Jon Stewart rips commentators at Fox News a new one in this 7 minute segment from the Daily Show. In the clip, he puts on display the frightening inconsistency of supposed “freedom-promoting” anchors on Fox News, most of whom have no problem completely shredding the Bill of Rights in pursuit of fear- and war-mongering.
Despite Stewart’s misstep at the end regarding requiring background checks for purchase of firearms, he lays a clear example of how current “conservatism” has nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with power. If only he realized that his liberalism basically does the same thing.
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
By Hayes Brown on Apr 26, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) during a hearing on Friday said that he believes that Islam as a whole is a threat to the United States, labeling it as a religion that will “motivate people to murder children.”
During a hearing he chaired on “Islamist Extremism in Chechnya: A Threat to the U.S. Homeland?” Rohrabacher continually referred to the 2004 Beslan hostage situation — in which Chechen extremists took control of a school in Russia resulting in the death of more than 180 children — as an example of the threat that Islam poses.
At one point, the California Republican sought to clarify that he wasn’t opposed to any religious group gaining power within a region — only Islam. “What we need to worry about is if it happens to be a religion that convinces people that part of their faith is to go off and murder other people’s children,” he said, referring to Islam broadly. Later in the hearing, Rohrabacher was more clear:
ROHRABACHER: At the end of the Cold War, I was the Soviet Union’s worst enemy, nemesis, because I believe that free people need to determine who their number one enemies are and work to try to defeat them. And that doesn’t mean that the people you work with are perfect, et cetera. We did bring down the Soviet Union and we worked with a lot of people who had a lot of faults. Today radical Islam and China appear to be the main adversaries, the main threat to the free world. I hope we all work together against a religion that will motivate people to murder children and other threats to us as a civilization.
Watch his statements here:
Islamophobia has seen a resurgence in the aftermath of the Boston attacks, with Fox Newsleading the charge in promoting a new wave of fear towards Muslims. Rohrabacher is no stranger himself to controversy surrounding Islam. In 2012, he accused President Obama of “pandering to radical Islamic forces” in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
Reuters/Reuters – A Jewish woman prays for blessings as she buries her face in the colourful scarves pinned on the Grand Menorah in the blue-tiled El Ghriba synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba, May 10, 2012. REUTERS/Anis Mili
DJERBA, Tunisia, April 26, 2013 (AFP)
The pilgrimage to the ancient Ghriba synagogue on Tunisia’s resort island of Djerba began on Friday amid tight security, with hundreds of Jewish faithful expected, including Israelis.
The first pilgrims arrived at the sanctuary in the morning, an AFP journalist reported, for the start of an annual ritual that has seen numbers fall dramatically since an Al-Qaeda attack in 2002 and instability following Tunisia’s 2011 revolution.
Security reinforcements were deployed around Djerba, which lies 500 kilometres (300 miles) south of Tunis, with roadblocks set up along the road linking the airport to the tourist area and a police helicopter whirring overhead.
The pilgrimage is due to culminate in the afternoon with the traditional procession through the Jewish neighbourhoods around the synagogue, the oldest in Africa, with checkpoints set up at their entrance.
For the first time since the revolution in January 2011 several dozen Israelis are expected, said organiser Perez Trabelsi, who represents the Tunisian Jewish community at Djerba.
The event was cancelled two years ago with the country on edge after the mass uprising that toppled veteran strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, but it resumed discreetly in 2012 and no incidents were reported.
Beginning 33 days after the start of the Jewish Passover festival, the Ghriba pilgrimage used to attract thousands of pilgrims and tourists, but attendance slumped after a suicide attack claimed by Al-Qaeda killed 21 people in April 2002.
According to legend, the synagogue was founded in 586 BC by Jews fleeing the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.
Tunisian Jews now numbers around 1,500, compared with an estimated 100,000 living in the north African country when it gained independence in 1956.
The beloved but doomed Google Reader is still a healthy source of traffic. Google+, on the other hand…
According to data from the BuzzFeed Network, a set of tracked partner sites that collectively have over 300 million users, Google Reader is still a significant source of traffic for news — and a much larger one than Google+. The above chart, created by BuzzFeed's data team, represents data collected from August 2012 to today. (Yesterday, Google announced that it would close Reader in July.)
