ways to "teach people about these brain-healthy dietary strategies."
They also said that doctors are busy and may not have the time, or be "comfortable" telling patients what to eat.
Are you kidding me? Docs can be "comfortable" prescribing dozens of risky drugs to a patient but are uneasy about recommending blueberries or strawberries!
And those studies the doctors reviewed are just the tip of the iceberg about how these foods can help!
So while billions are being spent on developing more and more drugs for Alzheimer's, it just might be that the best way to ward off this mind-robbing disease has been available in your neighborhood supermarket all along.As Always The Plain Truth!!
Monday, June 16, 2014
The Plain Truth: This is How Politicians Get Rich! lets Stop this N...
The Plain Truth: This is How Politicians Get Rich! lets Stop this N...: If you’re like me , you’ve often wondered: How do so many politicians strike it rich when they only make a ...
This is How Politicians Get Rich! lets Stop this Now!
If you’re like me, you’ve often wondered: How do so many politicians strike it rich when they only make a salary?
Well, a seasoned politician in Montana has provided the answer.
Aspiring Democratic presidential candidate and former Governor, Brian Schweitzer, is showing us exactly how to get rich without breaking a sweat.
While in office, Schweitzer apparently saw promise in the mining business… and he decided to join the fun. Soon after leaving the Governor’s mansion, he targeted Montana’s largest mining company, Stillwater Mining Company (SWC), which produces palladium and platinum.
Schweitzer launched a massive propaganda campaign against Stillwater, claiming mismanagement by the Stillwater Board of Directors and, specifically, their longtime CEO, Frank McAllister. Schweitzer teamed up with a New York hedge fund, the Clinton Group, and – through public denouncements and intimidation – forced the Board of Directors to fire McAllister.
By then, Schweitzer was unemployed, and he became part-time Chairman of the Board of Stillwater. He was paid a salary of $188,000, but that was only the beginning of the booty.
Schweitzer now owns 39,703 shares of Stillwater Mining that, at Tuesday’s closing price of $16.71, are worth around $663,437. Not a bad haul for someone who’d never run a mining company, and has zero experience or training in geology, metallurgy, or mining engineering – three disciplines crucial to running a successful mining company.
Modern-Day Gangster
But Schweitzer wasn’t satisfied yet.Following an almost identical playbook, he placed a call to Glenn Dobbs, the CEO of Mines Management, Inc. (MGN), on Monday, March 24.
Back when he was Governor, Schweitzer had met with Dobbs and learned about the Montanore Deposit – Mines Management’s large, underground copper and silver deposit near Libby, Montana.
Over the phone, Dobbs was told that Schweitzer and a partner, Francis (Frank) Duval, had formed a new company called Optima, Inc. Under that name, Schweitzer had bought some mining claims over the 14,000-foot tunnel into MGN’s Montanore Deposit.
Schweitzer informed Dobbs that, unless Mines Management paid Optima $500,000 per year for the next four years, plus six million shares of Mines Management stock (representing 21% of the company and valued at approximately $10 million), he and his partners intended to generate controversy around the Montanore Project.
It’s worth noting here that Frank Duval and his wife have signed several consent decrees with the Securities and Exchange Commission to refrain from fraudulent securities activities. On top of that, Optima’s only assets were Schweitzer’s Rolodex and his media contacts.
When asked about his interaction with Schweitzer, Dobbs said, “It was an extortion call. They were going to announce to the world the lie that we didn’t have access to the project. They would create controversy and depress our share price… It’s really gutter-type gangsterism.”
When Dobbs didn’t acquiesce, Schweitzer put his PR push into high gear. Last week, Schweitzer began calling media outlets throughout Montana to tell his story. The result has been a roughly 40% decline in MGN’s share price and a decline in market capitalization (the value that the financial markets place on the company) of about $12.5 million.
Dobbs said that this is more than enough to justify a class-action lawsuit by Mines Management’s shareholders against Schweitzer, Duval and other partners in Optima, Inc.
The initial lawsuit will be filed by the company itself, and shareholders – many of whom have lost a significant portion of their retirement savings – will have the opportunity to join in a class.
Dobbs said, “It’s a shame when people in whom the public have placed their trust become as desperate as to align themselves with known scoundrels and become one of them. Schweitzer and the Duval family clearly formed Optima for the sole purpose of trying to take advantage of the hard work and financial resources of hardworking people for their own self-enrichment.”
Of course, Dobbs is right. Yet there you have it… the playbook that shows how politicians get rich. And Brian Schweitzer’s scheme is just one small example. On Capitol Hill, Congressmen execute similar plans on a significantly grander scale. So if you want to get rich without all the work, pack up and head to D.C. As Always The Plain Truth!
Thursday, May 15, 2014
The Plain Truth: Majority of Americans Including Republicans Want T...
The Plain Truth: Majority of Americans Including Republicans Want T...: It seems unfair to lock up people struggling with addiction instead of giving them a shot at real rehabilitation. F...
Majority of Americans Including Republicans Want Treatment Instead of Prison for Drug Crime!
It seems unfair to lock up people struggling with addiction instead of giving them a shot at real rehabilitation.
For more than 16 years, Paul Carter has languished
in a New Orleans prison, sentenced to life without parole after being
convicted of possessing an amount of powdered heroin so small it
couldn’t be weighed.
The longtime addict, who hails from a poor neighborhood and whose crime was a third-strike nonviolent offense, never received substance abuse treatment until he was sentenced to live out the rest of his days in prison. “It feels like the life within you is taken away,” he has said.
The so-called war on drugs has included offenders such as Carter for decades, with about 79 percent of the 3,278 inmates currently serving life without parole in federal prisons sentenced to die there for nonviolent drug crimes, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
When it comes to public opinion, however, the times they are a-changin'. About 67 percent of Americans say the government should focus more on providing treatment for users of illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine, instead of incarcerating them, according to drug policy report released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center finds that surveyed 1,821 adults in February.
Even a slim majority of the Republicans polled, 51 percent, believe the government should concentrate more on treatment than on prosecution of drug users.
“What this means is that Americans are really ready to substantially reduce the role of the criminal justice system in dealing with drug policy,” said Jag Davies, publications manager of the Drug Policy Alliance, a national reform organization. “Hopefully this report will help reinforce that smart elected officials and politicians should work on this issue because it has such broad bipartisan support. Substance abuse should be treated through the health care system instead of by law enforcement professionals.”
Nearly two out of three people surveyed—63 percent—say it is a positive development that some states have moved away from mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. In 2001 Americans were evenly divided on the issue.
“These findings are completely consistent with recent polling we commissioned in California showing overwhelming public support—70 percent throughout the state—for reducing penalties for drug possession and for rehabilitative alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent crimes,” said Allen Hopper, ACLU of Northern California’s criminal justice and drug policy director. “The public is fed up with the wasteful and ineffective war-on-drugs mentality. It’s time for our political leaders to step up, or they’ll be looking for new jobs.”
Politicians have done just that, pushing for reform. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last month endorsed a United States Sentencing Commission proposal introduced in January that would change federal guidelines to reduce the average sentence for drug dealers by close to one year. The Smarter Sentencing Act, pending in the Senate and whose sponsors include Democratic Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin and Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee, calls for cutting mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes, some by about half.
Public support for the legalization of marijuana use is also on the rise.
Already 20 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medicinal marijuana, and Colorado and Washington have legalized it for recreational use. The Pew report finds that 75 percent of the public think the sale and use of marijuana will eventually be legal across the country, and 76 percent think those convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana should not have to serve jail time. The public sees marijuana as less harmful than alcohol: 69 percent of those questioned view booze as worse for people’s health, while 15 percent see marijuana as more detrimental, according to the report.
“The next step is to change law enforcement practices to stop arresting people for using,” said Davies. “The rhetoric has changed a lot, but we still have a long way to go.”
The longtime addict, who hails from a poor neighborhood and whose crime was a third-strike nonviolent offense, never received substance abuse treatment until he was sentenced to live out the rest of his days in prison. “It feels like the life within you is taken away,” he has said.
The so-called war on drugs has included offenders such as Carter for decades, with about 79 percent of the 3,278 inmates currently serving life without parole in federal prisons sentenced to die there for nonviolent drug crimes, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
When it comes to public opinion, however, the times they are a-changin'. About 67 percent of Americans say the government should focus more on providing treatment for users of illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine, instead of incarcerating them, according to drug policy report released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center finds that surveyed 1,821 adults in February.
Even a slim majority of the Republicans polled, 51 percent, believe the government should concentrate more on treatment than on prosecution of drug users.
“What this means is that Americans are really ready to substantially reduce the role of the criminal justice system in dealing with drug policy,” said Jag Davies, publications manager of the Drug Policy Alliance, a national reform organization. “Hopefully this report will help reinforce that smart elected officials and politicians should work on this issue because it has such broad bipartisan support. Substance abuse should be treated through the health care system instead of by law enforcement professionals.”
Nearly two out of three people surveyed—63 percent—say it is a positive development that some states have moved away from mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. In 2001 Americans were evenly divided on the issue.
“These findings are completely consistent with recent polling we commissioned in California showing overwhelming public support—70 percent throughout the state—for reducing penalties for drug possession and for rehabilitative alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent crimes,” said Allen Hopper, ACLU of Northern California’s criminal justice and drug policy director. “The public is fed up with the wasteful and ineffective war-on-drugs mentality. It’s time for our political leaders to step up, or they’ll be looking for new jobs.”
