Japan Rapid Weight Loss Pills (Blue Version)

Japan Rapid Weight Loss Pills (Blue Version) Help the over fat person lose weight, and keep the long lasting reducing resultMain ingredient; Green algae which is a second-generation anti-fat ingredientIt can destroy fat chain to decompose and release fatReduce areas where fat easily accumulate as waist bellyCleaning the intestine system Original Japan Rapid Weightloss Pills [...]

Maine officials violate local food freedom ordinance by suing man for selling raw milk from farm

(NaturalNews) In response to the escalating food tyranny against American farmers by state and federal officials, the town of Blue Hill, Maine, passed a local ordinance back in April that asserted the right of its citizens to grow, sell, buy, and consume the food of their choice (http://naturalnews.com/032142_food_freedom_Maine.html). But state officials in Maine apparently have no regard for Blue Hill’s sovereignty law, and are now suing a local Blue Hill resident for selling food and raw milk from his farm without an official state license. The State of Maine and Walter Whitcomb, Maine’s Agricultural Commissioner, recently filed a lawsuit against Blue Hill farmer Dan Brown of Gravelwood Farm for allegedly violating state laws concerning the sale of food. The three-count civil summons claims that selling raw milk and other farm food items directly to customers violates state laws. But Brown’s actions are in full compliance with the Blue Hill’s Local Food and Self-Governance Ordinance, which protects small farmers from having to jump through the laborious and excessive regulatory hoops designed for large-scale factory farms. And the vast majority of Blue Hill’s residents have expressed support for the type of food freedom that Brown has embraced with the sale of fresh food from his farm. A Selectmen’s meeting is set to be held in Blue Hill on Friday, Nov. 18, to enforce the local ordinance over the state’s demands. Brown and his supporters are petitioning town officials to send a letter to the Maine Department of Agriculture requesting that the state withdraw its lawsuit and recognize the authority and validity of the local ordinance. There will also be a rally and press conference at Blue Hill Town Hall in his defense. Both Sedgwick and Penobscot, two other Maine towns, have also passed similar food sovereignty laws within the past year. And according to CBS News, Brown is the first farmer in any of them to be targeted by state officials for complying with these ordinances, which fly in the face of highly-restrictive state and federal laws concerning food. “I think if Dan loses this suit and the state is able to require licenses from him, then anybody in our ordinance towns will be forced to comply,” said Bob St. Peter, a farmer in Sedgwick who heads a group called Food for Maine’s Future, to CBS News. “That’s a concern to people.” Farmer Dan Brown has released a short video on YouTube explaining the situation, which you can view here: http://www.facebook.com/wearefarmerbrown You can also support Farmer Brown by contacting those that are suing him and expressing your thoughts. Remember to be polite but firm in your discourse: Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources Commissioner’s Office 28 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0028 Walter E. Whitcomb, Commissioner (207) 287-3871

Consolidation of seed companies leading to corporate domination of world food supply