We should add that this data isn't complete. Google Reader traffic became much harder to measure last year when Google began defaulting users to SSL encryption in such a way that masked referral data. And this doesn't include data from apps that use Google Reader as a sync service, such as Reeder. In other words, it's likely that we're actually missing some Reader traffic here.
The second graphic* shows measured Reader and Google+ referrals over time. This one, too, requires qualification: The changes in Reader's numbers can be explained mostly by the addition of new sites to BuzzFeed's partner network, not growth in Google Reader (the total number of visitors to partner sites increased, in other words).
But the relative numbers are still surprising: Despite claims that it has over 100m monthly active users, Google+ barely moves the needle for sites across the network, while Reader is a healthy source of readers.
*For reference: in August of 2012, according to the same data, Facebook drove over 70m visitors to sites in the network while Google Reader was well under 10m.
(Update I and II below)
After the September 11th attacks, many Americans wondered, “why do they hate us?” President George Bush gave his now famous explanation: “They hate our freedoms.” Radical Islam, we are told, is to blame.
When someone dares counter this argument by pointing out that “Muslim rage” is due to U.S. foreign policy, accusations of disloyalty quickly abound. Ron Paul was chastised when he had the audacity to claim that they didn’t attack us because of our freedoms, but rather “they attack us because we’ve been over there [bombing them].” In other words, they terrorize us because we’ve been terrorizing them.
Yet, the terrorists themselves consistently explain why they attack us. Osama bin Laden himself responded to George Bush:
Contrary to what Bush says and claims — that we hate freedom –let him tell us then, “Why did we not attack Sweden?” … Bush is…misleading you and not telling you the true reason.
The real reason, explained Bin Laden, was that
we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children… Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.
Subsequent terrorists have consistently confessed similar motivations, whether it be the Times Square bomber or the Fort Hood shooter. Time and time again, the terrorists give the same explanations: they attack the United States because the United States is attacking Muslims.
With the Boston Marathon bombings, once again Americans repeat Bushian explanations. The vapid radio personality Adam Carolla explained:
They hate our culture. They hate our way of life.
Why Americans simply can’t fathom that it is U.S. foreign policy that motivates terrorists is understandable: it would be too difficult on the American psyche to admit fault–to admit that our own foreign policy is criminal and the ultimate source of a legitimate grievance. It is far easier to lay the blame on another religion.
So, once again, we are told that the Boston Marathon bombers were “motivated by religion.” This is what “anonymous U.S. officials” told the media, who then unthinkingly regurgitated it:
Two U.S. officials say preliminary evidence from an interrogation suggests the suspects in the Boston Marathon attack were motivated by their religious views but were apparently not tied to any Islamic terrorist groups.
The two brothers, from southern Russia, practiced Islam.
The U.S. officials spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation.
Notice that the U.S. officials “were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation”–but they discussed it with reporters anyways. This is typical of the U.S. government-media relationship: journalists grant anonymity to government officials, who can then freely spread their propaganda while at the same time hiding behind the wall of anonymity when challenged. (Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on this practice.)
And so, Americans will continue to believe the myth that the terrorists attack us simply because of their religious views. This successfully shrouds the real underlying reason: U.S. foreign policy.
“Muslim rage” toward the United States has to do with the fact that the United States has been continuously bombing, invading, and occupying multiple Muslim countries. This is a process that began in the early 1990′s–over two decades of U.S. warmongering in the region. (And actually, U.S. interference in the Middle East begins way before that.)
The Tsaernev brothers may well have been becoming more religious. But, that’s only half the story–and it’s the half that’s less important. The more important half is what the government and media isn’t telling.
The Tsaernev brothers were ethnically Chechen. As has been pointed out by many in the media, Chechens don’t necessarily have a particularly antagonistic view towards the United States. Why should they? Their “beef” is with the Russians.
However, the Tsaernev brothers were becoming more religious. As such, it is only natural that their affiliation and self-identity became closer tied to Muslim. Once they started identifying themselves more as Muslims, they naturally grew closer in affiliation to the Muslim community worldwide (the Ummah). This sensitized them to conflicts in the Muslim majority world, including the U.S.-led incursions in the region. Therefore, the turn to religion did facilitate their eventual commission of the terrorist attacks, but only because it caused them to identify with the people who are being attacked by the United States.
