Jts5665

84-year-old beaten bloody by cops for resisting ticket...


(Third column, 15th story, link)

---

Related stories:

NYPD launches jaywalking citation blitz...
De Blasio defends...

From Lawrence McQuillian of the Independent Institute:

The poverty rate in the United States fell by half from 1950 to the start of the “War on Poverty.” And it was on track to continue falling. But after the “War on Poverty” programs kicked in, the poverty rate has been stuck in a narrow corridor.

The lesson: Despite good intentions, statist redistribution programs to “help the poor” lead to multigenerational dependency and shrinking opportunities and incentives for low-skill individuals to enter the workforce, increase their skills, and move up the income ladder.

On the other hand, steady private investment in physical and human capital within a secure system of private property rights (which minimizes government corruption and exploitation) results in self-sustaining prosperity, which enables poor people to take advantage of opportunities and permanently lift themselves out of poverty.

Prior to the “War on Poverty,” the post-1950 U.S. economy wasn’t a capitalist nirvana, but it did benefit the poor much more than after The Great Society programs. The numbers speak for themselves.

Francis Scott Key was certainly not a visionary when he penned the famous words “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. But, we can certainly forgive him since it was back in 1814 and things were different maybe then. Two hundred years later, the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom has just been published by the Heritage Foundation think tank and its findings are far from glorious of the country that believes that it is a founding father of both democracy and freedom. We all know that the former went out of the window long ago and not just when the National security Agency finally admitted to eavesdropping on the world. The second went to the wind too decades ago and people are starting to realize it. The USA is no longer the land of the free and certainly not the home of the brave. The land of the foolish and the home of the corrupt, maybe! There’s a thought. Foolish because we have sat like lemmings, sheepled into believing that the wealthy were honest and the state was good; corrupt because everyone at the highest echelons is in on the act.

Thomas Jefferson once said: “ Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence”. How true was it back then and oh how telling is it of today’s society!

The USA

The USA is no longer at the top of the Index of Economic Freedom. It’s no longer in the top ten these days and for the first time ever it is in 12th place in the rankings. The biggest and the best economy in the world is no longer the freest. Since 2013, it has dropped a half point yet again and now stands at 75.5 points on the scale. Why?

• Simply because it has seen deteriorations in property rights, fiscal freedom and business freedom according to the think tank.
• Since 2006, the USA has systematically declined in the ratings and has lost since that dates 6 points on its score.
• The USA is now the only country in the world that has lost points for the past 7 years in a row in the world.
• According to the index the reason behind this is the fundamental rise in the size and status of the government: “Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. economic freedom. The growth of government has been accompanied by increasing cronyism that has undermined the rule of law and perceptions of fairness.”

The USA is currently losing in the ratings on the index due to the fact that there has been an “expansive use of government regulatory agencies to manage economic activity, particularly in the financial, health care, and energy sectors”.

The order of the day is cronyism, corruption and embezzlement, it would seem.

Taxation is also been accused of reducing freedom in the country. The top individual tax rate has seen a rise to 39.6%. The top corporate tax rate is stuck at 35%. The total tax burden stands at 25.1% of gross domestic income.

Creating a new company has become more expensive and stricter. There have been more than 130 new regulations that have been applied to incorporating a business since 2009. Regulatory requirements have increased the cost of founding a company by up to $60 billion since the same date.

The countries in the top slots are as follows:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. Switzerland
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Chile
8. Mauritius
9. Ireland
10. Denmark

This isn’t the land of the free and it certainly isn’t the home of the brave these days. The USA is no longer the liberal, free-economics country that it once was. It’s now all about making the rich richer and the corrupt more corruptible. It has nothing to do with the freedom of making a living and becoming the self-made man that the country was built upon. At one time that wasn’t a myth; these days it’s just laughable. The only men that can make it these days are those that have already been boosted on the road to success by diverting, embezzling, swindling ad money-grabbing at the highest echelons of the state. Nothing wrong with making money. Nothing at all. But, there’s everything wrong with treading on the people down below while you clamber up to the top of the state, hoarding the millions, siphoning off the money that should be going elsewhere.

The USA: the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973; a think tank headquartered in Washington D.C.

Its statement of mission is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense”.

Originally posted: USA:The Land of the Not-So-Free

When asked whether he read the 1,528-page,  $1.1 trillion government spending bill before he voted for it yesterday, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said, “Nobody did!”

On Capitol Hill on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Blumenauer: “The omnibus bill yesterday, it was 1,582 pages, did you have a chance to read all the pages before voting on it?”

Blumenauer laughed and said: “Nobody did!”

Read the rest of the story at CNSNews.

What used to be known as the Ghettos in the Sky are now the center of Mogadishu on the Mississippi. And the Somali population in Minneapolis has already contributed suicide bombers to Al-Shabab in Somalia as well as mall attackers to the same group in Kenya. So, the mysterious recent explosion in the heart of Somali Minneapolis should be a matter of more than a little concern to Minnesotans, as it indicates that the Somalis are likely to bring their jihad to the Mall of America or some other local target sooner or later.