(NaturalNews) Throughout the history of agriculture across the globe, farming has always been a diversified sector of the economy. Small, self-sustaining, family farms were the order of the day in most cultures. Even as small farms grew larger and more specialized over time, many of them still saved seeds or purchased them from other farmers, which kept control of farming in the hands of the people. But today everything has changed, as large chemical and agribusiness firms have acquired or merged with seed companies and other agricultural input companies. They have successfully gained a foothold on genetically-modified (GM) crops with transgenic traits. These primary factors and several others have facilitated a crescendo towards the global domination of agriculture by corporations, and thus the world’s food supply. The dismal state in which we find ourselves today did not come overnight, of course, but it did pick up rapid speed after the introduction of GM crops in the mid-1990s. Since that time, multinational corporations like Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta have seized a significant amount of control over the global seed industry, which has greatly limited agricultural diversity and freedom. The ability to patent both seeds and seed traits has also added injury to insult, as the ability to obtain natural or heirloom seeds is becoming increasingly difficult, and many farmers feel they have no choice but to go with the flow. Professor Philip H. Howard from the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies at Michigan State University published a study in 2009 entitled Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996 – 2008 that analyzes the trend in agriculture towards corporate dominance. The report, which was featured in a special issue of the journal Renewable Agriculture , provides both an extensive data analysis of agriculture’s dramatic transformation over the past several decades, as well as a highly-informative visual analysis of this truly shocking hostile takeover situation. The ‘Big Six” pharmaceutical and chemical companies have acquired, created joint ventures with hundreds of seed companies over the past 15 years In order to help assist his readers in understanding the state of the seed industry, Prof. Howard developed a very informative graphic that displays the reality of who really controls the seed industry. Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF collectively own or partially-own hundreds of formerly-independent seed companies — and Monsanto, of course, dominates them all. You can view the graphic for yourself at the following link: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/seedindustry.pdf As you will see, the blue circles in the diagram represent seed companies, while the red circles — which happen to all be chemical or pharmaceutical companies — control the vast majority of them. Solid gray arrows indicate complete ownership of a company, while gray lines indicate partial ownership. One of the most obvious first impressions to be gathered from the diagram is Monsanto’s excessive and widespread control over the seed industry. According to Prof. Howard’s analysis, Monsanto acquired more than 50 seed companies just during the time represented by his study period, which spans the years between 1996 and 2008. Monsanto had little-to-no involvement in the seed industry prior to the mid-1980s, but since that time has been rapidly eating up seed companies and furthering its development and control over the food supply through GMOs. Today, Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company, and the transnational behemoth continues to acquire or otherwise create “partnerships” with various independent seed companies that are still in existence. Behind Monsanto, the other five of the “Big Six” that Prof. Howard illustrates — DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF — collectively own or control a great portion of the remaining major seed companies not owned or controlled by Monsanto. And one of the biggest factors that has contributed to this dismal setup is GMOs and transgenic, patentable seed traits that are shared among the industry players. The “Big Six” each have agreements with one or more of the others; their overall success has largely hinged on GMOs and increased control of agricultural inputs The only thing worse than Monsanto and the dominance of the seed market are the cozy relationships with one another. Prof. Howard’s analysis reveals that every company in the “Big Six” has at least one mutual relationship with one another, and they together share corporate control of the seed industry. Monsanto has established cross-licensing agreements for its transgenic patents with every single other company in the mix, while Dow has agreements with all except for Bayer. And Syngenta has agreements with Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont, while BASF has agreements with Dow and Monsanto. What does this all mean? It means that the already-disturbing oligarchy that controls the seed industry is shaping up to become a total monopoly with Monsanto at the helm, of course. And as transgenic technology continues to develop, which forces farmers to either go with the flow or leave the business, there may soon be no other choices in farming besides whatever Monsanto has to offer. One would think that farmers would be more aware of this takeover and resist it. But the “Big Six” effectively fly under the radar, in most cases, by selling their seeds and chemicals through various vendors and under different names. According to Prof. Howard, this is how they effectively maintain an illusion of competition and choice in the midst of their takeover. How things got this bad and how the situation can be fixed Real competition in the seed industry has been systematically deconstructed over the years for numerous reasons. Besides blatant industry consolidation and takeover by drug and chemical companies, many farmers have simply been willing to accept the latest seed technologies, even when it has meant having to give up their seed saving freedom, and being forced to rely on the intensive use of chemicals and other synthetic interventions in order to farm. Prof. Howard explains that a concept known as the “agricultural treadmill” has been a major contributing factor in the demise of the seed industry. Because demand for food is largely inelastic, any increase in production will cause crop prices to fall. So as new farming technologies emerge, farmers that adopt them first inadvertently force all the other farmers to adopt them as well, just to maintain the same level of revenue. If they do not adopt them, or fail to keep up with other farmers on the treadmill, they will eventually fall off, or be forced out of the farming business altogether. Other factors include changes in policy that have decreased the barriers to accumulation that have prevented agricultural takeover in the past. By developing patented, transgenic traits, seed companies have been able to overcome a barrier to accumulation in agriculture. When farmers cannot save their GM seeds, the corporate owners can effectively maintain a continual, yearly cash flow just from selling seeds and their corresponding pesticides and herbicides, which in turn makes agriculture a vastly more profitable enterprise for preying corporations like Monsanto than it used to be. So what is the solution? Prof. Howard suggests improving antitrust enforcement, which will prevent the continual shift of seed company ownership and gradual accumulation of the food chain by a few large companies. Another idea is to create policies that fight against the agricultural treadmill phenomenon, and that instead promote independent, self-sustaining agricultural systems that maintain control of food with the people rather than the corporations. Perhaps the most effective suggestion — and one that we here at NaturalNews strongly advocate for as well — is to end the practice of granting patents on living organisms. By re-establishing this most-effective obstacle to accumulation, there will be no more incentive for multinational biotechnology companies like Monsanto to focus on dominating agriculture because there will be no more opportunity for the massive accumulation of wealth and capital through patented seeds. Sources for this story include: http://www.seedbuzz.com/knowledge-center/article/visualizing-consolidation-in-the-global-seed-industry-1996%E2%80%932008 http://www.naturalnews.com/files/seedindustry.pdf