It is true that the Koran commands believers to come to the defense of other Muslims:
And why should you not fight in God’s cause when defenseless men, women, and children are being oppressed and cry out, “Lord, rescue us from this land whose people are oppressors! By Your Grace, give us a protector and give us a helper.” (Koran, 4:75)
But, is this not a universal moral principle? Few people, aside from extreme pacifists, would argue that it is immoral to defend “defenseless men, women, and children who are being oppressed.”
That the Tsaernev brothers would respond to this call means that they identify the United States as the oppressor. It is less that the religion itself caused the Tsaernev brothers to plan these attacks, and more the fact that the U.S. is bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands. If this weren’t the case, the Tsaernev brothers would hardly have identified the U.S. with the oppressors mentioned in the Koranic verse.
Islam does advocate fighting oppressors to save the oppressed, but this is hardly something immoral. Rather, it would be immoral to deny the right of the oppressed to defend themselves against the oppressors. Where the Tsaernev brothers left the Koranic injunctions and Islamic tradition was in their targeting of civilians instead of military targets. The Koran declares:
Fight in God’s cause only against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression, for surely, God does not love aggressors. (Koran, 2:190)
The Prophet Muhammad is said to have explicitly forbidden the targeting of non-combatants, specifically women and children.
Islamic extremists like the Tsaernev brothers are not following the Koran or Islamic teachings when they commit acts of terrorism against innocents. Rather, they are flouting long-held Islamic prohibitions against targeting non-combatants. The extremists justify this departure from Koranic and Islamic law by claiming that the times are so exigent that an emergency suspension of this prohibition must be declared, i.e. the only way to stop them from killing our civilians is by killing theirs. This twisted logic is the same used by many in the West to justify nuclear warfare.
Other Muslims counter the Islamic extremists by invoking Koranic and Islamic injunction, declaring such suspension of the religious law to be religiously baseless. So, it is misleading to say that the Tsaernev brothers were motivated by religion and just leave it at that. Islamic extremists like the Tsaernev brothers follow the Koranic injunction to come to the defense of the innocents (at least in their minds that’s what they are doing), but they suspend and contravene the religious laws regarding the conduct of such defensive war. In other words, they uphold (part of) the Islamic jus ad bellum (right to wage war) but refuse to follow the Islamic jus in bello (conduct of war).
It is thus important to remember that:
(1) the right to wage war that these Islamic extremists invoke is rooted in not just Koranic scripture, but is part of universal moral principles (and is enshrined in the Just War Theory).
(2) The U.S.’s actions, not religious scripture (since, as discussed in point #1, it is a shared universal moral principle), are the ultimate cause of inspiration for terrorists. If, for example, the Koran still existed but the U.S. hadn’t been continuously bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands, it is very unlikely that the Islamic extremists would have selected the U.S. to target. (As Osama bin Laden asked, ”Why did we not attack Sweden?”) On the other hand, if the Koran and Islam never existed, the people in the Muslim world would still seek to defend themselves against U.S. aggression, the only difference being that their resistance would be colored in national or ethnic instead of religious colors. (One could reasonably argue that religious motivation instills greater fanaticism to resistance movements, but nonetheless, people of any or no religion would seek to defend themselves against invaders.)
(3) The Tsaernev brothers may have been motivated by religion, but they ignored that same religion when it came to the conduct of war, which reinforces point #2: resistance is colored by religion only, but really it is a universal human desire to fight back against invaders.
Of course, it’s more reassuring to Americans to think that these terrorists keep attacking us because of their religion. It’s far easier to point the finger at some other extrinsic cause rather than at oneself. This makes us feel good about ourselves: we are the good guys being attacked by the bad guys. It’s hard to accept that the pan-ultimate motivator for why they attack us is our own actions in their lands: bombing, invading, and occupying them for over two decades.
One could argue that I don’t know for certain that U.S. foreign policy is the ultimate motivator for the Tsaernev brothers because this information has yet to be released, but it’s a matter of such obviousness–and it has been proven over and over again once the motivations of previous Muslim terrorists were revealed–that I say it with utmost certainty. It’s a simple answer to the question “why do they attack us”, as opposed to the simplistic answer that they hate us for our freedoms or because of their religion.
The Boston Globe declared: “It doesn’t matter why they hate us, they just do.” If fellow Americans really don’t think it matters why they hate us–or think “they just do” for no legitimate reason at all–we shouldn’t expect an end to such horrific terrorist attacks, and we can’t just keep claiming to be absolutely flabbergasted when the next attack comes.