A big explosion occurs next door to a mosque that has an unabashed affection for the Muslim Brotherhood, in a Somali neighborhood where terrorists are known to hang out — what could possibly be amiss with that? Nothing, except possibly an Islamophobic hate crime, according to CAIR.

Zuhur Ahmed, a board member of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the group was monitoring the situation closely. “So far we don’t have any details,” she said. “But whenever there’s an explosion, fire or anything of that sort by a mosque, there’s a little bit of concern if the motive is a hate crime. We’re just concerned and watching out for that.”

But then, CAIR always believes that the best defense is a good offense. If it were a gas explosion, the normal process would be for gas to accumulate inside the building until a chance ignition detonated it. Under those circumstances, the walls of the building would be blown outwards, causing a sudden, catastrophic collapse of the structure and filling the street and surrounding lots with bricks and rubble.

Nothing of the sort occurred. The earliest photos show an intense and rapidly-spreading fire that looks like it originated on the second floor, immediately above the grocery. This would be consistent with the unexpected detonation of an explosive substance — say, ammonium nitrate, just to pick a random example — which then distributed very flammable material within an enclosed space, creating a flash-fire.

The explosion was subsequently blamed on a gas leak, which is interesting because the Star Tribune has been caught lying about its conversation with the gas company responsible.

I contacted CenterPoint and spoke with Rebecca Virden. I’m glad I did because as you’ll see in a moment, there’s some very bad reporting going on with this story.

"Our distribution system after we checked it — which runs up to the meter, which is the distribution system’s responsibility, to the meter — has no leak on it at all. We tested that system and it holds its test. We even took it apart and tested it to make sure because it had no leakage. It’s fully sound. As for our system, we had no leakage, no leak history, no leak calls into our call centers prior to the incident before, during or after."

Throw in the fact that Homeland Security was spotted on the scene and it points to the probability that the police and media are covering up the explosion of a Somali bomb-making factory in Minneapolis.

In a post last week, I wrote about why I believe most New Year’s resolutions to lose weight fail:  those resolutions are based on the notion that shedding pounds is a matter of character … i.e., if you just have enough discipline to eat less and spend more time on the treadmill, you’ll lose weight.

As someone who tried simply eating less and spent many hours on a treadmill (I even bought one for my apartment) without getting leaner, I don’t believe losing weight is about character.  I believe it’s (mostly) about chemistry, which is why weight-loss plans that rely on changing a fat person’s character are bound to fail.

I’ll have more to say on that later.  For now, I just want to share some bits from an old study (1960) that I apparently downloaded some time ago and then forgot to read.

The handful of subjects in the study fell into three categories:  1) naturally thin people, 2) fat people who had previously demonstrated that they could lose weight by restricting calories, and 3) fat people whom the researchers labeled as the “resistant obese.”  They wrote this about the “resistant obese”:

All had very small appetites, and none of these subjects lost weight even during observation in the hospital for prolonged periods of time.

By contrast, one of the naturally lean subjects was described as:

… a twenty-five year-old woman who is healthy, but literally unable to gain weight despite an excellent appetite.

The question the researchers wanted to answer was whether fat people and thin people release and burn fatty acids at similar rates if they’re fasting.   So they had all the subjects fast from dinner until the next morning, then measured the concentration of free fatty acids in their blood.  Then they extended the fast for a full 24 hours and took the same measurement at various intervals.

Here’s what they found:  in the morning, the fat people generally had higher levels of fatty acids in their blood than the thin people did.  But over the course of fasting for 24 hours, the naturally thin people experienced a sharp rise in the level of fatty acids in their bloodstreams.  The fat people who’d previously demonstrated they could lose weight by restricting calories experienced a milder rise in the level of fatty acids in their bloodstreams.  The “resistant obese” people experienced almost no rise at all in the level of fatty acids in their bloodstreams.

The researchers noted that in an earlier study, naturally thin subjects who were restricted to a high-fat diet of 1,000 calories per day showed a sharp rise in blood ketones over the next week, while obese subjects on the same diet showed a much lower rise in ketones.  Ketones, as you know, are a by-product of burning fat for fuel.

So taken together, here’s what those two studies suggest (at least about the subjects who were studied):  when naturally-thin people eat very little or not at all, they release a lot more fatty acids from their fat cells, and they burn those fatty acids for fuel.  “Resistant obese” people, on the other hand, don’t release extra fatty acids when they eat less or not at all, and therefore don’t make up for the calorie deficit by tapping and burning their body fat — at least not to nearly the degree the thin people do.

Remember that in describing the “resistant obese” subjects, the researchers noted that they had small appetites and failed to lose weight even under observation in a hospital.  In a discussion among several researchers included at the end of the paper, the leader researcher makes this statement:

This phenomenon of people who do not lose weight is really the most tantalizing thing that confronts physicians.  There are these people who can live on 600 calories and not lose any weight. On what are they surviving?  If we measure their basal metabolism in terms of calories, we get figures in excess of 600 calories per twenty-four hours.  It would seem that on this diet they are in a caloric deficit all time, but still are not losing any weight.  I am still an admirer of the laws of thermodynamics, but these people seem to be thermodynamic paradoxes.