Studies show drinking coffee may reduce risk of breast cancer

(NaturalNews) Breast cancer is a serious concern for women. According to the National Cancer Institute, the disease took about 50,000 lives last year in the U.S. alone. But the mainstream media, as well as mainstream medicine, often treat breast cancer as something that strikes out of the blue — giving women no choice but to hope they are not one of the “unlucky” ones to get breast cancer. At the same time this subjects women to to mammography so a malignancy can be spotted early, despite the fact the actual radiation exposure associated with mammograms is known to raise the risk of breast cancer in some women (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). But here’s good news. Scientists studying natural compounds in plants are finding many may offer some level of protection against breast cancer. That means women can start taking control of their breast cancer risk by paying attention to what they eat and drink. In detailed research just published in BioMed Central’s open access journal Breast Cancer Research , scientists from Sweden’s prestigious Karolinska Institute present compelling evidence that something in coffee slashes the risk of breast cancer. The new study concludes that drinking coffee specifically reduces the risk of what researchers call anti-estrogen-resistant estrogen-receptor (ER) negative breast cancer, dubbed ER-negative breast cancer for short. The Sweden research team compared lifestyle factors and coffee consumption between women with breast cancer and women the same age that did not have any breast malignancies. It turns out that coffee drinkers had a far lower incidence of breast cancer overall than women who rarely drank coffee. Delving further into the impact of coffee, the scientists looked at several lifestyle factors that affect breast cancer rates, including age at menopause, exercise, weight, education, and a family history of breast cancer. Once they had adjusted their data to account for all of these factors, they found that the protective effect of coffee on breast cancer zeroed on one type of the disease — the ER-negative breast cancer. Although the evidence appears strong that coffee has beneficial effects in protecting women from ER-negative breast cancer, it’s not clear just what the mechanism and compounds involved are. The researchers noted in a statement to the media that the protection from coffee may be due to way the coffee is prepared, or perhaps the type of coffee bean used. Bottom line: as NaturalNews has reported previously, the new coffee study is the latest in a growing body of scientific data showing that natural substances are formidable weapons to both prevent various types of breast cancer and even halt cancerous growth once cells are malignant. For example, in a study published in the journal Crop Science , Colorado State University scientists studied the anti-cancer activity of six kinds of dry legumes and found consumption of every kind of bean reduced the incidence of cancer and tumors in animal models (http://www.naturalnews.com/025614_cancer_breast_natural.html#ixzz1LyHqNOCb). In addition, Elaine Hardman, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Marshall University School of Medicine, gives this advice to women based on her cancer research: eat more walnuts. Her research strongly suggests those nuts can substantially reduce the risk of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/026115_walnuts_eating_cancer.html#ixzz1LyI8lo00). For more information: http://breast-cancer-research.com/ http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html http://www.naturalnews.com/029204_broccoli_cancer_cells.html#ixzz1LyILaTFA http://www.naturalnews.com/025633_cancer_oil_olive.html#ixzz1LyIXMiln