Politicians have done just that, pushing for reform. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last month endorsed a United States Sentencing Commission proposal introduced in January that would change federal guidelines to reduce the average sentence for drug dealers by close to one year. The Smarter Sentencing Act, pending in the Senate and whose sponsors include Democratic Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin and Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee, calls for cutting mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes, some by about half.
Public support for the legalization of marijuana use is also on the rise.
Already 20 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medicinal marijuana, and Colorado and Washington have legalized it for recreational use. The Pew report finds that 75 percent of the public think the sale and use of marijuana will eventually be legal across the country, and 76 percent think those convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana should not have to serve jail time. The public sees marijuana as less harmful than alcohol: 69 percent of those questioned view booze as worse for people’s health, while 15 percent see marijuana as more detrimental, according to the report.
“The next step is to change law enforcement practices to stop arresting people for using,” said Davies. “The rhetoric has changed a lot, but we still have a long way to go.”
Sunday, May 11, 2014
The Plain Truth: FOODSNIFFER smartphone app will allow food safety ...
The Plain Truth: FOODSNIFFER smartphone app will allow food safety ...: European researchers are working on deve...
FOODSNIFFER smartphone app will allow food safety testing by consumers everywhere!
European researchers are working on developing a smartphone-embedded
sensor that would allow consumers to scan food for the presence of
contaminants -- from pesticides and allergens to foodborne infectious
agents.The sensor is being developed under the name FOODSNIFFER (FOOD Safety at the point-of-Need via monolithic spectroscopic chip identiFying harmFul substances in frEsh pRoduce).
Modern food safety system broken
According to FOODSNIFFER project coordinator Ioannis Raptis and exploitation leader Eric Smith, globalization has greatly complicated efforts to ensure the safety of food."The industrial revolution and our modern lifestyle have changed our perception of food," they said. "Previous generations used to buy a product based on a long-time trust relationship with the food producer but this is not the case anymore. The complexity and geographical spread of the modern food supply chain may also hide far greater dangers than we may have anticipated, and the ease of distribution of large quantities of potentially unsafe food to many countries within short timeframes may have a snowball effect worldwide and makes tracing of the suspect product difficult."
In recent years, several food safety-related crises have hit Europe. Analysts have attributed these crises to the inability of government agencies to test the majority of food before it reaches consumers. Modern food safety testing technologies are expensive and must be conducted in laboratories, leading European governments to test only about 1 percent of all food products before they reach store shelves. Other governments, including those that export food to Europe, are known to have even weaker food testing policies.
And while many cases of foodborne illness may seem minor, they may actually have lifelong consequences, Raptis and Smith warn.
"Cutting-edge medical research is now showing that short-lived infections are not harmless," they said. "In fact, they may often cause permanent damage to the physiology of many otherwise-healthy people.... This can consist of, for example, disturbance in the immune system."
Putting testing in consumer hands
The idea behind FOODSNIFFER is to develop a device that moves food testing out of the lab and places it into the hands of consumers, while also making sure that the data collected gets transmitted to the relevant scientists and regulators for analysis."We expect FOODSNIFFER to bring about a change in how we approach food by empowering us to identify potential dangers along the entire food supply chain," Raptis and Smith said.
The €4 million ($5.5 million) FOODSNIFFER project involves the participation of 10 European partners, including researchers from various fields and industries. The goal is to develop an optical biosensor, embedded in a smartphone, that can scan food -- such as a jar of baby food -- for the chemical signatures of unique toxins including pesticides, mycotoxins and allergens. The sensor would immediately transmit the data collected, along with user metadata including time, date and location, to the Internet cloud. The associated app would allow researchers or other users to compare data collected by different phones and create charts or maps to trace contamination.
"This contrasts with current laboratory practice, which requires delivery of samples to remote locations and a delay before receiving results," Raptis and Smith said.
The device is in the very early stages of development, but preliminary tests of the sensor's ability to detect health-related biomarkers have shown promising results.
"The FOODNIFFER technology is a great step forward in that it would enable us, for the first time, to achieve reliable food surveillance down to the source of production, from the safety of irrigation water to controlling the use of only permitted pesticides," Raptis and Smith said. "This means we will be able to solve the problem where it starts - deep at the source or in the distribution chain." As Always The Plain Truth!
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The Plain Truth: Federal Law Proposed To Override States From Passi...
The Plain Truth: Federal Law Proposed To Override States From Passi...: Notwithstanding the best efforts of ...
Federal Law Proposed To Override States From Passing GMO Label Laws! Why?
Notwithstanding the best efforts of the Biotech Industry to stop GMO labeling at the state level, the GMO label movement in support of the peoples’ right to know what is in our food is rapidly growing across the country. Monsanto and company have to date, successfully expended millions of dollars to fight against GMO labeling on a state by state basis. However, even a blind man can see that the “tide has changed” and GMO labeling is virtually inevitable.
In that the Biotech Industry holds on to profits like a mother to her newborn, they have now brought out their proverbial ace up their sleeve. U.S. republican congressman Mike Pompeo from the great state of Kansas, has just introduced legislation that seeks to effectively preclude states from passing a GMO label law. Ironically, he has dubbed his legislation “The Safe And Accurate Food Labeling Act Of 2014,” which would give sole authority to the FDA to enact a GMO label law if foods with genetically modified ingredients “… are ever found to be unsafe… .”
According to Pompeo’s press release, “GMO’s are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet. GMO crops use less water and fewer pesticides and reduce the price of crops by 15 – 30 percent. ” The press release continues to state that, “Contrary to claims by activists, there is no scientific evidence that suggests foods that contain GMO’s are anything but safe.”
Congressmen are elected by the people and are suppose to represent their best interests. One can’t help but question the true agenda behind the proposed legislation, which appears to be more representative of big business than the people. Whether you believe GMO’s are safe or unsafe, we the people should have the basic right to know what is in the food we eat. As Always The Plain Truth!
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Plain Truth: China’s Secret Missile Would Blast U.S. Back to th...
The Plain Truth: China’s Secret Missile Would Blast U.S. Back to th...: Lately we’ve been focusing on threats to security and global hot spots. And that means the week would be incomplete without a discussion o...
China’s Secret Missile Would Blast U.S. Back to the Dark Ages for Real!
Lately we’ve been focusing on threats to security and global hot
spots. And that means the week would be incomplete without a discussion
of China’s so-called “carrier killer.”
You see, China has developed a missile that travels at Mach 10 and is intended to stymie America’s ability to forward project her naval forces around the globe. The carrier killer is part of the latest strategic thinking in China’s anti-access area-denial, or A2-AD, strategy.
Whenever the United States senses a threat, it sends a flotilla of ships to the area. The navy typically deploys a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) consisting of one aircraft carrier, one guided missile cruiser (for air defense), two Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) capable warships, and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates.
The aircraft carrier basically functions as a fully movable airfield. With an entire air wing on board, it can use the advanced fighters to project force thousands of miles inland from nearly any body of water.
But the carrier killer, officially known as the Dong Feng 21D (DF-21D), changes all of that. This ground-based missile is intended to thwart all of the United States’ current missile defenses.
Unfortunately for us, the DF-21D would threaten a U.S. carrier battle group while on its way to a region… and long before it was ever in position to fight.
Bats to the Rescue
So how can the United States possibly combat such a strategy?
This is where bats come into play. A company called Prime Solutions Group, in Goodyear, Arizona, is building models for the Missile Defense Agency based on the echolocation system employed by bats.
Using mathematical models of a group of bats flying into a swarm of mosquitoes, this firm is building algorithms that deal with the probabilities of incoming ballistic missiles.
Intelligent agents scan the sky for objects of interest and then interact with each other, sharing the data they’ve gathered. The combined data allows the defensive agents to converge on the missile just like a swarm of bats converging on their prey.
This technology is critical to the future of the U.S. military. Without it, the United States would be denied access to certain critical theaters and would likely be faced with the prospect of mass casualties.
And that’s the very last thing any American wants. Our sailors and Marines are an extraordinary group of young people. Several years ago, I was flown to and landed on the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan, one of our modern carriers based out of San Diego, California. I spent 24 hours with the young sailors and Marines on board.
They deal with multi-billion-dollar weapons systems and aircraft with incredible ease. To watch jet aircraft land on a carrier at night in almost complete darkness is beyond amazing.
The aircraft carrier has become the symbol of American power across the continents. Our enemies fear them and our allies welcome them. But without focused and original thinking, they will be relegated to the history books by China’s newest missile.
And this is just one of many challenges facing America today. We live in a changing and dangerous world. The question most prevalent in my mind is: Are the leaders in the Capitol up to the task of protecting and enhancing our military capabilities going forward? As Always The Plain Truth!
You see, China has developed a missile that travels at Mach 10 and is intended to stymie America’s ability to forward project her naval forces around the globe. The carrier killer is part of the latest strategic thinking in China’s anti-access area-denial, or A2-AD, strategy.
Whenever the United States senses a threat, it sends a flotilla of ships to the area. The navy typically deploys a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) consisting of one aircraft carrier, one guided missile cruiser (for air defense), two Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) capable warships, and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates.