Just as I predicted: the Huffington Post reports (hat tip: JD):
So, the primary motivation to target the United States was not religious but political.
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011. Due to a hectic work schedule, Danios took a “sabbatical” from LoonWatch in 2012, but he plans to write from time to time in 2013, as time allows.
Whenever a Muslim is involved in a crime against humanity, regardless if she or he is religious or not, the mainstream media and many of the people who rely on it for an objective source of news, straight away demonize all Muslims as being collectively guilty of the crime. Calls for a public apology on behalf of the entire Muslim community are issued, along with declarations that all Muslims should be killed, deported, surveyed, or otherwise contained until they “prove” their loyalty – which can never be done, because the bar is intentionally set higher and higher whenever a Muslim does manage to fulfill all of their ridiculous criteria. But what about “huggable” Buddhism? The true “Religion of Peace”?
While Islam is seen through blood colored glasses in the West, Buddhism receives the rose colored platinum treatment. When barely covered news reports of Buddhist on Muslim violence in Myanmar began to surface, the few people who paid attention were absolutely shocked. Buddhists killing Muslims? “What did the Muslims do to them first?”, I am sure many people asked silently. This is how propaganda and stereotypes work. The mere thought of a Buddhist violently attacking a person of another faith simply makes no sense. Whereas the thought of a Muslim violently attacking a person of another faith makes perfect sense. Danios wrote an article a few months ago about the history of “Buddhist violence.” The intention of the article was not to claim that Buddhism is “inherently violent”, but simply to point out that every religion, even “huggable” Buddhism, can be used to justify religiously inspired violence.
Cue Wirathu, the “Burmese Bin Laden.”
Every religion has extremists. Buddhism isn’t an exception, as a 45-year-old Burmese Monk dubbed as the “Buddhist Bin Laden” is flaming social tensions between Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar by advocating for violence against Rohingyas. In doing so, Wirathu is invoking the call for a Burmese Buddhist national identity while gaining popularity in the country to help his own rise as a significant influence in Myanmar’s politics.
Wirathu is a 45-year-old Buddhist monk who has used social media channels to convey his hate-filled messages. The West’s conventional image of Buddhist followers is one of a religion of peace, yet many are shocked that in a region that has often been called one of the most peaceful in the world, there is an emergence of such hate induced actions caused by his speech.
Wirathu was born near Mandalay, and in 2001, created a national campaign to boycott Muslim businesses in 2001. He was soon jailed 25 years for his actions. He was released in 2010 through a general amnesty.
Wirathu has been on the stump since his release, and has been associated with violence in Rakhine and in Mandalay. In Rakhine, more than 200 people were killed and 100,000 in 2012. His message of hate and violence against Muslims also led to recent violence in Meiktila, where a dispute at a gold shop led to 40 deaths, and the destruction of a Muslim community in the city.
Muslims comprise of 5% Myanmar’s 60 million people. Wirathu’s rants and tirades against Muslims in Myanmar have also culminated in the nationalist “969” campaign using the number 969 to demarcate homes so that they can identify themselves as clearly Buddhists and create remnants of a state divided not by sectionalism, but rather through religion. This has led to hate-filled speeches where he has described Muslims as both “cruel and savage” and has attacked many Muslim practices from the killing of cattle to convincing many Buddhists in Myanmar that the population boom among Muslim communities in these countries will lead to a takeover of the country.
Earlier today Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made a remark about drones on Fox Business News that suggested his position had changed. “If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them," Paul said.
"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”
More than a few people interpreted Paul's statement to mean that he had revised his position on the domestic use of drones. RAND LEARNS TO LOVE THE DRONE! is/was the treatment at the top of Drudge, which linked to a Foreign Policy post titled, "Ron Paul fans furious over Rand Paul's drone flip-flop." While some folks came to Paul's defense, such as Jordan Bloom at The American Conservative, it would appear that the Drudge headline touched a nerve. At 9:50 p.m. tonight, Paul's office released the following statement:
“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.
“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.
“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.
“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”
Watch Paul's FBN appearance below:
Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, captured last Friday evening, was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer until Monday morning, nearly three days after his arrest. The FBI said the delay was justified under the "public safety" exception to Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 ruling in which the Supreme Court said the now-familiar warnings are required to enforce the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against compelled self-incrimination. But Senior Editor Jacob Sullum argues that the public-safety exception itself is not justified, which he says becomes clear when you consider the 1984 decision that announced it.