Expensive screening for blood clots causing dangerous treatments

(NaturalNews) Over the past 13 years, huge numbers of people have likely been treated for a blood clot in the lungs (known as a pulmonary embolism, or PE) that didn’t need treatment at all. As a result some have suffered serious and potentially deadly side effects from blood thinning drugs, in addition to being exposed to unnecessary, cancer-linked radiation. The result is over diagnosing and over treatment of PEs, thanks to the mainstream medical establishment’s rapid, enthusiastic acceptance and massive usage of high tech computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography (CTPA) — without evidence that every clot it revealed was a killer, or even anything worth treating. Here’s the background: CT scans use a contrast dye and x-rays to produce cross-sectional images or “slices” of areas of the body. Introduced in l998, the version of this test called a CTPA was hailed as a super duper new medical tool that could zero in on the pulmonary arteries. That was supposedly a huge diagnostic breakthrough because the test revealed blood clots quickly, allowing doctors to spot pulmonary PEs early so they could be treated before they caused life-threatening problems. It’s important to keep in mind that, like most diseases and conditions, blood clots don’t usually come out of the blue and are often related to lifestyle and choices. They are more likely to form in your legs during periods of inactivity, such a long cramped airplane trip (if you don’t get up and stretch and walk the aisles frequently), and prolonged bed rest. Dehydration, joint replacement and other types of surgery, cancer, heart disease, and taking certain drugs such as tamoxifen (to prevent breast cancer recurrence), smoking and obesity also up the risk of these clots which can travel to the lungs causing potentially deadly PEs. PEs usually produce warning symptoms, including shortness of breath, chest pain, wheezing, light headedness and pallor, which should be treated as an emergency. But expensive CTPA testing rapidly spread into mainstream medical practice as a screening tool to catch PEs, whether there were clear symptoms or not. They became so popular (and such money-makers) they soon replaced other tests for PE such as ventilation-perfusion scans and pulmonary angiography. In fact, many major medical centers reported their use of the CTPA test had increased seven to 13 times by 2006. Overall, between 2001 and 2006 alone there was a 11-fold rise in CTPA tests ordered for people covered by Medicare. Because pulmonary emboli can stop your from breathing, go to the heart or brain and kill, improved detection of any PEs had to be a good thing for everyone, right? After all, the medical community assumed using the highly sensitive CTPA test for screening would improve outcomes of this potentially deadly condition by detecting and treating emboli (blood clots) that were previously missed. Not so fast. Researchers from Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) have found that the widespread use of CTPAs led to over-diagnosis and over treatment of this condition. And the consequences are anything but minor. The BUSM research team investigated the incidence rate, death rate and numbers of treatment complications (including gastrointestinal tract or intracranial bleeding from the use of blood thinners) of PE among US adults before (1993-1998) and after (1998-2006) the introduction of the CTPA test. They found the number of people diagnosed with pulmonary embolism was unchanged before CTPA testing became common. However, the numbers of people diagnosed with PE skyrocketed after CTPA – there was an astounding 81 percent increase in PE cases. Did people suddenly start to develop more blood clots in their lungs? Not at all. As the new study points out, this “epidemic” of PEs was the result of more emboli being spotted due to more CTPA screening. Finding blood clots sounds like it should always be a good thing, but as so often happens in mainstream medicine, it turns out that assumptions were made about the benefits of this type of screening — and the dangers of any and all clots — without looking at the whole picture. So consider these facts: the BUSM scientists documented that fewer people were dying from PEs even before CTPA was on the scene (8 percent decrease, from 13.2 percent to 12.1 percent). Fatalities dropped even more when CTPA was introduced (36 percent decrease (from 12.1 percent to 7.8 percent). While that fact in itself would appear to vindicate the widespread use of the test, the PE fatality statistics don’t tell the whole story. It turns out there has been a downright dangerous side to massive CTPA screening. According to the researchers, CTPA detects blood clots that are so small they are clinically insignificant. That means the clots will never cause symptoms or death. Yet these over diagnosed PEs have led to a huge increase in serious complications because of the anticoagulation treatment that’s used routinely for PEs. Before CTPA was a common diagnostic test, the complication rate for emboli was considered stable. But after CTPA was widely used, side effects — sometimes deadly — from the use of blood thinners soared by 71 percent. “Over-diagnosis matters because it can lead to iatrogenic (medical treatment-caused) harm. While a clinically insignificant PE is by definition not harmful, treating such an embolism can cause harm such as bleeding from anticoagulation, which can in the worst case, be fatal,” explained lead author Renda Soylemez Wiener, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at BUSM, in a statement to the media. “Because the harm of treatment can be substantial, including in the worst case death, it is imperative that we do not turn the problem of under-diagnosis into one of over-diagnosis,” the study concluded. Moreover, the study findings, published in the May 9 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine warn the ramifications of the widespread use of CTPAs may continue to grow as the use of the test keeps rising. The scientists are calling for a study to find out what common sense might suggest should have been investigated long ago — they want a trial randomizing stable patients with small emboli to observation vs. anticoagulation to see if there’s any evidence at all that everyone with a PE even requires treatment. “Better technology allows us to diagnose more emboli, but to minimize harms of over-diagnosis we must learn which ones matter,” Dr. Soylemez Wiener stated. There are other compelling reasons to look at the widespread use of CTPA to consider if using the test for screening is worth additional known dangers associated with the scan, too. For example, the FDA lists possible allergic reactions or even kidney failure due to the contrast agent, or “dye” used in the test. There’s also an increased lifetime risk of cancer linked to x-ray radiation exposure from CTPAs. A study published in the journal Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine concluded the radiation dose of CTPA for women undergoing a single 64-slice CTPA procedure increases the risk of breast cancer and lung cancer. For a young 20-year-old woman this would be estimated to increase the relative lifetime risk of breast or lung cancer substantially, up to 5.5 percent. For more information: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/ http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706957_5