The aircraft carrier basically functions as a fully movable airfield. With an entire air wing on board, it can use the advanced fighters to project force thousands of miles inland from nearly any body of water.
But the carrier killer, officially known as the Dong Feng 21D (DF-21D), changes all of that. This ground-based missile is intended to thwart all of the United States’ current missile defenses.
Unfortunately for us, the DF-21D would threaten a U.S. carrier battle group while on its way to a region… and long before it was ever in position to fight.
Bats to the Rescue
So how can the United States possibly combat such a strategy?
This is where bats come into play. A company called Prime Solutions Group, in Goodyear, Arizona, is building models for the Missile Defense Agency based on the echolocation system employed by bats.
Using mathematical models of a group of bats flying into a swarm of mosquitoes, this firm is building algorithms that deal with the probabilities of incoming ballistic missiles.
Intelligent agents scan the sky for objects of interest and then interact with each other, sharing the data they’ve gathered. The combined data allows the defensive agents to converge on the missile just like a swarm of bats converging on their prey.
This technology is critical to the future of the U.S. military. Without it, the United States would be denied access to certain critical theaters and would likely be faced with the prospect of mass casualties.
And that’s the very last thing any American wants. Our sailors and Marines are an extraordinary group of young people. Several years ago, I was flown to and landed on the deck of the USS Ronald Reagan, one of our modern carriers based out of San Diego, California. I spent 24 hours with the young sailors and Marines on board.
They deal with multi-billion-dollar weapons systems and aircraft with incredible ease. To watch jet aircraft land on a carrier at night in almost complete darkness is beyond amazing.
The aircraft carrier has become the symbol of American power across the continents. Our enemies fear them and our allies welcome them. But without focused and original thinking, they will be relegated to the history books by China’s newest missile.
And this is just one of many challenges facing America today. We live in a changing and dangerous world. The question most prevalent in my mind is: Are the leaders in the Capitol up to the task of protecting and enhancing our military capabilities going forward? As Always The Plain Truth!
Monday, April 7, 2014
The Plain Truth: A Telltale Sign That America is Crumbling Now More...
The Plain Truth: A Telltale Sign That America is Crumbling Now More...: Over the weekend , Russian President, Vladimir Putin, sent about 6,000 naval and airborne troops into the Crimean Peninsula in neighboring...
A Telltale Sign That America is Crumbling Now More Than Ever!
Over the weekend, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, sent
about 6,000 naval and airborne troops into the Crimean Peninsula in
neighboring Ukraine. Official reports are that Russia has secured
“complete operational control” of the surrounding area and will be
strengthened by reinforcements as the week progresses.
Meanwhile, both NATO and the United States have condemned the Russian military actions. The United States has even suggested that it might respond to Putin’s aggression with economic and political sanctions.
But I can’t help thinking… so what?
The truth is that nobody is willing to call a spade a spade in regards to Russia’s actions, and nobody is willing to do what needs to be done.
You see, when one nation sends unrequested troops onto the soil of another nation, there’s only one word that properly describes that move: invasion.
And that’s just what Mr. Putin has done. He sent Russian military troops into the territory of another sovereign nation – which is an invasion, plain and simple. But the U.S. media and the U.S. government refuse to call it as much, referring instead to Russia’s actions as merely an “incursion.”
This may seem like semantics to some people, but what I see… and what other countries such as China, Iran, North Korea and Russia see… is a clear message that American foreign policy is weak, that the U.S. government won’t respond to violence against its allies or, in fact, any threat to global stability.
Weakness in the Past Predicates Weakness in the Future
So why does Putin feel confident enough to invade a neighboring country that also happens to be an ally of the United States?
Because comrades Kerry and Obama have shown him, through both their words and actions, that they’re too weak to punish any subversive actions.
Obama and Kerry have formed a mountain of false threats, but they’re unwilling to take a firm stance against despotic leaders and downright bullies like Putin. Essentially, the executive branch of the U.S. government has turned the most respected and feared nation in the world into nothing more than a cuckold.
The president has abandoned parts of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, reduced our nuclear capabilities and cut our military strength through his sequester. And by making secret deals with the Russians in a vain attempt to appease Putin and his comrades, the president and Mr. Kerry have proven that U.S. foreign policy is a joke.
Meanwhile, John Kerry continues making toothless threats and spouting rhetoric that harkens back to the days when he refused to support American troops fighting and dying in Vietnam.
All of this adds up to one thing in the eyes of our enemies: a weak America.
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) put it best when he said that this is “a dangerous message to send to the world. When the United States is weak, freedom around the world suffers.”
Well put, sir!
And in my own humble opinion, it’s time for our leaders to either put up or shut up.
Can We Avoid World War III?
Here’s the bottom line: America can’t stand by and watch the world fall into chaos. And America’s leaders can’t continue to hobble our once-powerful country with meaningless rhetoric and ineffectual foreign policy.
If we continue down this path, thugs like Putin will push the envelope until there’s no other recourse besides World War III. Let’s hope that we haven’t already gone too far to avoid such an outcome.
If there’s any hope, then America must show the world that it’s not as weak as it seems. And that takes more than words. It takes action. As Always The Plain Truth!
Meanwhile, both NATO and the United States have condemned the Russian military actions. The United States has even suggested that it might respond to Putin’s aggression with economic and political sanctions.
But I can’t help thinking… so what?
The truth is that nobody is willing to call a spade a spade in regards to Russia’s actions, and nobody is willing to do what needs to be done.
You see, when one nation sends unrequested troops onto the soil of another nation, there’s only one word that properly describes that move: invasion.
And that’s just what Mr. Putin has done. He sent Russian military troops into the territory of another sovereign nation – which is an invasion, plain and simple. But the U.S. media and the U.S. government refuse to call it as much, referring instead to Russia’s actions as merely an “incursion.”
This may seem like semantics to some people, but what I see… and what other countries such as China, Iran, North Korea and Russia see… is a clear message that American foreign policy is weak, that the U.S. government won’t respond to violence against its allies or, in fact, any threat to global stability.
Weakness in the Past Predicates Weakness in the Future
So why does Putin feel confident enough to invade a neighboring country that also happens to be an ally of the United States?
Because comrades Kerry and Obama have shown him, through both their words and actions, that they’re too weak to punish any subversive actions.
Obama and Kerry have formed a mountain of false threats, but they’re unwilling to take a firm stance against despotic leaders and downright bullies like Putin. Essentially, the executive branch of the U.S. government has turned the most respected and feared nation in the world into nothing more than a cuckold.
The president has abandoned parts of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, reduced our nuclear capabilities and cut our military strength through his sequester. And by making secret deals with the Russians in a vain attempt to appease Putin and his comrades, the president and Mr. Kerry have proven that U.S. foreign policy is a joke.
Meanwhile, John Kerry continues making toothless threats and spouting rhetoric that harkens back to the days when he refused to support American troops fighting and dying in Vietnam.
All of this adds up to one thing in the eyes of our enemies: a weak America.
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) put it best when he said that this is “a dangerous message to send to the world. When the United States is weak, freedom around the world suffers.”
Well put, sir!
And in my own humble opinion, it’s time for our leaders to either put up or shut up.
Can We Avoid World War III?
Here’s the bottom line: America can’t stand by and watch the world fall into chaos. And America’s leaders can’t continue to hobble our once-powerful country with meaningless rhetoric and ineffectual foreign policy.
If we continue down this path, thugs like Putin will push the envelope until there’s no other recourse besides World War III. Let’s hope that we haven’t already gone too far to avoid such an outcome.
If there’s any hope, then America must show the world that it’s not as weak as it seems. And that takes more than words. It takes action. As Always The Plain Truth!
Monday, March 31, 2014
The Plain Truth: Taking artificial vitamin supplements? Think again...
The Plain Truth: Taking artificial vitamin supplements? Think again...: It is deeply rooted in our psyche that antioxidants help prevent cancer, and the multi-billion-dollar food supplement industry has exploite...
Taking artificial vitamin supplements? Think again! Their antioxidant component scientifically proven to cause cancer!
It is deeply rooted in our psyche that antioxidants help prevent cancer,
and the multi-billion-dollar food supplement industry has exploited
this belief for years. One reason why antioxidants are touted to be
beneficial is because they scavenge upon free radicals. The fact is,
these free radicals are indeed harmful, damage cells and DNA, and cause
early aging and cancer. The larger question here is what type of antioxidants are proven to be bad?
The antioxidants in question here are NOT from the natural sources but from the ones found in artificial supplements which millions of people consume on a daily basis.
Vitamins A, C and E and beta-carotene constitute the antioxidant class of vitamins. Latest research has shown that an EXCESS of synthetic antioxidants SUPPLIED THROUGH vitamin supplements causes increased cancer growth. This raises alarm because nearly ALL low-grade supplements do contain synthetic antioxidant amounts in excess of the body's daily absorption limit. If you notice the percent daily value label on your supplement bottle, you will find the components to be in heavy excess.
Another research article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings tested the effect of antioxidant use and primary cancer incidence. They concluded that beta-carotene supplements increased the cancer occurrence as well as mortality in smokers.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has conducted several prolonged human clinical trials to study the effects of antioxidant supplements. None of these trials reported any beneficial effects regarding cancer prevention. The NCI concluded, "Research in humans has not demonstrated convincingly that taking antioxidant supplements can help reduce the risk of developing or dying from cancer, and some studies have even shown an increased risk of some cancers."
