The failed state of America – Tea Party Nation

 

The words “failed state” and America are not used too often in the same sentence but perhaps it is time that they were. 

The words “failed state” and Mexico are used frequently in the same sentence and there is a reason for that.  Now something is happening in America that has been happening in Mexico that may make those words applicable here.

 

What is it?

 

Recently Republican Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson toured the Arizona border along with Sheriff Paul Babeu.  The tour was to highlight the issue of illegal immigration for Carson’s campaign.  But the event highlighted something else that the Democrats and the Washington establishment don’t want to talk about.

 

We have lost control of part of America.

 

Sheriff Babeu pointed out to Carson that upwards of 70 miles into the United States, drug cartels control the countryside.  Think about that for a second.  Up to 70 miles north of the Mexican border, drug cartels have operational control of the countryside.

 

The definition of sovereignty for a nation is not only national borders but the ability to control the territory within those borders.

 

America is losing its national sovereignty to Mexican drug cartels and most of the major candidates for President don’t care. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don’t want to do anything about the border.  They do want to give Amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens who broke America’s laws to enter this nation.  They don’t have time for the American victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

 

A few years ago, I was on the Arizona border and I spoke with ranchers who lived there.  They were prisoners on their own property.  The could not leave their ranches for more than a few hours. If they did, their homes would be looted and their property destroyed. 

 

The destruction of American sovereignty is being aided and abetted by the usual left wing suspects.  Left wing lawyers are suing the Border Patrol over the death of an illegal alien. This illegal alien was a passenger on a boat trying to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States.  The driver of the boat refused to stop and eventually the Border Patrol boat and the smuggler’s boat collided.  The illegal alien was thrown into the ocean and died.

 

A criminal is killed while committing a crime and the left wants to sue America for it.

 

In Texas, ranchers live in fear of illegal aliens being injured while trespassing on their property.  Again, they are worried about being sued by leftwing lawyers.

 

There is a simple solution. Congress can pass a law that states anyone in this nation illegally lacks the standing to sue.  But Congress won’t do that because a majority of them support illegal aliens more than they support real Americans.

 

There is a reason why Donald Trump is surging in the polls.  He is speaking about this issue when the Democrats and most Republicans wish this issue would just go away. 

 

America is losing her sovereignty to a failed state.  The tragedy is neither the Republicans nor the Democrats give a damn as long as they can pander to a group they think will extend their grip on power. 

 

The sad truth is there isn’t any difference between Democrats and the Establishment Republicans.  

State Department Did Not Provide Secure BlackBerry to Hillary Clinton

Originally posted on Socialism is not the Answer:

Hillary_huma whisperJUDICIAL WATCH

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the State Department asserts in its most recent filing with the court the State Department did not issue personal computing devices to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and possibly destroyed the Blackberries of her aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills:

[The State Department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department. [The State Department] believes that Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin were each issued BlackBerry devices. [The State Department] has not located any such device at the Department … Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.

State did identify the “state.gov” email accounts of Mills…

View original 204 more words

Census: Anchor Baby Delivered Every 88 Seconds

Originally posted on Mountain Republic:

The federal government currently grants automatic citizenship to all U.S. born children of illegal migrants
Census: Anchor Baby Delivered Every 88 Seconds
Julia HahnBreitbart

One out of about every twelve newborns in the United States is an anchor baby, or the U.S.-born child of illegal migrants, according to a Pew Research Center study.

This means that one anchor baby is delivered every 93 seconds, based on the 2008 census data analyzed by the Pew.

The huge number of foreign children born on U.S. soil– roughly 340,000 per year— is also an economic imposition on Americans, who pay taxes to help raise, feed, and educate those children of illegal migrants.

Eventually, those 340,000 U.S.-born foreign children can join the U.S. workforce and compete for wages against the roughly four million children of U.S. parents that enter the slow-growing U.S. economy each year.

Read more…

View original

Is America in Worse Fiscal Shape than Greece, France, and Italy?