Small appetites.  Couldn’t lose weight even while under observation at a hospital.  Didn’t release or burn more fatty acids (not to any significant degree) even while fasting for 24 hours.  Able to live on 600 calories per day without losing weight, causing a researcher who worked with them to label them as “thermodynamic paradoxes.”

Meanwhile, the naturally-lean people released lots of fatty acids and burned them for fuel soon after they stopped eating – including that twenty-five year-old woman who couldn’t gain weight in spite of her “excellent” appetite.

Does anyone believe the fat people in this study just needed more discipline and character in order to become thin?  Or does this sound like a problem rooted in chemistry?

…. is from Henry Hazlitt’s article “Marxism in One Minute“:

The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others.

[MP: Or according to our Marxist-in-Chief: "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."]

Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects — his laziness, incompetence, improvidence or stupidity. Never believe in the honesty or disinterestedness of anyone who disagrees with you.

This basic hatred is the heart of Marxism. This is its animating force. You can throw away the dialectical materialism, the Hegelian framework, the technical jargon, the “scientific” analysis, and millions of pretentious words, and you still have the core: the implacable hatred and envy that are the raison d’etre for all the rest.

HT: Dennis Gartman in today’s The Gartman Letter

Americans want NSA spying reined in.

But a poll from November showed that only 11% of Americans trust Obama to actually do anything to rein in spying.

We were right to be skeptical …

Today, Obama announced his fake “reforms” … and he’s not doing anything but putting lipstick on the same ‘old pig.

The New York Times notes that Obama’s “reform”:

Largely codifies existing practices.

The Times points out that the reform is meant to placate NSA critics, without actually challenging national security agencies:

The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later.

The Times includes a revealing quote:

“Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.”

The answer should be obvious.

This is – once again – Obama saying “trust me” … without changing anything.

Obama has repeatedly promised to change policies started in the Bush administration. But – instead of reforming them – he’s reaffirmed them … and made them worse than ever.

Obama and the NSA have lied over and over again.  They have told the American people (and Congress) to f@ck off.

The real message they are sending is:

We hold the power …  So we’re going to keep doing what we want, and you can’t do anything to stop us.

And see this.

NSA to Congress: F@ck Off

We’ve shown that the NSA has been spying on Congress for some time.

The NSA has never denied that it’s spying on Congress.  Instead, the NSA first said:

Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all US persons.

And Friday, NSA chief Keith Alexander wrote a letter to Senator Bernie Sanders saying that the NSA cannot reveal whether the agency has been targeting members of Congress in its metadata collection because doing so would violate privacy provisions accorded to civilians in the program:

The telephone metadata program incorporates extraordinary controls to protect Americans’ privacy interests.    Among those protections is the condition that NSA can query the metadata only based on phone numbers reasonably suspected to be associated with specific foreign terrorist groups.  For that reason, NSA cannot lawfully search to determine if any records NSA has received under the program have included metadata of the phone calls of any member of Congress, other American elected officials, or any other American without that predicate.

Sanders

 

This is the exact same excuse the NSA and other intelligence agencies have previously given for hiding how many Americans they spy on.

As Wired reported last June:

The surveillance experts at the National Security Agency won’t tell two powerful United States Senators how many Americans have had their communications picked up by the agency as part of its sweeping new counterterrorism powers. The reason: it would violate your privacy to say so.

 

That claim comes in a short letter sent Monday to civil libertarian Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. The two members of the Senate’s intelligence oversight committee asked the NSA a simple question last month: under the broad powers granted in 2008′s expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, how many persons inside the United States have been spied upon by the NSA?

 

The query bounced around the intelligence bureaucracy until it reached I. Charles McCullough, the Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the nominal head of the 16 U.S. spy agencies. In a letter acquired by Danger Room, McCullough told the senators that the NSA inspector general “and NSA leadership agreed that an IG review of the sort suggested would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons,” McCullough wrote.

In other words, the NSA is sending the same message to both the American people and their representatives in Congress:  f@ck off.

 

In November, I posted on CD about an investigation by Albuquerque TV station KOB Eyewitness News 4 of several police officers and emergency room doctors in Southern New Mexico, who violated the rights and body of an innocent victim of America’s cruel, expensive and failing War on Drugs Innocent Americas Suspected of Possessing Intoxicants Not Approved by the Government. Law enforcement officers of the city of Deming and the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office, and several doctors at the Gila Regional Medical Center, engaged in a series of unbelievably repulsive and disgusting actions against 63-year old New Mexico man David Eckert, who was wrongly accused of possessing illegal drugs.

In a futile attempt on January 2, 2013 to find drugs inside his body, police and doctors committed medical anal rape on Eckert six times over a 12-hour period: an initial X-ray that found no drugs (why didn’t they stop there?) was followed by two digital rectal probings and then three forced enemas, a second forced X-ray, and then finally forced sedation and a surgical colonoscopy. Result? No drugs. The Gila Regional Medical Center (“Your choice for patient-centered care in a healing environment”), which performed the anal rape on Mr. Eckert, then billed him $6,000 for the “services” they performed on him involuntarily and persistently attempted to collect payment from him.