Groups, individuals petition NRC to suspend all nuclear reactor licensing in wake of Fukushima disaster

(NaturalNews) The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has sparked an uprising against nuclear energy production due to concerns about its safety. Recently, 45 groups and individuals from across the US banded together to ask that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) cease all licensing for 21 pending nuclear reactor projects in 15 US states, and establish an independent commission to conduct an updated safety analysis of nuclear energy production in light of the ongoing meltdown taking place in Japan. The groups, which include Beyond Nuclear; the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL); Citizens Allied for Safe Energy; and the Nuclear Information and Resource Center, say that it is an obligation for NRC to properly consider the lessons being learned from Fukushima before permitting any further nuclear energy development in the US. “NRC violated the law by re-licensing the Vermont Yankee reactor at the same time it launched an investigation into whether US safety and environmental standards are strong enough in light of the Fukushima accident,” said Diane Curran, an attorney for the petitioners, from Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg, LLP. “The National Environmental Policy Act requires the NRC to learn and apply the lessons of Fukushima before it allows another reactor to operate. By establishing a Task Force and ordering the investigation of the regulatory implications of the Fukushima accident for US reactors, the NRC has obligated itself to consider those implications in all prospective licensing decisions.” Just days after the Japan earthquake and tsunami ravaged the Fukushima plant, the NRC extended the license for the Vermont Yankee reactor owned by General Electric (GE), despite the fact that the plant has had radioactive tritium leaks, a cooling tower collapse, and other serious problems, according to a 2010 New York Times report. Petitioners say it is only reasonable for the NRC to take a serious step back and reevaluate how the events of Fukushima relate to US nuclear facilities, some of which are in worse shape than Fukushima was before the disaster. If such a disaster were ever to hit US soil, the consequences could be even more devastating than Fukushima. Sources for this story include: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fukushima-fallout–45-groups-and-individuals-petition-nrc-to-suspend-all-nuclear-reactor-licensing-and-conduct-a-credible-three-mile-island-style-review-119844504.html http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/