This conclusion was based upon:
Clinical Trial 1 (5- to 8-year study) -- Result: Beta-carotene supplements led to increased lung cancer risk. Alpha-tocopherol showed no good/bad effect.
Clinical Trial 2 (8-year study) -- Result: Vitamin A and beta-carotene increased lung cancer and death, due to which the trial was ended two years ahead of the initial schedule. Adverse effects persisted up to six years after supplementation was stopped.
The antioxidants in question here are NOT from the natural sources but from the ones found in artificial supplements which millions of people consume on a daily basis.
Vitamins A, C and E and beta-carotene constitute the antioxidant class of vitamins. Latest research has shown that an EXCESS of synthetic antioxidants SUPPLIED THROUGH vitamin supplements causes increased cancer growth. This raises alarm because nearly ALL low-grade supplements do contain synthetic antioxidant amounts in excess of the body's daily absorption limit. If you notice the percent daily value label on your supplement bottle, you will find the components to be in heavy excess.
Here are some facts:
A highly reputed study published in Science Translational Medicine (Jan. 2014) concluded that a diet supplemented with vitamin E and N-acetyl cysteine (a modified amino acid supplement and a drug) significantly increased rate of tumor growth, led to aggressive tumors and halved the survival rate in mice. These work by inactivating a specific gene (p53) which controls cancer growth in a normal person. Once p53 is inactivated, the antioxidant effect simply does not work. The scientists suggested that those with a high risk of developing cancers should completely abstain from antioxidant supplementation (that is any vitamin supplement).Another research article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings tested the effect of antioxidant use and primary cancer incidence. They concluded that beta-carotene supplements increased the cancer occurrence as well as mortality in smokers.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has conducted several prolonged human clinical trials to study the effects of antioxidant supplements. None of these trials reported any beneficial effects regarding cancer prevention. The NCI concluded, "Research in humans has not demonstrated convincingly that taking antioxidant supplements can help reduce the risk of developing or dying from cancer, and some studies have even shown an increased risk of some cancers."
This conclusion was based upon:
Clinical Trial 1 (5- to 8-year study) -- Result: Beta-carotene supplements led to increased lung cancer risk. Alpha-tocopherol showed no good/bad effect.
Clinical Trial 2 (8-year study) -- Result: Vitamin A and beta-carotene increased lung cancer and death, due to which the trial was ended two years ahead of the initial schedule. Adverse effects persisted up to six years after supplementation was stopped.
What do we learn?
Our understanding that excessive nutrients provided by synthetic supplements are simply excreted is a myth. These excessive nutrients are NOT excreted harmlessly but in fact can cause havoc to our normal physiological functioning. This research gives us another reason to rely on the good old natural sources for nutrition and not on artificially synthesized supplements. As Always The Plain Truth!Friday, March 21, 2014
The Plain Truth: Two Policies That Will Kill Our Livelihoods!
The Plain Truth: Two Policies That Will Kill Our Livelihoods!: A man packs a small bag of survival gear before heading off on a grueling journey. He survives extreme heat… dodges insurgents from the Me...
Two Policies That Will Kill Our Livelihoods!
A man packs a small bag of survival gear before heading off on a
grueling journey. He survives extreme heat… dodges insurgents from the
Mexican cartel… and evades border patrol agents.
When he illegally crosses over the U.S. border in Brooks County, Texas, he tramples across a ranch owner’s flowerbed to snag clean clothes hanging on the line.
He’s made it.
And he’s just one out of an estimated one million successful breaches that happen every year in the United States.
Yet senators just made life a hell of lot easier for this man, along with 30 million more just like him.
Because of a hidden provision in their recently passed immigration bill, Congress is now one voting session away from completely eviscerating the job market for countless U.S. citizens…
A Tariff on Your Head
One of the biggest issues our nation still faces is high unemployment. Over the last 12 years, Obama and Bush added a net total of only 2.7 million jobs.
Compare that to the 22.8 million jobs added in Clinton’s eight-year tenure and you’ll understand how abysmal things really are.
And unemployment is about to get worse. Much worse. Consider yourself warned.
You see, Congress is one voting session away from passing a hidden provision that would put a tariff on the head of every American employee.
When coupled with certain Obamacare mandates, the Reform Bill will create a loophole so toxic that it’ll literally legislate millions of Americans out of work.
Companies all across the nation, especially small businesses, will have no choice but to employ illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens.
It’s Economics 101…
Under the newly drafted legislature, illegal immigrants residing in the United States are granted amnesty. More specifically, they’ll be classified as “registered provisional immigrants.”
And paired with Obamacare, that designation becomes extremely significant.
You see, come open enrollment season, employers with over 50 American employees will be strong-armed into providing qualified health coverage on the company tab. Otherwise the company will have to pony up $3,000 per employee as a penalty.
But here’s the thing…
According to the Senate proposed legislation, “registered provisional immigrants” won’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until they become full U.S. citizens. And the senate timeframe for that is set for 2026, at a minimum.
So employers are left with two choices: Hire a U.S. citizen and be forced to sponsor their health coverage (or pay an egregious fine). Or hire a “registered provisional immigrant” and avoid the Obamacare mess entirely for a minimum of 13 years.
Put simply, immigration reform paired with Obamacare punishes employers for hiring American citizens. And with businesses across the country struggling to stay afloat, the choice is unfortunately a no-brainer.
Congressional Kickbacks
The Reform Bill was just delivered to the front door of Congress last week. The GOP affirmed that they want immigration reform, too, but they’ll need some time to pick through the 1,200 pages of overhaul. As Floyd pointed out last week, this bill is already riddled with pork.
If the bill should pass, the future will be bleak for the 23% of Americans who lost their jobs over the last five years and the millions of others who’ve struggled to stay employed.
Of course, the opposite would be true for the 30 million illegal immigrants that reside in America today.
So why is this bill even being considered in the halls of Congress right now? Well, look no further than big money tech firms. They’re the ones leading the charge on the reform movement.
They shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to protect their ability to employ low-wage and low-cost employees. It’s why you’ve been seeing a lot more of Mark Zuckerberg whenever you turn on your television. He, along with several other major tech executives, is throwing his entire weight behind the reform effort.
They have several coalition groups quietly lining the pockets of key senators and congressmen to ensure that their agenda goes through. And it’s all at the expense of you – the American citizen. As Always The Plain Truth!
When he illegally crosses over the U.S. border in Brooks County, Texas, he tramples across a ranch owner’s flowerbed to snag clean clothes hanging on the line.
He’s made it.
And he’s just one out of an estimated one million successful breaches that happen every year in the United States.
Yet senators just made life a hell of lot easier for this man, along with 30 million more just like him.
Because of a hidden provision in their recently passed immigration bill, Congress is now one voting session away from completely eviscerating the job market for countless U.S. citizens…
A Tariff on Your Head
One of the biggest issues our nation still faces is high unemployment. Over the last 12 years, Obama and Bush added a net total of only 2.7 million jobs.
Compare that to the 22.8 million jobs added in Clinton’s eight-year tenure and you’ll understand how abysmal things really are.
And unemployment is about to get worse. Much worse. Consider yourself warned.
You see, Congress is one voting session away from passing a hidden provision that would put a tariff on the head of every American employee.
When coupled with certain Obamacare mandates, the Reform Bill will create a loophole so toxic that it’ll literally legislate millions of Americans out of work.
Companies all across the nation, especially small businesses, will have no choice but to employ illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens.
It’s Economics 101…
Under the newly drafted legislature, illegal immigrants residing in the United States are granted amnesty. More specifically, they’ll be classified as “registered provisional immigrants.”
And paired with Obamacare, that designation becomes extremely significant.
You see, come open enrollment season, employers with over 50 American employees will be strong-armed into providing qualified health coverage on the company tab. Otherwise the company will have to pony up $3,000 per employee as a penalty.
But here’s the thing…
According to the Senate proposed legislation, “registered provisional immigrants” won’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until they become full U.S. citizens. And the senate timeframe for that is set for 2026, at a minimum.
So employers are left with two choices: Hire a U.S. citizen and be forced to sponsor their health coverage (or pay an egregious fine). Or hire a “registered provisional immigrant” and avoid the Obamacare mess entirely for a minimum of 13 years.
Put simply, immigration reform paired with Obamacare punishes employers for hiring American citizens. And with businesses across the country struggling to stay afloat, the choice is unfortunately a no-brainer.
Congressional Kickbacks
The Reform Bill was just delivered to the front door of Congress last week. The GOP affirmed that they want immigration reform, too, but they’ll need some time to pick through the 1,200 pages of overhaul. As Floyd pointed out last week, this bill is already riddled with pork.
If the bill should pass, the future will be bleak for the 23% of Americans who lost their jobs over the last five years and the millions of others who’ve struggled to stay employed.
Of course, the opposite would be true for the 30 million illegal immigrants that reside in America today.
So why is this bill even being considered in the halls of Congress right now? Well, look no further than big money tech firms. They’re the ones leading the charge on the reform movement.
They shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to protect their ability to employ low-wage and low-cost employees. It’s why you’ve been seeing a lot more of Mark Zuckerberg whenever you turn on your television. He, along with several other major tech executives, is throwing his entire weight behind the reform effort.