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Back in 2010, I posted a fascinating map from the Economist website, showing debt burdens (as a share of GDP) for nations around the world. This data showed lots of red ink, with Western Europe generally being more indebted than the United States.

In 2011, I posted some charts from a study by the Bank for International Settlements, revealing that the long-run fiscal outlook for the United States is worse than the outlook for European nations.

In other words, our politicians to date haven’t over-spent as much as their counterparts in Europe, but it appears that – if government is left on auto-pilot – America will suffer more from excessive government than European nations in the future.

Here’s some new evidence about the perilous long-term state of public finances in America. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has to do more…

View original 252 more words

Here Comes the Small Arms Treaty Again – Freedom Outpost

Here Comes the Small Arms Treaty Again – Freedom Outpost.

Recently, we witnessed the circus that is the United States Senate completely surrender its constitutional powers to the executive branch. Last November, we went to the polls and handed the Republican establishment the largest majority it has had in decades, only to watch them capitulate to the Obama regime on every single issue. From failing to defund Obamacare, reign in spending, and, most recently, stop the Iran deal, the Republicans have shown themselves to be the traitorous, communist infiltrators they are. What people need to see is that there is a conditioning process taking place, and the events revolving around the Iran nuclear deal are the most recent example. Here, little by little, Mitch McConnell, along with Bob Corker, virtually reworked the treaty provisions in the Constitution. The U.S. Senate is the only congressional body that has treaty-making powers, and they completely reworked the entire process, giving the president nearly all of the advantage. Treaties, under the U.S. constitution, need a two thirds vote from senators for ratification. Under the Corker bill, in order to stop the Iran deal, there would need to be a two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented by the White House. Why would the U.S. Senate surrender such an important aspect of their constitutional authority? Is there another agenda at work? Sadly, the answer to that question is yes. Many argue that the Iran deal is not a treaty but an agreement. The Senate had the authority to make it a treaty. Why didn’t they? It all revolves around a conditioning process designed to get the masses to accept the next big agenda item–The U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Many U.S. Senators have openly stated that they refuse to ratify this traitorous treaty; however, the new process established by the Corker bill may very well have changed the way treaties are passed from here on out.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Small Arms Treaty. Many insist that it is international in scope and in no way would affect your right as an American to keep and bear arms. This a foolish assumption motivated by a fear of taking the time to do some research. The text of the treaty is quite clear in its intentions to disarm civilian populations, or people deemed to be “unauthorized recipients” of firearms and ammunition. The language of the treaty can be very misleading, as there are paragraphs that seem to support an individual’s right to own firearms based on the nation state’s own laws and constitutional systems. Take this paragraph from the Annex, concerning the pretext of the treaty, for example:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

Many people would read that and assume that, because our constitution protects our rights to keep and bear arms, this treaty would not affect us in anyway. The only problem with this assumption is that law makers from many states have changed their gun laws. Semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines are no longer legal to own, in several parts of the country. This changes the term “permitted or protected by law” drastically. States like New York, Oregon and Connecticut have already passed new gun registration laws that have yielded a low success rate of compliance. Situations like this are where the next part of the treaty would be helpful.

Article 16 International Assistance

1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request.

2. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.

3. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.

President Obama would very much like to get Australian-type gun control laws passed, in which case, there would be very little that is “protected by law” that this treaty could not affect. In the event that people fail to comply with such laws, as they have in New York and other states, the U.N. would have legal authority to come in and assist local governments in disarming efforts. In fact, it is highly likely that the recent racial strife we have witnessed was intentionally fomented in order to push us into conflict; in which case, U.N. peace keepers would also have the authority to disarm conflicting parties under this treaty. The U.N. Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects states the following:

21. To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons, particularly in post-conflict situations, unless another form of disposition or use has been duly authorized and such weapons have been marked and the alternate form of disposition or use has been recorded, and to include, where applicable, specific provisions for these programs in peace agreements.