How to Form a Truth-in-Labeling Chapter for your congressional district

(NaturalNews) The Organic Consumers Association needs 435 volunteers, who will each create an OCA Truth-in-Labeling Chapter for each U.S. Congressional District and to coordinate a drive to gather 2300 petition signatures on our Truth-in-Labeling petition in order to strengthen our national network and to mobilize 1 million people against Monsanto. After looking into some different options, OCA has decided that the easiest way to organize this campaign into chapters in each congressional district is by using Facebook. Specifically, the Facebook Causes Function, because it provides an easy way for OCA to communicate with all of you, a way to easily create and attach petitions, and Cause/chapter members can communicate with each other directly, without OCA getting in your way. All of these features will help you get the ball rolling on this campaign in your area and get OCA closer to our goal of 2300 petition signers in each congressional district. This of course, assumes that you are already on Facebook. We realize that not everyone is on Facebook. If you’re not, that’s ok and we can still use your help, but the bulk of the preliminary organizing for these campaigns is going to be on Facebook, so if you are willing to join Facebook just to help out with this campaign, please do. Let’s get started! Step 1: Look up your Congressional District here by clicking on your state and locating your district or by entering your zip-code: http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/dbq/officials Step 2: Check to see if there is a Cause for your Congressional District already by looking at the master list of Causes: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22517.cfm If there is a Cause already, join up! If not, then you can create one. Step 3: Go to Causes on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/?m=ed6ae9f3&ref=ts If you are already active in some Facebook Causes this link will bring up your Causes Profile. If you have never used Facebook Causes before, you will have to add the Facebook Causes Application to your profile. This is pretty easy. Once you have done this, you are ready to create a cause. Step 4: To create a cause, select the option “Start a Cause” from the blue drop down menu. This will bring you to a form to fill out. The first thing is a name for your Cause. Name your Cause like this: “Join OCA’s Truth-in-Labeling Campaign for MN District 8″ except fill in your own state and congressional district number. Fill in the rest of the information similar to the MN District 8 example: http://www.causes.com/causes/575933-join-oca-s-truth-in-… It doesn’t have to be exactly the same, but this is the basic information you want your chapter to see, customized for your district. For a picture, you can use the new Millions Against Monsanto logo: http://organicconsumers.org/monsanto/images/mam2-140w.gif You might have to save the logo to your computer before you can add it to the Causes form. Select the state, but don’t worry about the metro area or city. You can leave those blank, since this is for your Congressional District. Step 5: Hit continue. The next step is really important. Please search for and select Organic Consumers Association as the nonprofit beneficiary of the Cause. This will allow donations through the Cause to come to OCA, but more importantly, it will allow OCA to communicate with the Cause members once it is formed. As soon as the Cause is created, an email is automatically sent to OCA letting us know that a Cause has been created that benefits us. We will use that info to add your Cause to the growing list: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22517.cfm Step 6: Once your Cause is set up, please invite your friends that you know are in your congressional district, and encourage others to form groups in their own districts! Thanks! Now that your Cause is up and running, new members will be joining up! Visit www.millionsagainstmonsanto.org to download campaign materials to share with these folks, and start talking to each other. Look for more action suggestions from OCA soon!

Detox Blue Plum Diet Weight Loss Fat Burn Natural Fruits

Detox Blue Plum Diet Weight Loss Fat Burn Natural Fruits 20 individually wrap packet. Made in Hong KongPlum of decomposing fat, Beautiful life for you, pure natural.Newly Release in U.S.Eat it like dessert or candy. 1 pack a day. Product Description *This product is made from a low temperature adoption extraction method, main active ingredients [...]

S 510 Food Safety bill now dead in the water due to blue slip mistake

(NaturalNews) It is now being revealed that US Senators slipped up in a big way when passing the Food Safety Modernization Act on Tuesday: They added what are effectively “new taxes” into the bill, and according to the U.S. Constitution, only the House of Representatives can initiate legislation requiring new taxes. Thus, the House is now obliged to give this food safety legislation the so-called “blue slip,” meaning that it rejects the law and sends it back to the Senate for yet another vote. This would take time and effort, of course, and the Democrats have very little of either remaining in their lame duck session. As explained on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip): “This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic has historically proven to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip.” In other words, the House wants to remain the sole originator of all new taxes and will therefore need to “blue slip” S.510 in order to slap the hands of Senators who are trying to enact their own new taxes under the bill. S.510 may be dead in the water The upshot of this is that this fight is not yet over . Unless the House makes an unprecedented exception to this blue slip rule, this legislation will apparently need to go back to the Senate floor for another vote. This story was first reported by RollCall.com (http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201012-1.html) which says, “The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.” (http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201012-1.html) According to Roll Call, “The blue slip could lead to one of two likely outcomes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could simply drop the issue and let the next session of Congress start from scratch…” “Or he could try to force the issue in the Senate after the House passes a new version of the bill. But in order to do that and still tackle the other issues, he would need a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate.” But unanimous consent is impossible thanks to the heroic efforts of Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla) who has stood firm on his belief that this bill is too large, too expensive and puts too much of a burden on American farmers. If this assessment is correct, it looks like S.510 is now dead in the water and cannot be resurrected until the next session of Congress in which there will be far fewer Democrats (there was not a single Democrat in the US Senate who opposed the bill). (http://www.naturalnews.com/030577_Senate_Bill_510_voting_record.html)