KOB Eyewitness News 4 is now reporting that Hidalgo County and the City of Deming have settled a federal lawsuit filed by Mr. Eckert in US District Court last November for $1.6 million. According to a public records request filed by the TV station, Hidalgo County will pay Eckert $650,000 and the City of Deming will pay him $950,000. There is no resolution yet with the two medical doctors who performed the anal rape, the Gila Regional Medical Center where the rape occurred, or the assistant district attorney Daniel Dougherty, who authorized the search warrant that led to Eckert’s anal rape.

US News and World Report is also reporting on the $1.6 million settlement here.

Thanks to KOB Eyewitness New 4 for bringing the case to the public’s attention, it’s done a great service helping expose a very disturbing, but yet perfect example of why it’s time to end America’s cruel and immoral War on Drugs. And it would serve justice well if David Eckert receives additional, large financial settlements from the hospital, the medical doctors, and the district attorney.

California Lifeguards make $109,677...


(Second column, 20th story, link)

---

New High Security Phone 'Is NSA PROOF'...


(Second column, 9th story, link)

---

Tamera Mowry is not alone
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2013

This made my heart ache and my blood pressure spike: Actress Tamera Mowry, who is black, wept in an interview with Oprah Winfrey over the vile bigotry she has encountered because of her marriage to Fox News reporter Adam Housley, who is white. Misogynist haters called Mowry a sellout and a “white man’s whore.” International news outlets labeled the Internet epithets she endured “horrific” and “shocking.”

Horrific? Yes. Shocking? Not at all. What Mowry experienced is just a small taste of what the intolerance mob dishes out against people “of color” who love, think and live the “wrong” way. I’ve grown so used to it that I often forget how hurtful it can be. Mowry’s candor was moving and admirable. It’s also a valuable teachable moment about how dehumanizing it can be to work in the public eye. Have we really sunk to this?

Young actresses in the 21st century forced to defend their love lives because their marital choices are politically incorrect? We’re leaning backward in the regressive Age of Hope and Change.

Let’s face it: Mowry’s sin, in the view of her feckless detractors, is not merely that she married outside her race. It’s also that she is so open about her love for a white man who — gasp! — works for reviled Fox News. Neither of them is political, but the mere association with Bad Things (Fox, conservatives, capitalism, the tea party, Christian activism, traditional values) is an invitation for unabashed hate.

The dirty open secret is that a certain category of public figures has been routinely mocked, savaged and reviled for being partners in interracial marriages or part of loving interracial families (for a refresher, see the video clip of MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry and friends cackling at the holiday photo of Mitt Romney holding his black adopted grandson in his lap).

And the dirty double standard is that selectively compassionate journalists and pundits have routinely looked the other way — or participate directly in heaping on the hate.

Have you forgotten? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was excoriated by black liberals for being married to wife Virginia, who happens to be white. The critics weren’t anonymous trolls on the Internet. They worked for major media outlets and institutions of higher learning. USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds slammed Thomas and his wife for their colorblind union: “It may sound bigoted; well, this is a bigoted world and why can’t black people be allowed a little Archie Bunker mentality? … Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.”

Howard University’s Afro-American Studies Chair Russell Adams accused Thomas of racism against all blacks for falling in love with someone outside his race. “His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community,” Adams told The Washington Post. “Great justices have had community roots that served as a basis for understanding the Constitution. Clarence’s lack of a sense of community makes his nomination troubling.”

California state Senate Democrat Diane Watson taunted former University of California regent Ward Connerly after a public hearing, spitting: “He’s married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

Mowry is not alone. The Thomases and the Connerlys are not alone. Poisonous attempts to shame are an old, endless schoolyard game played by bullies who never grow up and can’t stand other people’s happiness or success.

Time doesn’t lessen the vitriol or hostility. Take it from someone who knows. “Oriental Auntie-Tom,” “yellow woman doing the white man’s job,” “white man’s puppet,” “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl” are just a few of the printable slurs I’ve amassed over the past quarter-century. You wouldn’t believe how many Neanderthals still think they can break you by sneering “me love you long time” or “holla for a dolla.” My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, maiden name and integrity have all been ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman happily married to a white man and the mother of two interracial children who see Mom and Dad — not Brown Mom and White Dad.

Mowry’s got the right attitude. She wiped away her tears and told Oprah that haters wouldn’t drag her down. Brava. Live, laugh, think and love without regrets. It’s the best revenge and the most effective antidote to crab-in-the-bucket syndrome.

Written by: Kevin Cann

There is nothing more controversial in the nutrition world then carbohydrates.  There are some people/groups that condemn carbohydrates as a terrorist infiltrating our society.  At the other end of the spectrum we have people/groups that condemn fat in the same manner and preach a higher carbohydrate diet for the masses.  There is research that supports both arguments so who are we supposed to believe?  The answer lies in your genome.