Many people believe that ratification of this treaty would be an act of treason against the United States constitution that our politicians have sworn to uphold and defend, and, truthfully, it would be. Unfortunately, plans to disarm the United States have been in place for nearly six decades. State Department Publication 7277 describes the objectives of the United States as seeking a world free from war, where all nation states have been disarmed and merged into a system of international control in line with standards set by the United Nations.

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

  • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  • The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
  • The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is the culmination of this plan. It is hard to argue that our military is not what it once was. Not only have our forces been reduced to almost nothing, but they have also been psychologically disarmed, as they have become a breeding ground of political correctness and social experiments. Our police forces are also being psychologically disarmed, as they are afraid to do their job, due to the intentional fomenting of racial strife. The disarming of military forces is the first stage of this plan. Stage two would include the establishment of a permanent peacekeeping force within the framework of the United Nations; and stage three would be the destruction of all remaining arms, in order to maintain international order. If you believe, at this point, that our second amendment will mean anything, you are foolish. If they are successful in disarming our military, there is no chance they will allow the civilian population to be armed.

This is high treason on a grand scale. The Obama administration has been involved in numerous scandals which involved gun running operations: Fast and Furious, which was used as a pretext to discredit the second amendment; and Benghazi, which was a gun smuggling operation arming Islamic terrorists for the purpose of taking out Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. President Obama has no right to move forward with this treaty, and doing so is, in fact, an act of treason against the American people. Only a mass movement of noncompliance can stop this.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/here-comes-the-small-arms-treaty-again/#PK5acTReXWxsWUwo.99

The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax – Freedom Outpost

The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax – Freedom Outpost.

Posted by

A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1

Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 2 and in North Carolina as HB 366.
3 Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.

Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:

It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending

Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt.
That’s a good idea?

Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree.  States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?

Section 4 is a joke:  Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.

How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden

Section 5 says:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]

What is a “general revenue tax“? Section 6 defines it:

“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]

Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”

There it is: All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.

Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” 4 which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.

So! Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:

  • Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or
  • A simple majority of both Houses can impose “a new end user sales tax” which replaces the income tax.

Which option will Congress choose?

Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax

Article I, §8, clause 1 says:

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”

Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:

“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comment 19].

We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”!

We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:

“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”

Do you see?

National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).

“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.

Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:

  • the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, §2, clause 3;
  • the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and
  • the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.

A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.

We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.

We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.

And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.

There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list.
See the list HERE.

Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.

Endnotes:

1 Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.

All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.

2 Leon Drolet’s article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter’s article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don’t mention the new national taxes.

3 Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.” So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?

4 “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.

5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.

6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, they have claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free? PH

International inspections of Iran’s nuke sites are a sick joke

Originally posted on danmillerinpanama:

Over the past few days, Iranian officials have confirmed that international inspections of its nuke sites will be severely limited if permitted at all. This post provides excerpts from recent articles quoting them. 

Iran’s nuke sites

The restrictions noted in this post are in addition to previously disclosed prohibitions on access by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to military sites, which Iran itself will inspect instead. Even The Daily Beast has mentioned this problem in reliance on an Associated Press article which states,

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections. [Emphasis added.]

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence…

View original 1,624 more words

Limiting the Federal Government by Restoring Freedom and Power to the States – Eagle Rising

Limiting the Federal Government by Restoring Freedom and Power to the States – Eagle Rising.

By / 17 August 2015

“Hi!  I’m from the government, and I’m here to help!”  —Ronald Reagan, citing what he thought were the Ten Most Dangerous Words in the English Language

 

A Big-Government Scandal

It looks like an Environment Protection Agency bureaucrat, to make the EPA more important in the minds of Americans, recently created an ecological catastrophe in New Mexico.  A New Mexico resident with 47 years of relevant experience warned the EPA what would happen if they did not change what they were doing, but the decision was made to do it anyway.  So the EPA’s shenanigans were on purpose!

Had there been no EPA, and local authorities had had oversight, this disaster would never have occurred.  It is far-away central planners—disconnected from local communities—who so often choose to be negligent, since they are free from any local accountability.  (Read about the latest EPA scandal here.)