They have several coalition groups quietly lining the pockets of key senators and congressmen to ensure that their agenda goes through. And it’s all at the expense of you – the American citizen. As Always The Plain Truth!
Monday, March 17, 2014
The Plain Truth: Environmental & Health Impact of GM Crops!
The Plain Truth: Environmental & Health Impact of GM Crops!: The apparent benefits of GM crops include higher yields, ...
Environmental & Health Impact of GM Crops!
The apparent benefits of GM crops include higher yields, lower labor cost, soil preservation, reduction of herbicide input, decline in CO2 emissions, and affordable prices to buyers, which resulted in a rapid takeover of the corn, soybeans, and cottonseed markets. However, a critical review of these perceived advantages reveals troublesome trends such as modest or negligible gains in realized crop yields, genetic pollution of traditional varieties, rapid development of glyphosate resistance in weeds and Bt-toxin in root worms, environmental damage due to alterations to the ecological balance of non-target species, alarming toxicological effects in rats and pigs, and detectable levels of Bt-toxins in human blood samples. Current GM-based agricultural models must be revised to prevent irreversible health and environmental damage.
Introduction
Did you know that 170 million hectares were planted with biotech seeds in 2012 around the globe? Genetically modified (GM) corn was first introduced in the US in 1996 as “Roundup Ready Corn” and this technology was adopted at unprecedented speed (Clive 2012). Genes store all the functional and reproductive information in all living beings. When the cell’s genetic material is manipulated using novel Genetic Engineering techniques, new and desirable traits from unrelated organisms are added to target species. In the present case, new corn, soybeans, and cottonseeds varieties where designed to have the ability to tolerate the application of glyphosate-based herbicides using bacterial gene fragments (Dill 2005, 219).
GM biotechnology is the result of advances in Plant Genetics and Molecular Biology, and scientists in the field are proud to have acquired the capability of introducing genes from microorganisms into plants, thus giving them traits that cannot be easily achieved by common propagation methods such as seed selection, hybridization, and the use of cultivar techniques (Dill 2005, 219). Multiple varieties with other desirable properties have been produced over the years, but glyphosate-resistant plants were the first commercially available GM crops, and remain the most popular to this day.
Another group of GM crops was created to actively fight against pests. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacteria that has been used as natural pest control for decades because it produces a toxin that has insecticidal and nematicidal properties. It belongs to the same family as Bacillus anthracis, which is the bacteria that produces anthrax spores. More specifically, Bt produces spores that contain crystalline proteins, also called Cry proteins, that become activated in the digestive tract of insects. Once the Bt toxin has been activated, it pokes holes in the intestinal walls of its victim and paralyzes the digestion process, thus forcing the organism to stop eating. While the poisoned target starves to death, it may occur that opportunistic live Bt bacteria colonize the agonizing bug and feed on it (Petzold-Maxwell et al. 2013, 622). This knowledge was employed by genetic engineers to isolate the Cry genes that produce Cry proteins and insert them in corn plants. As a result, we now have toxin-producing maize that is designed to poison corn rootworms, as well as other insects and nematodes, with the goal of protecting corn plants against pest damage, thus increasing crop yields (Lundgren and Duan 2013, 657).
The advantages of using GM crops for farmers are immediate and include higher initial yields, easy weed control, and no-till planting, which saves time, money, and reduces soil erosion (Fernandez-Conejo et al. 2012). But, do we have sufficient knowledge of plant genetics to analyze all the variables involved? Have we compiled sufficient data to predict how the extensive use of GM crops will impact the environment and our health? Few governments have implemented measures to systematically monitor the adverse effects that GM crops could have on the environment, a worrisome fact when confronted with the possibility of permanent and substantial alterations to the environment and staple food crops. Currently, the working assumption on GM crops is that their production is sustainable, nutritionally equivalent to traditional harvest, and safe to eat for humans and animals; however, new research studies suggest that these views should be revised based on the alarming results of recent toxicological studies and numerous signs of environmental distress.
What “They Say” about GM Crop Production
It has been estimated that around 11% of all arable land on earth is planted with GM crops, and 89% of it derives from production in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and India (Clive 2012). Globally, the annual value of biotech seeds sold amounts to at least US$15 billion (Clive 2012), so nobody should be surprised to find that multinational corporations fiercely defend their markets and aggressively try to increase their sales. Similarly, scientists who work in the field, and receive research grants from interest groups, must prove the value of their discoveries and stand strong against criticism.
Opponents of the use of GM modified crops argue that there are many essential facts about gene regulation and expression that we still do not understand and that the foreign genes could have unintended effects, such as the production of secondary toxins, allergens, altered levels of proteins, and other nutrients, all of which could disrupt the food chain at various levels (IRT 2013). Natural News is a popular natural health advocacy organization with a large web portal, and they have partnered with multiple like-minded groups to spread the idea that there has been a increase in the incidence of allergies, food intolerances, autoimmune disorders, and cancer in humans since the introduction of GM crops (Landsman 2013).
In essence, the issue of environmental and health safety of GM crops is a global challenge with major economic repercussions, and it is puzzling to see that it does not receive the level of attention it deserves. This apparent indifference, linked to weak regulatory oversight, creates a climate where business-driven interests prevail and consequences wait to be uncovered, although we currently receive warnings from diverse fronts.
Plant and Insect Resistance
Millions of farmers have switched to biotech crops because they “deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits” (Clive 2012). The contributions of GM crops to mankind in the period from 1996 to 2011 can be summarized as follows (Clive 2012):
1.Cumulative gains due to increments in crop yields amounts to US$98.2 billion.
2.Pesticide savings are estimated at 473 million kg of pesticides (8.9%).
3.Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 were 23.1 billion kg.
4.Conservation of biodiversity and reduction of deforestation by saving 108.7 million hectares of land from being used for farming.
5.Reduction of soil degradation from erosion and preservation of surface moisture.
6.Improved economic prospect to 15.0 million small farmers who got out of poverty.
7.Reduction of food prices due to increments in productivity and reduction of labor requirements.
To the contrary, other sources consider the less remarkable aspect of GM production, such as the accelerated appearance of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Some reports indicate that twenty four different species of weeds have been found to survive standard applications of Roundup in the US. The practice of rotating different herbicides was discontinued when GM seeds were introduced, and Roundup became the only herbicide used in GM fields (Gilbert 2013). It is unlikely that farmers will be able to control weeds with Roundup without tilling or ploughing in the near future, so the perceived soil and moisture preservation advantages of GM crops may be short-lived.
We must consider this development in the face of a study sponsored by the USDA and Monsanto. Results were collected from 1998 to 2003 on small plots, and the final conclusion states that using glyphosate at the standard rate of 0.8 kg/ha twice a year is effective controlling a variety of weeds, and applicable to corn production even in the absence of crop rotation. While variations in glyphosate sensitivity of the various types of weeds was observed, the development of glyphosate resistance was not noticed (Wilson et al. 2007, 900). Critics of Monsanto’s study debated that the plot size used in the study was so small that the probability of observing any resistance was marginal (Gilbert 2013).
As it turns out, concerns about the experimental design of Monsanto’s weed resistance study were well founded, because glyphosate resistance in weeds has been reported in 18 countries. The current standard application rate is now 1.5 kg glyphosate/ha, but it has been projected that it would increase to of 3.5 kg/ha by the year 2025 (Gilbert 2013). Therefore, the claims that growing GM crops helps the environment, lowers the amount of herbicides needed for effective weed control, and reduces pollution are marked for extinction.
Figure 1, “Glyphosate-resistant weed populations in the US and Canada, 2002-2012”
The sequence of maps illustrated in Figure 1 represent the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the US and Canada. The spread of weeds tolerant to Roundup over a period of 10 years is evident over major regions of the North American geography. At the same time, the number of species of weeds that can survive after the application of glyphosate-based herbicides also increases. While this conservative report only includes eight confirmed cases of glyphosate-resistant weeds in North America, it is clear that weeds are evolving to survive chemical herbicides at a fast pace and current farming methods may not be applicable in the near future.
Toxicological Studies
In the US, the FDA has established that GM corn and soybean crops and their derivatives are not significantly different from traditional crops, and that they are safe for human and animal consumption. These conclusions are based on voluntary safety studies performed by the developers of GM seeds (FDA 2013). Biotech companies are not required to make public the results and methodology of their safety tests, and they often consider this information confidential.
A French study maintains, in spite of heavy criticism, that hormonal imbalances, liver failure, renal failure, cancer, and a shorter life expectancy was observed in rats fed Roundup-ready corn over a two-year period (Séralini et al. 2012, 4221). Critics point out that the methodology is invalid because the population group was not large enough (Butler 2012, 158), although it was the same size as Monsanto’s 90-day safety test study. But for some reason Monsanto’s results have not been questioned. In the end, the editor of Food Chemistry and Toxicology withdrew the publication of the article in question, while ignoring the author’s objections. This was probably done to avoid arbitrating a heated debate on the safety of GM crops, and because this is a sensitive issue for many, in view of the large economic impact of today’s biotech industry.