Our gene pool began to differentiate between one another when we began to settle in various locations around the globe.  Some hunter-gatherer groups settled in cold climates, some in warm climates, and everything in between.  Each location offered its own challenges and evolutionary pressures, one of them being diet.

For example, colder climates may have relied more heavily on animal meats for food and warmer, wetter climates may have relied more heavily on plant food (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/#R8).   This led to diversity in one specific gene responsible for the breakdown of carbohydrates, alpha-amylase (AMY1).  AMY1 is a salivary enzyme that begins the breakdown of starch in the mouth and makes it taste sweet. 

AMY1 variation exists between different members of the human species.  This may be a major reason why there is so much variation from person to person when it comes to carbohydrate intake.  Some people thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet and others thrive when carbohydrates are kept in check.  This is also a reason why there will never be just one perfect human diet.

The USDA recommends that the entire population consumes 45% to 65% of their daily calories in the form of starch.  Is this a correct recommendation to the part of the population that contains fewer copies of the AMY1 gene?  It is not only unfair, but may be setting them up for a future filled with weight issues and all the diseases that accompany increased weight.

Abigail Manell and Paul Breslin have done some amazing research at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia.  One study in particular looked at starch digestion between differing AMY1 groups.  The experimental group was healthy, non-obese individuals and they were divided into a high amylase group and a low amylase group.  They came into the lab twice, once to ingest starch (experiment) and glucose (control).  The low amylase group had higher blood glucose levels then the high amylase group during starch consumption.  This increase in blood glucose levels lasted for the two hours that the participants remained at the lab!  Interestingly, when the low amylase group consumed the glucose blood sugar levels remained relatively consistent with the high amylase group and the blood sugar did not stay elevated as long as when they ingested the starch (http://jn.nutrition.org/content/142/5/853.abstract).

Recommending a high starch diet to people with low amylase gene copies is setting them up for insulin resistance and diabetes.  Another thing to think about is the diversity within each group.  Humans can contain anywhere between 2 and 15 copies of the AMY1 gene (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013352).  This means there is a wide difference from person to person on blood glucose levels following the exact same intake of starch.

The research by Manell and Braslin was published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2012.  This is an extremely new phenomenon when looking at the individuality of carbohydrate digestion.  All we know about this topic is that some people respond to the same meal of starch differently.  We do not know optimal starch intake for each variation yet.  45% to 65% of calories coming from starch may still be too much for even the people that contain 15 copies of AMY1 gene, we do not know the tolerable upper intake level. 

Underlying inflammation is also going to be a variable.  Carbohydrate metabolism gets dysfunctional when inflammation is present.  Someone with 15 copies of the AMY1 gene that exercises, sleeps well, has friends, and manages stress may respond more favorable to the same starch meal that someone with 15 copies that is sedentary.  Also, food quality is still going to play a role.  Just because someone has a higher number of AMY1 copies does not mean eating a high grain diet will be beneficial, remember the inflammation piece. 

Who knows where the future of this information will take us.  It does bring to light a few things.  Everyone is truly their own unique snowflake.  It also brings to light that there is a lot we do not know about the human body.  We need to remain humble and actually listen to our patients/clients.  They know more about their body then science does.   

Sarah Palin's brother said that his father, Chuck Heath, Sr., has been "horribly harassed" by the IRS six times since Palin became the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008. 

Chuck Heath, Jr. wrote on Facebook that his father had never heard from the IRS before 2008. Since then, he said, the IRS has tried to "dig up something on him but he's always operated above board."

"Coincidence? You decide," he wrote.

He continued:

My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS. In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words "horribly harassed" six times by the agency. They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board.

Government and politics are ugly. Kudos to the few that are trying to clean it up.

Four years ago, the IRS started to target organizations seeking tax-exempt status that also had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their names, while approving applications for progressive organizations with names like "Progressive USA" and "Progressive Leadership Alliance." The FBI and Justice Department have indicated that they most likely will not seek criminal charges against anyone involved in the scandal, even though Attorney General Eric Holder has said that those involved in the targeting scandal engaged in actions that were "certainly outrageous and unacceptable... if not criminal." The IRS reportedly also targeted conservative donors. 

The Obama administration chose an Obama campaign donor to head the targeting investigation.

REPORT: NSA Data Has 'No Discernible Impact' on Terrorism...


(Third column, 14th story, link)

---

Related stories:

Congress takes first big swipe at snooping...

Back in November on CD, I featured a post of ten examples that illustrate the important economic concept of the Law of Unintended Consequences (the unanticipated or unintended effects of government policies). Here are five more great examples of unintended consequences from an article aptly titled “Five Laws That Made Sense on Paper and Disasters in Reality“:

1. Evidence shows that in the long run, gun buyback programs backfire and result in more, not fewer, guns.

2. When the British governor of Delhi, India addressed a cobra infestation by putting a lucrative bounty on cobras, they got more, not fewer, snakes.

3. After Mexico introduced anti-pollution measures, including banning a certain percentage of the city’s cars from driving each day based on the last digit in a car’s license plate number, pollution went up, not down. Reason? Hint: The policy applied to cars, not people.