 

Creating a Monster

The US government was created by the sovereign states, not the other way around.  Therefore, the federal government is there to do the bidding of the states, and of the people, rather than dictating to them.  There were three co-equal branches upon the nation’s founding, but there are, today, so many executive-branch departments—all of them massive in size and in the scope of their powers—that an imperial executive has been allowed to evolve.  America has, indeed, created a Leviathan.

 

The Road to Hell . . .

image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/constitution-300×300.jpg

purpose of constitutionThe original intent of creating an executive department is to help our chief executive—the president—to enforce the laws passed by Congress.  But each department has ended up hiring its own army of bureaucrats to “help.”  And the result has been that each one has created rules that carry the force of law.  And none of these rules has ever been given the consent of the governed.  Many rules have even been scandalously written by lobbyists from the very organizations the departments were created to regulate.  Hundreds of thousands of rules—known collectively as “administrative law”—have been instituted, regardless of the fact that there is no provision in the Constitution that lends legitimacy to most of these.  So, good intentions are never enough; the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

Cutting the Executive Down to Size

The best alternative to reform the problem of tempting a potentially scofflaw executive—who might make end-runs around the Congress simply by having department heads make new rules—is to rid the government of its tyrannical departments.  Rather than having so many executive departments, the enforcement mechanism for these laws should be the sovereign states themselves.  If a state is not complying with a legitimate federal law—one falling within the scope of the Enumerated Powers Clause (see here) the Department of Justice could always sue the state to force compliance.

 

Washington’s Original Concept of a Cabinet of Advisors

When George Washington took office, he created four governmental departments: the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of War (now the Department of Defense).  Any other departments should be eliminated.  Some of them have functions that could be taken over by the four departments that remain.  Others should have their functions subsumed by the states.  The states should run all departments and programs not authorized in the Enumerated Powers Clause.

 

Nullification of Un-Constitutional Laws

image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Jefferson-and-nullification-e1439761226280.jpg

Jefferson and nullificationThe other thing that the sovereign states should do is to refuse to follow any federal law or mandate not within the federal government’s constitutional power to create.  (And, it goes without saying, unconstitutional executive orders, executive memos, and other such executive creations should be treated the same way.)  A federal law creating a welfare program should be nullified by the states, since such programs find no support in the Constitution.  (The General Welfare Clause is a reference to public goods that are created for the protection or use of all the people equally, such as the US military or a public road.)  Of course, a state could create welfare programs on its own, if it chose to do so.  

Nullification of Un-Constitutional Court Rulings

The Supreme Court has made rulings that are unconstitutional.  It is not the Court’s job to rewrite the Constitution.  The power of judicial review does not render the Supreme Court capable of writing law, on its own, independent of the means that are constitutionally mandated for amending the Constitution or passing laws in the Congress.  The Court’s only legitimate role is to rule on the laws as written.

States should ignore—and, therefore, nullify—decisions that are clearly not within the bounds of the Constitution.  If states were to do this, the jurists on the Court would take great pains, in their opinions, to reference what parts of the Constitution authorize them to rule the way they do.  This would mean the Court never could have ruled the way it did in Kelo v. City of New London.  (Read about Kelo here.)

 

Falling in Love with the Constitution Again

In addition to implementing a policy reducing the executive branch and nullifying unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court—or any federal court, for that matter—the states should make sure that they themselves are not infringing the rights of Americans under the Constitution.  Of course, the federal check on this kind of behavior would be a suit brought against a state by the Department of Justice.

Americans have lived under the Incorporation Doctrine for so long that it has become, without much ado, standard practice for each state to apply the federal Constitution locally.  (Before the Incorporation Doctrine, the federal Constitution used to be applied only to areas of federal jurisdiction.)  There needs to be a level playing field, to ensure that everyone is applying the rules fairly.  And for this to happen, the people and their elected officials—if they have not done so already—need to take care to fall in love with the Constitution once again.