Nevertheless, a lesser known research paper on pig’s health was recently published, and so far it has escaped the publicity and heavy scrutiny sparked by the mice study mentioned above. A group of 168 piglets were selected, and half of them were fed a GM corn and soybeans diet, while the control group was fed a non-GM diet. Their autopsies were completed after 26 weeks, and a significantly higher incidence of severe stomach inflammation was reported in the GM-diet group of pigs. Moreover, a different level of stomach inflammation was observed on male pigs (22.2% v. 5.6% control) compared to female pigs (41.7% v. 18.9% control). This is probably due to the presence of Bt toxins (Cry 3Bb1 and Cry 1Ab proteins) in the digestive tract of pigs. Bt toxins generally form cationic channels in the intestinal walls once bound to suitable receptors. This is actually the same mechanism that kills the corn rootworms in the soil after ingesting Bt toxin. It is worth pointing out that the digestive system of pigs shares multiple similarities with humans, thus the need to perform additional experiments to supplement the data collected. Moreover, it is also suspected that a GM-based diet may result in reproductive problems in female pigs because the weight of their uterus was abnormally high. More research is needed to determine if higher uterine mass is a consequence of endometriosis, inflammation, polyps, or a different health problem (Carman et al. 2013, 38).
The increased use of GM crops goes hand-in-hand with widespread use of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup. Animals are frequently exposed to this herbicide because their feed is manufactured with GM grains highly contaminated with glyphosate. A Danish study reveals that cows ingest this GM feed, digest it, and absorb around 30% of the available glyphosate. Part of the absorbed glyphosate is excreted in the urine and the rest is metabolized in the liver and kidneys (Krüger et al. 2011, 187). Laboratory analysis on standard health markers such as creatinine, urea, cholesterol, liver enzymes, and kidney enzymes indicates that the cows subjected to a GM diet likely suffer from liver, kidney, and muscle damage (Krüger et al. 2011, 188).
Similarly, worrisome health problems have also been reported in a mice study that includes the health effects of a GM diet on the heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and haematopoietic system (de Vendômois et al. 2009, 717). Currently, the same kind of corn and soybeans is said to be fit for human consumption and it is widely used in animal feed for cows, pigs, turkeys, chickens, and other farm animals. Unlike most developed nations, nutritional labels in the US are not required to specify if any of the ingredients listed contain GM ingredients.
RNA exchange with bacteria and virus
The risk of gene fragmentation and cross contamination across plant species, as well as with virus and bacteria, threatens the stability of the genetic code and could have unforeseeable consequences. Currently, it is impossible for us to predict if the insertion of foreign genes could result in corresponding changes in protein synthesis, thus leading to variable nutritional levels or the appearance of new allergens and toxins that could prove harmful to our health (IRT 2013).
While the working assumption is that we should not be afraid of this new technology because new techniques that deal with known problems are being developed daily (Cressey 2013), we must remain cautious as major biotechnology gaffs come to light. A notorious case was discovered between 2012 and 2013. As of early 2013, there were a total of 86 commercially available varieties of GM plants in the US, including corn, soybeans, cottonseeds, and other species. It was found that 54 out of these 86 varieties were contaminated with fragments of the gene VI from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). The affected varieties include biotech market leaders such as Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2), MON810 corn, and the NK603 maize used by Séralini et al. (2012, 4221) in the study mentioned in the previous section (Latham and Wilson 2013).
Gene VI is known to have the ability to become active on its own. The genes of plant and animal viruses are sufficiently similar to allow a plant that has been altered with animal genes to become susceptible to an animal virus infection (Latham and Wilson 2013). The main function of Gene VI is to silence the expression of other genes. This is necessary for a virus because plants and animals have defense mechanisms against viral infections, so to effectively infect an organism, the defense mechanisms of the host must be weaken or nullified. Previous studies indicate that “in general, viral proteins that disable gene silencing enhance infection by a wide spectrum of viruses” (Latham and Wilson 2013). So the potential to have gene VI expressing in GM crops exists, and it would make GM plants more vulnerable to viral disease. But the truth is that we are probably set to find out the consequences of this gaff the hard way.
Biotech industry insiders have argued to ease the safety concerns of some that Bt toxins, as well as other proteins found in GM foods, are irreversibly denaturalized during common cooking procedures, thus leading to permanent loss of protein function (Hammond et al. 2013, 32). However, a ground-breaking Canadian study stands in stark contrast to the assumption that Bt toxins would no survive the human digestive tract. Aris and Leblanc (2011, 530) reported that measurable amounts of Bt toxins were identified in the blood serum of 93% of pregnant women, and in 80% of umbilical serum of the fetuses participating in the study. This finding is not consistent with the claim that the Bt toxin is denaturalized during cooking and digestion, because at least a portion of it remains intact, is absorbed into the bloodstream, and it can even be passed on to the fetus.
What “I Say” about the Real Harvest of GM Crops
GM crops were introduced as an advanced and novel way to keep at bay one of mankind’s oldest fears: famine. Available land resources are limited, and most countries recognize the need to manage arable soil in a sustainable way to ensure that current and future generations will enjoy the pleasure of going to bed with a full stomach. The overwhelming success of GM crops in the past two decades can be summarized as the result of ease of use, higher profits in the short term, and the promise to address the ancient challenge of feeding a hungry and growing population. Did we finally find a lasting solution to guarantee food security? Or, did we buy into the illusion created by too-good-to-be-true corporate marketing schemes?
Jacobsen et al. (2013, 651) rightly point out that our generation was asked to choose between betting on GM crops or protecting the legacy of genetic diversity that we inherited to face growing food demands on the land. So far, it appears that we have largely chosen to place our hopes in GM crops based on the way research funds have been distributed in developed nations. The main problem is that using natural agricultural biodiversity does not limit the potential to use biotechnology to address future issues, but the opposite is not true. For instance, it has been reported that GM corn pollutes natural varieties by means of cross-pollination, and a multitude of cases have been analyzed. A notorious case is the discovery of transgenic DNA fragments in wild corn grown in rural communities in Oaxaca, Mexico (Gilbert 2013). The finding managed to upset a large segment of the Mexican population because corn is one of the main legacies of the Mesoamerican culture and probably influenced the court ruling that suspended all GM corn field trials in Mexico (Yucatan Times 2013). Pollution of native varieties is a serious problem because it could lead to irreversible damage if GM genes are allowed to spread without control.
So, in the face of irreversible loss of genetic diversity, can GM crops feed the world? A study on GM corn and soybean yield trends across the US from 1964 to 2010 shows that GM corn production probably caused an increase in actual yields and is projected to maintain an upward trend from 2011 to 2030, somewhere between 26 to 32%. This is a very modest projection of sustained yield increments because biotech industry insiders estimated yields 100% higher by 2030. The same study found that the trend for GM soybeans would be to remain flat or decline slightly. These findings are based on realized yields in many counties across the US and not on yield estimates based on trial field performance (Xu et al. 2013, 742). To the contrary, application of Agroecology’s principles, such as using beneficial trees, plants, insects, and animals to enhance the soil and protect crops against pests, has shown to increase yields from 80% to 116% in projects across 57 developing countries (de Schutter 2011).
While it seems unlikely that GM-based farming would be able to live up to the promise of eliminating world hunger, some still defend its use based on the idea that facilitates farming and its products are also undistinguishable from traditional agricultural commodities. It has even been suggested that safety testing should be simplified or eliminated to cheapen research cost, accelerate production rates of GM varieties, and open up the access to emerging markets in developing countries (Herman and Price 2013). However, a number of adverse environmental problems have been observed, and Hilbeck et al. (2011) include some examples in their literature review:
1.Grass hoppers feeding on Bt corn can become toxic to chrysopid predators. A higher mortality of chrysopid predators who naturally keep in balance the population of grass hoppers may lead to an infestation of grass hoppers.
2.Butterfly caterpillars feed on non-target weeds growing primarily in GM oilseed rape fields. Widespread application of herbicides kills the non-target weeds and the population of butterflies drops due to lack of food.
3.GM potatoes have an altered starch composition; there is no amylose present, just amylopectin. The higher availability of amylopectin has an effect on the virus-transmitting aphids feeding on it. Then, the growth in the aphid population will result in a higher presence of viruses and neighboring crops will likely become infest.
A review of animal feeding studies indicates that about 150 safety studies were performed on target animals. However, the same publication acknowledges that these studies do not have sufficient endpoint parameters, such as the weight of inner organs, status of the gastrointestinal tract, and histopathology (Flachowsky, Schafft, and Meyer 2012). A pig study was later conducted observing all these endpoint parameters, and it reveals considerable gastrointestinal and reproductive problems in pigs (Carman 2013). However, there is a disconcerting trend of attacking, discrediting, and withholding research funds for research studies critical of GM biotechnology, so in depth analyses of health problems in animals and humans are rare in the scientific literature.
Jeffrey Smith is a journalist and director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. Smith (2004) wrote an article that details how some respected scientists like Arpad Pusztai (formerly at the prestigious Rowett Institute for Nutritional Research), virologist Terje Traavik, epidemiologist Judy Carman, and biophysicist and geneticist Mae-Wan Ho were personally attacked after presenting research data that cautions society against the unrestricted use of GM crops. This list cites only a few well-known examples of scientists who lost their job or had their credibility questioned after manifesting concern over the risks associated with GM food consumption.