Silence or support for CISPA plays into Microsoft’s long standing smear campaign against Google.
For weeks, people have been claiming that Google supports CISPA. Ten days ago, a trade group spoke up for Google . Five days later, right before getting the bill passed by Congress, co author Mike Rogers took time to represent Google and most of the Silicon Valley,
They’ve been helpful and supportive of trying to find the right language in the bill … I always said if I could get Palo Alto and New York City on the same bill, I got something. We found that sweet spot in this particular bill.
Even Wikipedia claims Google support for CISPA, “Google has not taken a public position on the bill  but has shown previous support for it, and now says they support the idea but believe the bill needs some work”
Voice jacking may be a downside of being the most loved company in tech and the world  but the Microsoft press is having a field day with it. Microsoft’s long slog against Google paints the company as, an evil monopoly, really EVIL, screwing partners and violating user privacy for commercial gain at every turn, basically everything Microsoft is or wants to be. Recent examples include much noise about harmless wifi data collection, Android developers and user data, a flap over privacy policies, really, an unending flap, flap, flap. A long list of older smear jobs can be found by searching Groklaw for the proper terms. Google support for CISPA really would be a reversal and betrayal.
Google’s long standing, official silence is baffling. Google was a hero in the fight against SOPA saying all the right things about censorship and privacy. Eric Schmidt has released an excellent excerpt from his soon to be published book about dangers to network freedom but it does not mention CISPA.
Informed opinion is overwhelmingly against CISPA, but they need help. Today, 34 prominent civil rights organizations issued a statement against the bill and most have been fighting it all along [2, 3]. The same groups also opposed SOPA but were unable to effectively reach the public without help from sites like Google and Wikipedia.
Continued silence allows the wrong people to control the narrative and demoralizes opponents. There have been several articles about how no one showed up for the first round of blackouts and how passage is inevitable without Google and Wikipedia support and how that’s not going to happen. They also say not to worry because Senate does not care and Obama will veto it. This is the usual narrative of the rich and powerful: You little people are weak and helpless, don’t struggle because it will only waste your time.
Techrights firmly opposes CISPA and has written against it several times  Users, companies, government and the internet itself don’t have a “cybersecurity” problem, they have a problem with second rate, non free software from companies like Microsoft. CISPA makes the problem worse by giving the usual suspects power to censor and harass  people trying to fix things.
Readers wanting to know the basics of CISPA are urged to read the EFF FAQ. Then join us in urging lawmakers to reject CISPA. We really can’t depend on Obama’s veto for this, he’s already signed an executive order almost as bad as CISPA and the house vote is sufficient to override a veto.
Programa monográfico dedicado al genial pianista y compositor americano Thelonious Monk con grabaciones del año 1957.
The Paleo Diet was featured on the Dr. Oz Show that aired on April 22. Having cut the cable cord a long time ago, I had to wait an extra day to watch it online. But what’s another day or so to watch people talk about a 2-½-million-year old diet?
In the promo for the episode, the announcer calls the Paleo Diet protein packed. I was curious if the program was just taking alliterative liberties, or if that’s how Dr. Loren Cordain and Nell Stephenson described it themselves. Sure enough, Cordain did say it was a high protein diet, and if he qualified that with an explanation it was edited out.
I’ve heard that “high protein” is currently a buzz phrase for food packaging, but I had never really considered the Paleo Diet as characteristically high in protein. If the Paleolithic era teaches us anything, it’s that humans can do really well on a wide range of protein availability. One of these days I will do an analysis of a week’s worth of food intake to see just how much I’m eating. I suspect I’m in the 15-20% range.
These are the 5 main features of the Paleo diet as laid out by Stephenson on the program.
There was very little mention (if any at all) of seed oils. And that’s too bad. I believe a big part of why Paleo has helped me feel so much better is that I transitioned to healthier fats.
If this is to become the standard definition of The Paleo Diet ™, I think it might make sense for some of us to just start describing our diets as following a Paleo Approach, instead. I’m guessing that goes for most of you, too? Amiright?