4. The European Union imposed fishing quotas in an attempt to prevent over-fishing and increase the supply of fish. Fines and penalties were assessed when fishing boats came to shore with a catch that exceeded their quota. In the long run, the policy may have ended up reducing, not increasing, the overall supply of fish in the ocean.

5. Following an intense lobbying effort by the big banks to address rising loans defaults, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 2005, which made it more costly for people to declare bankruptcy. And yet, that legislation may have led to more, not fewer, loan defaults, especially defaults on home mortgages.   

Testimonial written by: Laura Peck

I was diagnosed with RA in 2002. I am a second generation RA sufferer so I looked to my mother for guidance. She had advanced RA (which means that her joints had twisted) within 4 years of onset and traditional treatment by a Rheumatologist. In desperation she had researched the new internet and found the Minocin treatment. This protocol had finally put her in remission. So following her advice, I started minocin right after my initial diagnosis. I saw moderate success in slowing the progression and controlling the symptoms – and was still considered ’early stage’ (which means some joint erosion apparent in xrays but no twisting) as of the summer of 2009.

Around Thanksgiving of 2009, my pharmacist and the insurance company (via major hiking of copays for name brand meds) convinced me to go generic minocin. By Christmas of that year I was bedridden and unable to even dress myself. 90% of my joints were swollen to twice their size and not even hydrocodones controlled the agony. At this time I finally went to a Rheumatologist.

Although he pressured me to take methotrexate – I refused, knowing in my heart that I just had to make it until the generic minocin prescription ran out and I could get back on name brand. So we agreed on a prednisone treatment plan. I noticed steady improvement again as I took the name brand minocin – but the ’super flare’ had taken out my muscle tone and the continued use of both prednisone and Nexium (I had developed IBS and Acid reflux from all the painkillers) were slowly depleting my bones and causing a massive weight gain.

By the fall of 2012, I was obese and miserable. The RA was controlled to the point I could finally get of prednisone. But the tight tendons and weak muscles made it hard to work 60 hours a week. I knew I had to change!

January 1st, 2013 – I joined the workplace biggest loser contest, started the paleo diet and started walking at night. Within three days I suffered my first (of 3 that year) stress fracture. The doctor recommended to only exercise in a pool. So I joined a small local gym. By Feb 1st, 2013 – I noticed that I had absolutely NO RA pain! I quit taking those meds. By March 1st, 2013 – I realized my Acid reflux and IBS symptoms had disappeared. So the Nexium prescription went unfilled forever more.

I was in 100% natural remission (no drugs) until July 2013. I also lost 10 dress sizes and stabilized at a size 6. I began to re-introduce food groups at that time and began having RA flares again. Through comparing food journals and symptom journals I began to identify the foods that caused my RA. From Chocolate, Cheese, & Bananas causing immediate major flares to Daily wheat consumption causing ’build up’ flares – I’ve learned how to stay in remission by taking control and ownership of what I eat.

This week I have an appointment with an Allergist to pin point specific food allergies. So as an 11 year RA veteran with 3 scientific degrees (earned during my years with RA) – I can tell you what researchers have already studied and published – the source of most RA inflammation begins in the intestines. Furthermore it can be treated and controlled by what you choose to introduce to your intestines.

[ By WebUrbanist in Design & Products & Packaging. ]

No need to plug in this particular hot tub – heat naturally circulates as you burn wood, keeping yourself warm outside by throwing logs on the fire much like you would in front of a living room hearth.

Dutchtub, which started making waves with its distinctive mug-shaped design and off-the-grid mobility, is back with a wooden twist on its original poly-fiber shell (and the same stainless steel lining).

Both the classic and new designs boasts extreme portability, able to be towed behind a bike, tossed on top of a car, or even dragged behind a canoe for the truly ambitious soak-seeker.

Like the outdoor equivalent of a fireplace flue, the spiral contraption sticking out the side allows users to adjust the temperature along with the burn rate. Optional accessories include a chimney to route smoke up and away as well.

While it is not necessarily a safe or sanctioned use, some clever revelers have also discovered you can use the flames to cook a meal while you bask in the warm water and wait, turning the wood-burning element into a de facto stove.

---

---

[ By WebUrbanist in Design & Products & Packaging. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]

1. In the Reason.tv video above, Nick Gillespie makes the case that the worst nanny state ban going into effect this year is the federal prohibition on traditional incandescent light bulbs. Here’s more:

Before the incandescent bulbs go out for good, it’s worth shining a light on its cause: The ban was pushed by light bulb makers eager to up-sell customers on longer-lasting and much more expensive halogen, compact fluourescent, and LED lighting. When customers balked at paying more for home lighting, General Electric, Sylvania, and Philips did what corporate behemoths always do: They turned to the government for regulation that rigs the market in their favor.

So when you throw out that last 40 cent 40 Watt light bulb, remember that you’re not just tossing out a piece of history, but a piece of what used to be a freer market.