More recently, Gilles-Eric Séralini suffered the same fate after publishing a review on liver and kidney toxicity of MON 863, MON 810, NK603 corn varieties (Séralini et al. 2011, 1). However, Séralini’s response to the attacks was different; he sued his main detractor Marc Fellous, chairman of the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies. Séralini’s lawyer was able to prove in court that Fellous registered biotech patents in Israel that were later sold to third parties, such as Aventis. Fellous was unable to portray himself as an unbiased scientist after his personal connections to the agribusiness industry were exposed. As a result, Séralini won his case in court and vindicated his position (Baudouin 2011). At the same time, Professor Séralini was able to secure research funding to conduct his now famous two-year long study on rats without interference. The data collected reveals that rats eating a diet based on MON810 corn developed large tumors and other serious health problems (Séralini et al. 2012, 4221). These new findings erupted into a more furious battle that has not been settled.
Figure 2 depicts the results the toxicity study in rats performed at the Molecular Biology research laboratory of Professor Séralini, at the University of Caen, France. Again, this is the only comprehensive long-term toxicity study of GM corn to date; it was carried over a period of two years, which is the typical lifespan for a rat. It is quite clear that the animals developed large tumors, and their bodies seem deformed as a result. While the human diet is not entirely based on GM corn, the reader may consider if long term consumption could result in negative health effects, including kidney and liver damage (Séralini et al. 2012). Readers might also wonder about the health effects of eating animal products derived from farm animals raised on a GM grain diet. Currently, the diet of most pigs, cows, turkeys, and chickens in the US is based on GM corn and soybeans.
Figure 2, “Tumors in mice caused by exclusively eating GM corn”
(Source: Photo by Poulter 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats–cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html)
Conclusions
In sum, as the evidence of adverse environmental effects and negative toxicological interactions continues to grow, it is intriguing to compare this research data with the fact that biotech giants continue to assure the public that their agricultural model is sustainable, and that their products are safe to eat and nutritionally equivalent to traditional crops. In the mean time, the trusting public accepts the official version… why would they lie to us?
Clearly, there is evidence to support the allegation that the wildly believed claims of the biotech industry may be based on marketing talking points, not on solid scientific research. Careful scrutiny is necessary, but it is rarely performed due to lack of research funding, and it is also discouraged by external pressures from powerful economic and political groups. It is unlikely that independent scientists will be able to fully address the complex multidisciplinary environmental impact and health effects derived from the widespread use of GM crops, so a solution seems elusive unless the general population becomes aware of the seriousness of the problem and takes an active roll. The research needed to prove every point of concern beyond any doubt would be very costly and time consuming; therefore, it would require a firm commitment from research teams and governments around the globe. Not surprisingly, GM producers rely on the fact that this is unlikely to happen in the current political climate, so they can afford to sit back and see their optimistic projections continue to go on unchallenged in the public arena, since the US government established a very low threshold to accept their homemade safety claims.
A change in current trends could occur if a large segment of society becomes organized and confronts politicians and business leaders to demand answers and corrective action. Adding mandatory labeling of GM-derived ingredients to nutritional labels could be a step in the right direction. The public may also opt to vote with their checkbooks and commit to consume non-GMO and certified organic products, since increasing demand for this type of food will send a strong message to food manufacturers, who in turn will transmit the information to food producers.As Always The Plain Truth!
Sunday, February 23, 2014
The Plain Truth: Secret Gov’t Agency is Following Your License Plat...
The Plain Truth: Secret Gov’t Agency is Following Your License Plat...: It’s been 65 years since George Orwell published his renowned novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four . Since then, his story of a dystopian state cont...
Secret Gov’t Agency is Following Your License Plates and What Else?
It’s been 65 years since George Orwell published his renowned novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Since then, his story of a dystopian state controlled by Big Brother
has been cited countless times, especially in reference to the United
States.
Unfortunately, that’s not surprising. Surveillance is at an all-time high in America. Citizens’ rights, particularly regarding privacy, are being stripped away so fast that many don’t even realize it’s happening. And, sadly, there’s no end in sight.
In fact, the hits just keep coming. Most recently, on February 12, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its synopsis of the National License Plate Recognition Database, a program that will give the government an even greater ability to spy on its citizens at will.
The license plate tracking system is supposedly intended to “track aliens and absconders.” But, not surprisingly, other countries with similar programs already in place have had to deal with an avalanche of abuse.
Take the United Kingdom, for instance, where similar cameras were used to target anti-war protestors who had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. In Australia, the cameras have been used to keep a record of people who violate parking restrictions and to collect extraordinary amounts of data about innocent citizens.
In America, preliminary concerns over the tracking program seem justified, especially considering that the DHS has funded reports that characterize “liberty lovers” as potential terrorists.
Chipping Away At the Foundation of Liberty
The License Plate Recognition Database would be outrageous enough on its own, but it’s only the latest in a long line of privacy violations. The government’s thirst for control seemingly knows no bounds. And its obsession with tracking transportation is well documented.
In fact, in conjunction with the license plate tracking program, the DHS has launched a mass transit camera system in Massachusetts worth over $7 million. Soon, 70% of all MBTA bus routes will be on camera 100% of the time. So even if you’re just going to work or to the store, you’ll be on camera for the DHS to see. Better not make any sudden moves…
These recent DHS programs are far from the totality of the government’s plans. Just check out this article from Tech & Innovation Daily’s Chief Technology Analyst, Marty Biancuzzo, about hidden, government-mandated black boxes in cars. If you’ve bought a vehicle in the last two years, there’s a 96% chance that every move you’ve made in that vehicle has been recorded, from your distance traveled to your destinations to how fast you were going.
Marty also broke a story for Capitol Hill Daily fully seven months ago about license plate tracking! In preparation for the License Plate Recognition Database, the government has been installing “Automatic License Plate Readers” all across the country. They’re tracking millions of plates, despite an outrageously low percentage of plate reads actually leading to criminals. In Maryland, for example, the rate is 47 serious criminals for every 1 million plate reads.
Meanwhile, we’re all familiar with surveillance programs targeting our phones, computers and email, among other things. At this point, it’s almost impossible to escape the watchful eye of the government, whether you’re on the road, at work, or in your home. I bet George Orwell would be turning in his grave if he knew that his vision of Big Brother was actually coming to fruition.
In Pursuit of the Truth, The Plain Truth!
Unfortunately, that’s not surprising. Surveillance is at an all-time high in America. Citizens’ rights, particularly regarding privacy, are being stripped away so fast that many don’t even realize it’s happening. And, sadly, there’s no end in sight.
In fact, the hits just keep coming. Most recently, on February 12, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its synopsis of the National License Plate Recognition Database, a program that will give the government an even greater ability to spy on its citizens at will.
The license plate tracking system is supposedly intended to “track aliens and absconders.” But, not surprisingly, other countries with similar programs already in place have had to deal with an avalanche of abuse.
Take the United Kingdom, for instance, where similar cameras were used to target anti-war protestors who had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. In Australia, the cameras have been used to keep a record of people who violate parking restrictions and to collect extraordinary amounts of data about innocent citizens.
In America, preliminary concerns over the tracking program seem justified, especially considering that the DHS has funded reports that characterize “liberty lovers” as potential terrorists.
Chipping Away At the Foundation of Liberty
The License Plate Recognition Database would be outrageous enough on its own, but it’s only the latest in a long line of privacy violations. The government’s thirst for control seemingly knows no bounds. And its obsession with tracking transportation is well documented.
In fact, in conjunction with the license plate tracking program, the DHS has launched a mass transit camera system in Massachusetts worth over $7 million. Soon, 70% of all MBTA bus routes will be on camera 100% of the time. So even if you’re just going to work or to the store, you’ll be on camera for the DHS to see. Better not make any sudden moves…
These recent DHS programs are far from the totality of the government’s plans. Just check out this article from Tech & Innovation Daily’s Chief Technology Analyst, Marty Biancuzzo, about hidden, government-mandated black boxes in cars. If you’ve bought a vehicle in the last two years, there’s a 96% chance that every move you’ve made in that vehicle has been recorded, from your distance traveled to your destinations to how fast you were going.
Marty also broke a story for Capitol Hill Daily fully seven months ago about license plate tracking! In preparation for the License Plate Recognition Database, the government has been installing “Automatic License Plate Readers” all across the country. They’re tracking millions of plates, despite an outrageously low percentage of plate reads actually leading to criminals. In Maryland, for example, the rate is 47 serious criminals for every 1 million plate reads.
Meanwhile, we’re all familiar with surveillance programs targeting our phones, computers and email, among other things. At this point, it’s almost impossible to escape the watchful eye of the government, whether you’re on the road, at work, or in your home. I bet George Orwell would be turning in his grave if he knew that his vision of Big Brother was actually coming to fruition.
In Pursuit of the Truth, The Plain Truth!
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The Plain Truth: Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!
The Plain Truth: Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!: Since we all agree, as followers of Jesus, that bullying is wrong, it’s time we stand up to the gay bullies who are trying to put us in the...
Time to Stand Up to Gay Censors!
Since we all agree, as followers of Jesus, that bullying is wrong, it’s
time we stand up to the gay bullies who are trying to put us in the
closet and take away our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion.
Consider for a moment that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty could have said in his GQ interview, “I think you’ve got to be crazy to be a polygamist,” or, “In my opinion, polyamory is just another word for adultery,” or, “A man who sleeps with lots of different women is no better than an animal,” and there would have been no reaction from A&E and no outcry from the gay censors.