I know a lot of us have starches on our plates and occasional dairy; we try to avoid calorie-dense, low-nutrition foods; we would consider avoiding seed oils a major component of the approach; we save room for fermented vegetables and beverages; and our diets aren’t so restrictive that we have to cheat 3 times a week to stay eating healthy.
I do think Dr. Cordain and Ms. Stephenson did a good job fitting Paleo into Oz’s TV format. They made it approachable for a mainstream audience, and it’s impossible to know what exactly was edited out.
One other bit of nit-picking…I’m not sure if the best way to contrast the Paleo Diet ™ to Atkins ™ is by saying, Paleo isn’t about eating bacon and cheese all day. Why not just say that Paleo doesn’t restrict carbs as long as they come from mostly whole-food sources? I suspect some Atkins dieters will take issue with that characterization (caricaturization?).
Note: The following sections have been added after the original publication of this article. Click the tabs to reveal all of the content.
A reader / listener (thanks, Judy!!!) has transcribed the Dr. Oz episode and emailed it to me. Read it for yourself in the next tab over.
To me, it looks like we got the meat of the message in the videos they posted online, and very little backing information was actually offered on the show.
But again, considering this was on television and had to be squeezed into a very limited time, this is excellent. The video of the testimonials was probably more compelling than the transcripts, and Dr. Cordain gets in a final word about randomized controlled trials and inflammation. Win.
Let’s hope anyone who learned about Paleo for the first time, and whose interests were sparked by this will find some good information online to help them get started.
Dr. Oz -We’re back talking about The Paleo Diet, a national phenomenon that
Christina – Well Dr. Oz I was struggling for many years with thyroid issues
and I wasn’t getting the symptomatic relief that I was hoping for in the
drugs and I was feeling sluggish, I was depressed and I was gaining weight
and I was just feeling sick all the time. So, I started doing some research
to look for natural approaches to healing myself and discovered The Paleo
Diet.Dr. Oz – Did it work and how much weight did you lose?
Christina – I lost 30 pounds.
Dr. Oz – 30 pounds. There you are. Look at you before. That’s a big
Christina – I have a tremendous amount of energy now that I really never had
in my life. I’m talking about not even in my twenties.
Dr. Oz – How’d you do it? Was it hard?
Christina – It’s not easy at first because you’re really shifting your
mental attitude about it. We need to be prepared. I’m a busy mom, I’m a
professional and I’m always on the go so we need to plan ahead. We need to
preplan meals and one thing I always want to do is always have jerky
available because it’s lean, it has protein in it.
Dr. Oz – Beef Jerky?
Christina – Beef Jerky.
Dr. Oz – I have never recommended this before on this show, ever! But
you made this yourself I understand?
Christina – I did, I make this frequently. This is about three pounds of
beef. Can you believe it?”
Dr. Oz – My goodness. (
Christina – It’s very lean and it doesn’t have all the additives you
normally find in the Jerky that you find in the bags in the store. It’s
very simple to make. You just season it, let it marinate overnight and when
you’re ready to cook it you put it in a low temperature oven, about 175
degrees. Keep it cracked open. Layer it on racks and about 7 hours later,
Dr. Oz – I feel prehistoric eating this.
Christina – You should.
Dr. Oz – It’s really good.
Christina – Good.
Dr. Oz – Thank you very much for sharing your story.
Christina – Thank you.
Dr. Oz – Marie what prompted you to try The Paleo Diet.
Marie – Well about four years ago I was diagnosed with MS, Multiple
Dr. Oz – Sorry.
Marie – Thank you and my doctor, immunologist, recommended that I go on
drugs. Basically she explained to me that I would be on them for the rest
of my life and I just couldn’t. I didn’t like that idea and I thought
just let me find a more natural way to allow my body to heal itself because
I always just believed that my body can heal itself. So I started reading
everything I could get my hands on. I researched and actually came across
Dr. Cordain’s work and started to try The Paleo Diet almost immediately.
Dr. Oz – And what happened? How debilitated were you by the MS?
Marie – Well at the time of my diagnosis I was completely numb, from the
waist down, so I could. You could punch me in the leg and I literally
couldn’t feel it. It didn’t keep me from walking but I did walk with a
Dr. Oz – Hmm.
Marie – So after about, you know, four to six months of eating Paleo it
started to fade and it’s been four years and not a single symptom.
Dr. Oz – You can walk normally now?