2. In his recent Washington Examiner column, Tim Carney explains that it was “Industry, not environmentalists, that killed traditional bulbs,” here’s a slice:

The 2007 Energy Bill, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn’t produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed.

People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the planet. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn’t here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).

Technologies often run the course from breakthrough innovation to obsolete. Think of the 8-track, the Model T or Kodachrome film. But the market didn’t kill the traditional light bulb. Government did it, at the request of big business.

3. Writing in Reason this week (“Lights Out For America’s Favorite Light Bulb“), Shawn Reagan reminds us that when industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all of our problems, consumers should be very skeptical – it’s likely “green cronyism” in disguise, here’s more:

The [incandescent bulb] ban is crony capitalism in its most seductive form—when it’s disguised as green. Major light bulb manufacturers supported the ban from the outset. The profit margin on old-style bulbs was pitifully low, and consumers just weren’t buying the higher-margin efficiency bulbs. New standards were needed, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturing Association told Congress in 2007, “in order to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products.”

So Philips Electronics and other manufacturers joined with environmental groups to push for tighter lighting standards. As the New York Times Magazine explained in 2011, “Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California.” After much negotiation, a classic “bootleggers-and-Baptists” coalition was born. Industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse legislation to increase lighting efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

The light-bulb ban is an example of how political coalitions are formed to force regulations on the general public that benefit a few large producers. A recent survey found that six out of every ten Americans are still in the dark about the latest bulb ban. Meanwhile, the dimwitted light-bulb policy just became the law of the land. The lesson here is straightforward: When industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all problems, consumers beware. It’s probably green cronyism in disguise.

MP: The industry-driven ban on traditional light bulbs is a classic, public choice example of how a small, well-organized, well-funded group of private firms engages in socially wasteful rent-seeking to influence the political process and enact legislation and regulations that increase the private profits of rent-seeking firms in the industry. Those higher profits though come at the expense of the general public and consumers – who are dispersed and disorganized and at a significant disadvantage in having their interests recognized and served. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, the political process is frequently like two foxes (e.g. the light bulb manufacturers and their government accomplices) and a chicken (US consumers) taking a vote on what to eat for lunch. Light bulb manufacturers will now be more profitable in the years to come, but millions of Americans will pay a higher price – both in terms of the increased costs of the new light bulbs, and also in terms of a permanent reduction in our economic freedom.

Doug Bandow

If you live anywhere but Washington, D.C., you probably believe that the federal government spends too much.  Today the national debt is more than $17 trillion.  CBO figured that existing budget plans would add between $6.3 trillion and $8.8 trillion in red ink over the coming decade. 

Social Security and Medicare alone account for more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, promised benefits for which no revenues are set.  Counting a multitude of other debts and obligations, American taxpayers are on the hook for more than $220 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

As I point out in my new Forbes online column:

However, denizens of Washington see things very differently.  Policymakers recently approved a bipartisan budget that increased discretionary spending, theoretically the easiest outlay to control, over the next two years.  Legislators ignored so-called entitlement outlays, which threaten to consume the entire federal budget.

It really doesn’t matter which party is in charge in Washington.  Most Republicans have little desire to cut federal outlays.  One man’s waste is another man’s vote-winning special interest hand-out.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) has issued a second “Wastebook” which contains 100 of the dumbest uses of taxpayers’ money.  Explained the Senator:  “While the president and his cabinet issued dire warnings about the cataclysmic impacts of sequestration, taxpayers were not alerted to all of the waste being spared from the budget axe.”

For instance, the National Endowment for the Humanities devoted almost $1 million to the Popular Romance Project to “explore the fascinating, often contradictory origins and influences of popular romance as told in novels, films, comics, advice books, songs, and internet fan fiction, taking a global perspective—while looking back across time as far as the ancient Greeks.”  The National Science Foundation spent a quarter of a million dollars to study “attitudes toward the Senate filibuster among the American public.”

The Army spent nearly $300 million on a blimp for surveillance in Afghanistan—only to drop the project after its inaugural U.S. flight, selling the airship back to its maker for $301,000.  The International Trade Association devoted nearly $300,000 to send Indi Rock music executives on a tour to Brazil.  

The National Institutes for Health dropped $335,525 on a study which determined that “marriages that were the happiest were the ones in which the wives were able to calm down quickly during marital conflict.”  The $1.9 million Senate Office of Education and Training provides classes for staffers on such subjects as sleeping well and making small talk.  The National Endowment for the Arts used $10,000 to underwrite the PowerUP Project, which featured choreographed (utility) pole dancing. 

Housing and Urban Development used $1.2 million to create an apartment designed for the deaf in Tempe, Arizona, only to then decide that three-quarters of the residences should be occupied by people with normal hearing.  The Agriculture Department gave an Oklahoma winery $200,000 to purchase new equipment. 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services gave a New York museum $150,000 to create an exhibit on play.  NSF spent $2.9 million to create sites “where arts and science will be used to educate the public about Indianapolis’s water system.”