Consider also that his comments about pre-entitlement black Americans were considered highly offensive by many, but these comments did not prompt A&E to take action, as I pointed out in my interview on Piers Morgan. (If you missed the interview, I encourage you to take 15 minutes to watch.)
Rather, it was comments about homosexuality that crossed the forbidden line, comments that, when read in context, although crude, simply expressed biblical perspectives. And that was more than gay censors like GLAAD and the HRC could tolerate.
The truth is that GLAAD has been on a campaign for years to censor all opposing viewpoints, as I noted in March 2012: “This sums up the duplicity of GLAAD: It urges the media to beware of conservative Christian leaders like [the late] Chuck Colson, Maggie Gallagher, and Tony Perkins [and me too!], even calling on CNN to ban some of them from appearing on their shows, and then gives its first Outstanding Blog award to the JoeMyGod website, famous for entries like this one ... [stating that] ‘God is SUPER busy killing babies and giving people cancer.’ And this earns praise from GLAAD...
“And for those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging ‘CNN to Make a New Year's Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.’ Yes, said GLAAD, ‘It’s time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they've been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. ... CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.’”
GLAAD even asks its constituents to alert them if people like me (or Jim Daly of Focus on the Family or psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow or political consultant Gary Bauer or Princeton professor Robert George, among many others) appear on the mainstream media.
GLAAD is undeniably in the business of censorship, which is why I believe they should be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement rather than the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Most recently, GLAAD commended comedian Bob Newhart for canceling a scheduled appearance at a Catholic businessmen’s event sponsored by the Legatus Summit.
According to GLAAD, “It is possible that Newhart, like many people were unaware that Legatus was such a rabid anti-LGBT organization. The organization was created by former Domino’s Pizza CEO, Thomas Monaghan, for Roman Catholic businesspeople, and membership is only available to top level executives.” Yes, the Legatus Summit’s website states that it was established to “bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life—Faith, Family and Business—connecting two powerful realities, the challenge of top-tier business leadership and a religious tradition second to none.” How utterly nefarious! The website also states, “Undergirded by their parish and diocesan life and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Legatus nurtures an interior transformation as members grow in their love for Christ and fidelity to the teachings of his Church. They become genuine ambassadors who study, live and spread the Catholic faith.” And GLAAD commends Newhart for canceling his scheduled appearance. How dare he crack jokes for committed Catholics! Even more remarkably, GLAAD’s actions come at a time when the Advocate, the flagship gay publication, named Pope Francis its man of the year for his softer tone toward gays. But this was not good enough for GLAAD, which represents the new face of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the face of unabashed censorship in the name of gay rights. This censorship and bullying will only get worse unless we make a determination to stand for what is right and speak the truth in love, regardless of cost or consequence, recognizing that our strategy of appeasement (which has often been a cover-up for our spinelessness and fear of man) has failed miserably. The reality is that in the last 12 months, it is not just private individuals who have been punished for refusing to bow the knee to gay activism or for speaking out of turn, but also public figures like Dr. Ben Carson, pastor Louie Giglio, and Sen. Rick Santorum. (In case you missed what happened with Mr. Santorum, in April, a Michigan high school canceled his speaking appearance out of concern that he would address same-sex marriage, eventually agreeing to let him speak with the caveat that students could only attend with parental permission [!]. In stark contrast, Bible-bashing, gay-sex-exalting speakers like Dan Savage are hailed as heroes in our schools and campuses, given carte blanche to talk about the most vile subjects to our young people.) Now the gay censors have tried to bully the ultrapopular (and, yes, backwoods, Bible-thumping) Phil Robertson, which for many finally means that enough is enough, a conclusion which is long overdue. It really is high time that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to capitulate or bow down, following the Jesus principle that we find our lives by losing them (Matt. 10:39). This does not require name-calling or rightwing rhetoric or anger on our part. To the contrary, “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:20, NIV). Rather, our stand for righteousness requires a heart in tune with the Lord and His Word, a life of personal purity without hypocrisy, and a genuine love for LGBT individuals, whose lives we protect and defend even while stating that homosexual practice is sin, that gay marriage is not truly marriage, and that God has a better way. We really have no choice, and, as I’ve said many times before, either we stand up and do what is right today or we apologize to our kids and grandkids tomorrow.
What will it be? As Always The Plain Truth!
Consider for a moment that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty could have said in his GQ interview, “I think you’ve got to be crazy to be a polygamist,” or, “In my opinion, polyamory is just another word for adultery,” or, “A man who sleeps with lots of different women is no better than an animal,” and there would have been no reaction from A&E and no outcry from the gay censors.
Consider also that his comments about pre-entitlement black Americans were considered highly offensive by many, but these comments did not prompt A&E to take action, as I pointed out in my interview on Piers Morgan. (If you missed the interview, I encourage you to take 15 minutes to watch.)
Rather, it was comments about homosexuality that crossed the forbidden line, comments that, when read in context, although crude, simply expressed biblical perspectives. And that was more than gay censors like GLAAD and the HRC could tolerate.
The truth is that GLAAD has been on a campaign for years to censor all opposing viewpoints, as I noted in March 2012: “This sums up the duplicity of GLAAD: It urges the media to beware of conservative Christian leaders like [the late] Chuck Colson, Maggie Gallagher, and Tony Perkins [and me too!], even calling on CNN to ban some of them from appearing on their shows, and then gives its first Outstanding Blog award to the JoeMyGod website, famous for entries like this one ... [stating that] ‘God is SUPER busy killing babies and giving people cancer.’ And this earns praise from GLAAD...
“And for those who claim that GLAAD is not trying to engage in censorship, note well that at the end of 2010, GLAAD launched a petition drive urging ‘CNN to Make a New Year's Resolution: Keep Away From the Anti-Gay Industry.’ Yes, said GLAAD, ‘It’s time for outlets to finally drop several hundred pounds of unhealthy weight, which they've been carrying around for years, in the form of anti-gay activists. ... CNN and the rest of the media are doing nothing but exposing their viewers to dangerous anti-gay rhetoric when they invite members of these anti-gay groups onto their programming. Starting in 2011, this needs to stop.’”
GLAAD even asks its constituents to alert them if people like me (or Jim Daly of Focus on the Family or psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Keith Ablow or political consultant Gary Bauer or Princeton professor Robert George, among many others) appear on the mainstream media.
GLAAD is undeniably in the business of censorship, which is why I believe they should be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement rather than the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Most recently, GLAAD commended comedian Bob Newhart for canceling a scheduled appearance at a Catholic businessmen’s event sponsored by the Legatus Summit.
According to GLAAD, “It is possible that Newhart, like many people were unaware that Legatus was such a rabid anti-LGBT organization. The organization was created by former Domino’s Pizza CEO, Thomas Monaghan, for Roman Catholic businesspeople, and membership is only available to top level executives.” Yes, the Legatus Summit’s website states that it was established to “bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life—Faith, Family and Business—connecting two powerful realities, the challenge of top-tier business leadership and a religious tradition second to none.” How utterly nefarious! The website also states, “Undergirded by their parish and diocesan life and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Legatus nurtures an interior transformation as members grow in their love for Christ and fidelity to the teachings of his Church. They become genuine ambassadors who study, live and spread the Catholic faith.” And GLAAD commends Newhart for canceling his scheduled appearance. How dare he crack jokes for committed Catholics! Even more remarkably, GLAAD’s actions come at a time when the Advocate, the flagship gay publication, named Pope Francis its man of the year for his softer tone toward gays. But this was not good enough for GLAAD, which represents the new face of “tolerance” and “diversity,” the face of unabashed censorship in the name of gay rights. This censorship and bullying will only get worse unless we make a determination to stand for what is right and speak the truth in love, regardless of cost or consequence, recognizing that our strategy of appeasement (which has often been a cover-up for our spinelessness and fear of man) has failed miserably. The reality is that in the last 12 months, it is not just private individuals who have been punished for refusing to bow the knee to gay activism or for speaking out of turn, but also public figures like Dr. Ben Carson, pastor Louie Giglio, and Sen. Rick Santorum. (In case you missed what happened with Mr. Santorum, in April, a Michigan high school canceled his speaking appearance out of concern that he would address same-sex marriage, eventually agreeing to let him speak with the caveat that students could only attend with parental permission [!]. In stark contrast, Bible-bashing, gay-sex-exalting speakers like Dan Savage are hailed as heroes in our schools and campuses, given carte blanche to talk about the most vile subjects to our young people.) Now the gay censors have tried to bully the ultrapopular (and, yes, backwoods, Bible-thumping) Phil Robertson, which for many finally means that enough is enough, a conclusion which is long overdue. It really is high time that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to capitulate or bow down, following the Jesus principle that we find our lives by losing them (Matt. 10:39). This does not require name-calling or rightwing rhetoric or anger on our part. To the contrary, “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:20, NIV). Rather, our stand for righteousness requires a heart in tune with the Lord and His Word, a life of personal purity without hypocrisy, and a genuine love for LGBT individuals, whose lives we protect and defend even while stating that homosexual practice is sin, that gay marriage is not truly marriage, and that God has a better way. We really have no choice, and, as I’ve said many times before, either we stand up and do what is right today or we apologize to our kids and grandkids tomorrow.
What will it be? As Always The Plain Truth!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)