Marie – Oh yeah. I can walk. I can run. You know, I can do stuff–
Dr. Oz – Can you go walk to Dr. Cordain and come back.
Marie – Sure.
Dr. Oz – That is unbelievable.
Marie – Hi. Thank you.
Dr. Cordain – Congratulations. Thank you.
Dr. Oz – That is remarkable.
Marie – Yeah. It’s amazing.
Dr. Oz – Dr. Cordain when you hear stories like Christina’s and Marie’s what
do you think about our ability to treat ourselves from what seem to be
Dr. Cordain – Well, first off, I think these are just absolutely wonderful
stories and this is more important than any research paper I’ve ever
written. This is about people and how it changed their real lives so just
wonderful. I have one final comment here is that our scientific group is
actually working on a method to this madness and we believe that a leaky gut
is underlying many chronic autoimmune diseases and so by removing these
foods, the whole grains, the legumes, the dairy and the processed foods you
tend to heal up a leaky gut and then that stops that immune stimulation and
Dr. Oz – What I don’t understand is– We have two very common problems that
I’m reflecting with these two wonderful stories by these women and what I
don’t understand is how we can maybe have a treatment and we not actually
have proof behind this. What is actually holding this all up?
Dr. Cordain – Well we haven’t had sufficient scientific studies. We need
what are called randomized controlled trials and the notion that a leaky gut
underlies autoimmune disease has only been around for maybe the last five or
six years so this is very exciting new science and I would hope that we
would see good scientific trials to help people and do what these ladies
have done for themselves.
Dr. Oz – Thank you very much for sharing your stories.
What are your thoughts on how Paleo was presented here? Does your Paleo approach match up with the 5 rules? I’d love to hear what your Paleo approach / template consists of.
Also!! The next time you see an interesting health story, please be sure to post it on the Latest in Paleo Facebook Wall! Feel free to submit your own pictures, stories, questions, etc. Many of the posts make it into articles like this one and onto the show. Thanks to Ronald S. for being the first to post the Oz story on the wall.
The Paleo Diet on the Dr. Oz Show appeared first on Humans Are Not Broken. Humans Are Not Broken and Latest in Paleo are reader and listener supported. Consider using this link for your next Amazon purchase. Thank you!
No, it's not "Infowars", or Rense, or Natural News, or Economic Collapse Blog, or TED either.
In my few years here I have seen the Daily Paul try to be defined by others, and therefore controlled by whatever their personal views and ambitions are. I hope that I'm not being hypocritical in trying to define it myself.
At its inception the Daily Paul was here to try and (naively in retrospect) get Ron Paul elected to the White House. This is one of, if not the most powerful positions on Earth. But, after two attempts at trying to make this happen, hopefully some lessons have been learned.
1) If you want to see who is running the country, don't look at the faceman or figurehead in the foreground of the picture, look at the men standing behind him. These are the ones pulling the levers of power. The president is just the guy who comes on TV and smiles and tells you which levers are being pulled. THERE IS NO WAY these deeply embedded and corrupt men were going to allow someone like Ron Paul anywhere CLOSE to the White House.
Little by little, bit by bit, repeat: "the government is not your friend." All the way back to the big one, 9/11. Remember Lawrence Harvey in the all-time classic The Manchurian Candidate? Deprogramming the sheeple is a delicate business. Go too fast, and you blow a fuse. This one is an important step, from entrapment to complicity, easy does it.