How to opt out of the TSA’s naked body scanners at the airport

(NaturalNews) I encountered my first airport naked body scanner while flying out of California today, and of course I decided to “opt out” of the scan. You do this by telling the blue-shirted TSA agents that you simply wish to opt out of the body scanner. Here’s what happened after that: A TSA agent told me to step to the side and stay put. He then proceeded to shout out loudly enough for all the other travelers and TSA agents to hear, “OPT OUT! OPT OUT!” This is no doubt designed to attract attention (or perhaps humiliation) to those who choose to opt out of the naked body scanner. I saw no purpose for this verbal alert because the same TSA agent who was yelling this ultimately was the one who patted me down anyway. For the pat down, first I was required to walk through the regular metal detector. From there, I was asked if I wanted to be patted down in a private room, or if I didn’t mind just being patted down in full view of everyone else. Not being a shy person in the first place, I told the agent I didn’t need a private room. He then explained to me that he was going to pat down my entire body, including my crotch and my buttocks, but that he would use the back of his hands to pat down the crotch and buttocks areas. This is probably designed to make the pat-down seem less “personal” and more detached. That way, air passengers can’t complain of being felt up by TSA agents who might get carried away with the pat-down procedure. He asked if it hurt for me to be touched anywhere, and I told him no, at which point he proceeded with the pat down. It was a well-scripted pat-down, covering all the areas of my body, including a mild crotch sweep (it wasn’t especially invasive or anything, as doctors will do far worse during a physical exam). He swept my arms, legs, hips, back of the neck, ankles and everywhere else. To the TSA’s credit, this guy was fast, efficient and only used a light touch that was in no way disturbing. But it did take an extra five minutes or so compared to walking through the naked body scanner. Speaking of the naked body scanners, as I was having my crotch swept by the back of the hand of this TSA agent, I was observing other air travelers subjecting themselves to the naked body scanners. They were told to walk into the body scanner staging area and then hold their arms in the air in a pose as if they were under arrest. They were told to freeze in this position for several seconds (perhaps 10 seconds) during which they were being blasted with ionizing radiation that we all know contributes to cancer. The TSA, of course, will tell you that these machines can’t possibly contribute to cancer. But they said the same thing about mammograms, and we now know that mammograms are so harmful to women’s health that they actually harm ten women for everyone one woman they help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html). So I’m not exactly taking the U.S. government at its word that naked body scanner radiation is “harmless.” As these air travelers were being scanned, their naked body images were appearing on a screen somewhere, of course. Some TSA agent was examining the naked body shape and contours of all these people, and even though we were told by the TSA that the image viewing machines cannot store images, we have since learned that the machines actually do have the capability to store those images (http://www.naturalnews.com/029378_full_body_scanners_images.html). In addition, rogue TSA employees could simply use their cell phones to take snapshots of what they see on the screen. There are no doubt rules against such behavior, but it’s bound to happen sooner or later. Meanwhile, my own security screening was proceeding fully clothed. I don’t want to broadcast my naked butt cheeks on the TSA’s graphic monitors, thank you very much! Very few people opt out of the naked body scanners The most fascinating part about this entire process was not the verbal broadcast of my opt out status, nor having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent, but rather the curious fact that I was the only one opting out . Although I must have watched at least a hundred people go through this particular security checkpoint, there wasn’t a single other person who opted out of the naked body scan. They all just lined up like cattle to have their bodies scanned with ionizing radiation. To me, that’s just fascinating. That when people are given a choice to opt out of being irradiated, they will choose to just go along with the naked body scan rather than risk standing out by requesting to opt out. You see, I’m not convinced that the TSA’s naked body scanners enhance air travel security at all. Previous security tests conducted by the FAA show quite clearly that the greatest threat to airplane safety isn’t from the passengers but from ground crews, where bombs and other materials can be quite easily smuggled onto planes. But even though naked body scanners may not enhance air travel security, they do accomplish something far more intriguing: The successful completion of an experiment in human behavior . If you were to pose the question “Will people line up like cattle to be electronically undressed in front of government security officers?” The answer is now unequivocally YES! Most people, it turns out, will simply do whatever they’re told by government authorities, even if it means giving up their privacy or their freedoms. Almost anything can be sold to the public under the guise of “fighting terrorism” these days, including subjecting your body to what is essentially a low-radiation CT scan at the airport! I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I should be required to subject myself to ionizing radiation as a condition of air travel security. Of course, the more technically minded readers among you might counter by saying that high-altitude travel is, all by itself, an event that subjects you to low levels of ionizing radiation (which is true). But that’s all the more reason to not add the body’s radiation burden any more than necessary. Americans already get far too much radiation from CT scans and other medical imaging tests (not to mention mammograms). Do we really need to dose peoples’ bodies with yet more radiation every time they board an airplane? Trusted traveler program? I don’t know why the TSA never pursued its “trusted traveler” program. I actually suggested this years ago, and there was word that the TSA was working on something similar. The way it worked was very different from the current system. Under the current system, every person entering an airport security line is assumed to be a terrorist, and it is only through the various security screenings that you are eventually deemed to be innocent. This is a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to air security, and it’s the system in place all across America (and around the world) today. Under a trusted traveler program, people who pass rigorous background screening procedures, criminal history checks and other similar tests would be assumed innocent unless suspected of being guilty. They might carry “trusted traveler” cards linked to a federal database so that their status could be verified as they pass through a security checkpoint. They might even have their fingerprint scanned at that checkpoint in order to biometrically verify their identity. For whatever reason, the TSA is no longer pursuing any such trusted traveler program (at least not to my knowledge). Perhaps the agency just figures it can trust no one. Hence the need to have everybody line up in front of the naked body scanner machines and raise their arms in a humiliating “I’m being arrested” pose. It’s actually just like the scene from the movie called The Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis. Remember the scene where the cops are searching the apartment block and they use an X-ray scanner to see through the walls? As they search the apartment building, they announce that all residents must face the wall and place their hands inside the yellow circles on the wall. This scene eerily resembles what the TSA makes U.S. travelers do right now. And virtually no one protests. That’s the really amazing part about this. Seasonal flu shots offered at the airport, too After completing my security pat-down, by the way, I entered the terminal where I walked by a kiosk offering a seasonal flu shot . There was a big sign claiming that the flu shot would prevent you from catching the flu, and a nurse of some sort stood right behind the kiosk, ready to inject you with a vaccine for just $35. First the naked body scanners, and then the flu shot propaganda. It reminded me that the U.S. government really is trying to push people into self-destructive behaviors that will ultimately benefit the sick-care industry. After all, the more cancer and Alzheimer’s disease people develop (from radiation and vaccines, of course), the more business gets generated for Big Pharma. I know enough about health and freedom to avoid these little disease bombs, but most Americans don’t know enough to resist the propaganda. They just allow themselves to be irradiated, injected and poisoned, and they think it’s all okay because the government tells them it’s good for them. It’s odd that people trust the government when the government doesn’t trust them at all. If the government treats you like a criminal, a terrorist, a lab rat and a vaccine depository, doesn’t that only prove they don’t honor you as a sovereign individual? And that sends a powerful message confirming that the U.S. government has forgotten it is supposed to serve the People, not rule over them. Just wait and watch how this gets even worse. Today, you can opt out of the TSA’s naked body scanners, but after a year or two — once the sheeple get comfortable with giving up all their freedoms — these scans will become mandatory. That’s the day I give up air travel for good. Gee, I sure will miss having my crotch swept by the latex-covered back hand of some anonymous TSA agent who’s wasting taxpayer money by treating me like a terrorist.

Next Page »