Dear (what difference does it make) Hillary – I think Hussein Obama just sicced the FBI on you my dear…

Originally posted on LadyRaven's Whisky In A Jar - OH!:

Sundance at The Conservative Tree HouseFirst Hillary said there was no classified information contained within her emails; then the narrative changed to there was nothing classified “at the time” it was on her email server; which later evolved to there was nothing “labeled” as classified when her communications were exclusively on her personal email system. Now it is revealed that TOP SECRET classified information was contained in her communication. The saga continues...

March 2015 – Bill Whittle – even more pertinent today – THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the…

View original 122 more words

Health Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite

Health Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite.

Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, August 14 2015
We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles.

In “Sleeper,” Woody Allen plays Miles Monroe, a cryogenically frozen owner of a Greenwich Village health food store who, when defrosted in the year 2173, finds himself in an authoritarian state filled with giant vegetables, android butlers and Diane Keaton. When an unnerved Miles is first unfrozen, Space Age doctors try to calm him down:

Doctor: “He’s ranting. We’d better tranquilize him.”

Miles: “I knew it was too good to be true. I parked right near the hospital.”

Doctor: “Now here, you smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.”

Miles: “I don’t smoke.”

Doctor: “It’s tobacco. It’s one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead. You need all the strength you can get.”

Pointing out the always-changing guidelines of salubrious living is a long-running joke in America. It’s worth remembering, though, that any self-corrections we make — and we make them all the time in real life using common sense — are far more difficult when government puts its imprimatur on pseudoscience, which it also does all the time.

In the Dietary Guidelines for Americans — the federal government’s advice manual for citizens — we are warned that “not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight.” But when researchers from Columbia University decided to test this notion, they found nothing of the sort: “In overweight individuals, skipping breakfast daily for 4 weeks leads to a reduction in body weight,” the study’s authors note. Other researchers did the same and came to similar conclusions. How many parents and overweight Americans took this advice as gospel when they could have been losing weight by skipping buttermilk pancake breakfasts?

We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles. The leading organ of American scaremongering, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has gotten so much wrong over the years. There was the outrageous contention that 400,000 Americans were dropping dead from obesity every year. (They weren’t.) And then there were all the over-the-top warnings about the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. (They don’t really exist.)

Earlier this year, the bureaucrats behind the government’s dietary guidelines finally admitted there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. After years of warning Americans that high-cholesterol foods would kill them — eggs, shrimp and so on — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee will no longer list cholesterol among its “nutrients of concern” for overconsumption. Now some scientists argue that the state’s obsession with scaring citizens about fat may actually have made our health worse.

The popularity of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils — which government absurdly banned earlier this year — was driven in large part by government scaremongering about the evils of cooking with lard. But when contemporary researchers looked at the 1970s-era data underlying the dietary fat guidelines, they came to the conclusion that the data did not support the idea that eating less fat would translate to fewer cases of heart disease or that it would save lives. And studies show it hasn’t.

Nina Teicholz, author of “The Big Fat Surprise,” wrote this in The New York Times earlier this year:

“How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or ‘observational,’ studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.”

For instance, the government has been telling us we’ve been eating too much salt for years. The Food and Drug Administration claimed that lowering salt intake would save tens of thousands of us every year. Overbearing nanny-state groups lobbied the government to regulate salt as they now do trans fats, and Americans turned to low-sodium diets in huge numbers.

One of America’s leading advocates of spurious science, New York’s Michael Bloomberg, persuaded more than 20 companies to drop salt levels voluntarily. Yet according to studies published in recent years, our salt intake wasn’t dangerous at all. Even the CDC has been forced to admit that it was wrong. And the low levels of salt recommended by the government not only were unnecessary but also have been dangerous for our health.

“There is no longer any valid basis for the current salt guidelines,” said Andrew Mente, one of the authors of a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “So why are we still scaring people about salt?”

Well, because that’s what government does best.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.” Copyright © 2015 Creators.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,471 other followers