Fox newsman Ben Swann asks if Boston was FBI entrapment gone awry
The host of the popular news program Reality Check has asked if the Second Boston Massacre, as it is coming to be known, was a case of FBI entrapment which followed a tragic path similar to the known entrapment case of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
With the FBI claiming it had no evidence of a tie between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and terrorist activity even as his mother insists that they “regularly” told her he suspected of being an “extremist leader,” politicians and the press are asking questions …
… but as Putin postures that he warned us, “Islamic militants in the northern Caucasus are denying involvement in the marathon attack” insisting that it is the Russian government, not the American people that is occupying their lands …
… and as “[m]arathoners observed a moment of silence for the victims in the Boston attacks before running a landscape scarred by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”:
A bi-partisan panel of luminaries finds evidence that “we have been badly misled by false confessions that have been derived from brutal interrogations” and concludes the U.S. has engaged in torture, that it is unjustified, and calls for public acknowledgement of “this grave error”:
“[W]e will not allow the perception to be that there is any religion in the world that condones the taking of innocent life” — Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations:
In 1948 “Zionists did not possess the power at the time to settle the cognitive dissonance they experienced: their conviction that the land was people-less despite the presence of so many native people there” but confronting the same dissonance in “Greater Israel,” they are armed today with nuclear weapons:
The figure is almost double the number previously released by officials, although inmates and their lawyers have long suggested that a majority of inmates were taking part. Amongst those refusing food is Shaker Aamer, who has spent 11 years … behind bars despite being cleared for release six years ago”:
Among the concerns prompting the resignation is a bill that “envisages the lowering of the retirement age of judges – a measure that would mean the forced retirement of some 3,000 judges”:
Were Turkey’s PM to visit Gaza now it might suggest that Turkey is not back under Israel’s thumb:
The U.S. disputes the Taliban claim that there were American military officers aboard the helicopter:
“Egyptian authorities are suspending and investigating a provincial prosecutor who ordered a man flogged 80 times for public drunkenness… Public intoxication is a criminal offense in Egypt” but “Egypt’s penal code does not mention flogging”:
This UNCONFIRMED video which we are told appeared on Brazilian TV earlier today appears to have been shot at the scene of the Boston Police Dept’s arrest of suspect bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev – the video clearly shows the 26 year old being escorted to BPD vehicle whilst handcuffed and not wounded, which in total contradiction to official reports which claim the suspect was shot by police and then run-over by his younger brother in a stolen SUV in Sommerville, MA. Please bookmark and share this video, and do continue to ask questions about what happened on the evening April 18th and the morning of April 19th, 2013, so the public can better determine the truth of all that really happened.
According to the official narrative, the brothers were confronted by law enforcement and a gunfight ensued. During this gunfight, the elder brother was purportedly shot, and subsequently run over by a car, driven by his escaping, carjacking younger brother. It sounds dramatic, and had a dramatic effect on the population, but how realistic is the scenario?
The problem with the official story is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s aunt is swearing that she can recognize and positively identify him as a person who appears in this video, in which he is naked and led to a police car.
The aunt is apparently too intimidated to make additional statements, but she has not retracted her statement either. Her statements must be considered as having the status of evidence.
Unless dead men can walk, it is very likely Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in police custody– or in the custody of someone posing as law enforcement. This warrants a profound investigation.
See Video of Tamerlan walking naked HERE. Rewind 5 seconds and Play again if there’s a music interruption. That’s only occassional.
Eye witness account of the suspect being ordered to take off all his clothes.
Was this picture released to show evidence of torture? That he died after a brutal beating.
|Tamerlan Tsarnaev death photo|
CISPA must be defeated!!!
As various time zones begin ticking over to April 22, an Anonymous-led Web blackout has begun that will reportedly include over 200 sites suspending regular operations in protest of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that recently passed the US House of Representatives.
Anonymous and other groups called for the blackout last week using the hashtags #CISPAblackout and #StopCISPA.
A teenager with a pressure-cooker, a few small bombs and a pistol "shutdown" one of the richest, most dynamic, most sophisticated and financially-vital cities in the Western hemisphere...
...Helicopters!...Armored vehicles! (veritable tanks!)...1000 heavily armed cops on a manhunt!...
....then the teenager was finally captured only because the shutdown was temporarily LIFTED...and because of a fluke observation by resident going for a smoke.... then a furious firefight by a dozen heavily armed paramilitary types with machine-guns to finally subdue a teenager who could barely walk at the time, had only a small pistol, doesn't seem to have had any military training...liked to party, smoke pot and was apparently doing such two nights ago--AFTER he planted the marathon bombs!...
All over Middle America, (I'm guessing,) many small-town sherriffs (Boss-Hog types, butt-of jokes by "sophisticated" Bostonian types) are--while obviously happy for the small consolation to the families of the victims--still snorting and shaking their heads ...
Sorry to spoil the fun, but there it is....
Was Dallas "Shutdown" Nov. 23 1963?...would Lee H. Oswald have been captured if it had? (remember he was discovered while going into a movie house!)....unreal
Bonnie and Clyde killed many more people and were "put out of action" with much less "sophistication" and fuss....
Esteban Ventura, Eleuterio Pedraza and Salas Canizares (wherever they are) must also be snickering...