The Commerce Department provided Las Vegas with $800,000 to think about economic development.  The U.S. Marshals Service dropped nearly $800,000 on promotional “swag,” including Christmas ornaments.

Sen. Coburn’s 100 programs cost about $30 billion total.  While that’s a lot of money for most anyone except Bill Gates, it is small change for the federal government, less than 1/700^th Uncle Sam’s current unfunded liabilities.  Even eliminating the many wasteful projects that litter the federal bureaucracy would not balance the budget.

But Congress should start by killing the Coburn 100.  Americans then need to have an adult conversation about the budget.  Too many people expect to live at someone else’s expense through Washington.  Which is why the nation faces financial ruin.

If there's any question as to whether the officers subduing Octavius Johnson (who was apparently asking why a vehicle was being towed) applied excessive force (looks like the officer gets a few swings in before other witnesses arrive), it was answered by the 20+ cops who stormed the house (without a warrant, obviously) in order to seize and destroy the footage of the arrest contained in Jaquez Johnson's cell phone. The fact that their wheelchair-bound aunt was thrown to the ground during this altercation is nothing more than a side effect of her inadvertently being between dozens of cops and the person they were pursuing.

The cops that stormed the Johnson house to destroy evidence failed to comprehend that everyone has a camera these days -- like, say, the neighbor across the street who obtained this footage of the excessive force and the blitzkrieg of Omaha cops that followed.

Omaha.com has a timeline of the incident, which begins at 5:23 pm when an officer responds to a call to check on an unoccupied vehicle. Two hours later, the aunt is on the way to the hospital while three of the Johnson brothers are being booked on a variety of charges. All three have one charge in common: the rather meaningless "obstructing an officer."

The neighbor's recording made it impossible for the Omaha PD to sweep this under the rug (not that it didn't try). The officers' own admission that they had seized Jaquez Johnson's phone and erased his recording made it impossible for the department to pretend everything that happened was purely legal. In the end, four officers were fired for their involvement in this situation. As PINAC reported back in May, even the county attorney was unable to find anything less than damning to say about the incident.

“The conduct inside after the officers went inside (the house) is much more disturbing” than what’s on the YouTube video.

Kleine on memory card: He said the knowledge that the memory card was taken by Officer James Kinsella “comes from Officer Kinsella himself and what he said to other officers.”

Kleine: ”The officer’s conduct in taking that memory card is so out of line, it’s criminal conduct. We don’t know what’s on that memory card” and that’s what we want to find out.

On OPD trying to hide misbehavior: ”It’s of tremendous concern to the chief and it’s a concern to us. We can’t have this type of conduct. It’s a betrayal of public trust.”

Now the ACLU is joining the Johnson family in suing the city of Omaha, along with the 32 police officers involved.

Members of an Omaha family filed a lawsuit in federal court today alleging that excessive force and a warrantless search and seizure were used in response to a parking incident in March 2013. The Johnson family has never received compensation for the damages to their property or their medical expenses resulting from the incident. All charges against the Johnsons were dropped. An internal investigation resulted in the termination of four officers and criminal charges being brought against two of the officers for either tampering with evidence or being an accessory.

Unbelievably, the entire situation was ignited by nothing more than a parking violation. By the end of it, the Johnson house had been swarmed by Omaha police officers, something the ACLU claims is not simply a misuse of public funds but a clear violation of citizens' rights.

"Despite the fact that no crime, drugs, or weapons were involved, more than twenty officers arrived at the Johnson's home, invaded their privacy, confiscated their property and unnecessarily injured four members of the family," said cooperating attorney Diana Vogt. "You do not lose your right to be treated with respect by law enforcement simply because of where you live in Omaha or the color of your skin."

"Pulling over twenty officers away from other parts of the city should sound an alarm for taxpayers," said ACLU of Nebraska Legal Director Amy Miller. "Omaha Police have already been warned by the ACLU about their failure to respect the rights of those filming law enforcement. This incident further reinforces that independent oversight is needed to help evaluate training practices and provide for responses when officers depart from their training and standards."

According to the ACLU's statement, the Omaha PD's actions have generated several reports of officer misconduct and racial bias over the past few years. The PD also seems to have a problem understanding that citizens have a right to record on-duty officers. The ACLU hopes this lawsuit will help change the PD's underlying culture.

In the lawsuit, the Johnsons ask for monetary damages for their medical bills, damages to property, lost time from work and other expenses. Additionally, the ACLU hopes for punitive damages against four officers along with mandatory training for all OPD officers in de-escalation and First Amendment rights of those filming police.

The firing of the four officers directly involved with the destruction of evidence is a good start. The fact that this escalated from a parking violation to 20 officers storming a house is a clear indictment of the mindset guiding Omaha's law enforcement entities. At no point did anyone try to defuse the situation or ask themselves why 32 officers were needed to arrest one man disputing his vehicle being towed. Notably, the first call for backup went out solely because "people were coming out of the house." If that's all it takes to shake an officer's confidence, any arrest happening in public is going to be a problem -- both for the skittish officer(s) and for any citizens who happen to be in the area, especially if they're carrying cell phones or cameras.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story