Posts from the ‘USA Government’ Category

Why You Shouldn’t Homestead

Advertisements

Raw Milk vs. Pasteurized

A lot of people don’t drink milk for various reasons, and humans are the only animal that still drinks milk after infancy. We are also the only animal that consistently drinks the milk of another animal. Weird, right? However, if you do the dairy thing, you might be interested in this infographic comparing raw milk to pasteurized milk.

Raw-vs-Pasteurized-Milk-v2

Our Public School System: How Far is Too Far?

It is no secret to many of you that we homeschool our youngest son. The reason for this is multi-faceted. The main reason is because our son has been “diagnosed” by the school as having an “autism-spectrum disability” (he was not diagnosed by a doctor, however; the doctor concurred with us that our son was not disabled or delayed in any way), and because of this “diagnosis,” the school endeavored to have him put into a classroom in the basement of the school with no windows with children who could not speak or communicate with other people. No sunshine, no friends to play with, stunted curriculum far below his level… this is a boy who has been reading, spelling, adding and subtracting and much more since he was 3, a child who drew a complete – and correct – diagram of the internal organs on himself with a permanent marker at the age of 4 (yes, I have pictures lol) and could name every organ. He is not delayed, he is advanced. The school was either unable or unwilling to recognize this. So we pulled him out and have never regretted it.

There is another reason, however, and it is what I would like to talk about today: The school system’s continuing overreach into people’s personal lives. A perfect example is the school “diagnosing” my son with autism. The school and their employees cannot diagnose anyone with anything; they are not doctors. They have no business attaching labels to children – a label, I might add, that in our case a medical specialist did not agree with. Schools also often want to conduct home visits and myriad other things. They are the school, not the police. I homeschool specifically because I do not want or need the government or their employees in my home.

Today I read a story online about Leeza Pearson in Aurora, Colorado. Ms. Pearson sent her child to school with a packed lunch just as she does every day. The lunch consisted of a ham and cheese sandwich, string cheese and a 4-pack of Oreos. On this day, however, Ms. Pearson received a note from the Children’s Academy in Aurora, Colorado. The child was apparently prohibited from eating the Oreos because the school stated they weren’t nutritious enough.

The school also apparently sent a note home that read:

“Dear Parents, it is very important that all students have a nutritious lunch. This is a public school setting and all children are required to have a fruit, a vegetable and a heavy snack from home, along with a milk. If they have potatoes, the child will also need bread to go along with it. Lunchables, chips, fruit snacks, and peanut butter are not considered to be a healthy snack. This is a very important part of our program and we need everyone’s participation.”

The school has now backtracked on this issue, saying that no such note should have been sent home to any parent.

Aside from the obvious absurdity of insisting on potatoes and bread (two starches is healthy? OK…), what right does the school have to be involved here at all? It’s not rat poison, it’s 4 cookies. Four cookies. This is a massive overstepping of boundaries on the part of yet another government institution: the public school. This is becoming more and more common and people have got to push back against it or we may find ourselves no longer in charge of our children’s lives.

My 6 year old nephew – 6, not 16 – was sent home from school the other day because he threw a tantrum that included saying something about killing. My sister was told that she had to take him to a mental health evaluation or he could not come back to school. She was also told the school would call child protective services if she did not comply. My sister did as directed by the school. The doctor’s response? “This the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. The school needs to learn how to control a child throwing a tantrum.” Just another ridiculous overreaction from people who have no business making themselves the authority on subjects they apparently know absolutely nothing about. Do any of these people even have kids?

Take a lesson from these things, parents. Pay attention to what is going on with your children before it’s too late.

Monsanto Shill Claims Herbicide Safe to Drink But Refuses to Drink It

“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you! What? No, no… you can drink a whole quart of it, I said. Not me. I’m not an idiot.”

Government Forces 17 Year Old To Receive Chemotherapy Against Her Will

I have been watching the case of “Cassandra C.” very closely and today the Supreme Court ruled against Cassandra and her mother, stating that Cassandra does not have the right to refuse chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma. It is very important to note that Cassandra does not want to refuse all treatments, just chemotherapy. She does want to pursue and look into alternative treatments. According to an article:

Cassandra told The Associated Press in an exclusive text interview from her hospital that it disgusts her to have “such toxic harmful drugs” in her body and she’d like to explore alternative treatments. She said she understands “death is the outcome of refusing chemo” but she believes in “the quality of my life, not the quantity.”

“Being forced into the surgery and chemo has traumatized me,” Cassandra said. “I do believe I am mature enough to make the decision to refuse the chemo, but it shouldn’t be about maturity, it should be a given human right to decide what you want and don’t want for your own body.”

It is a sad development in the political climate here in America where this girl would not be considered too young to have sex, choose or refuse birth control, give birth to a child or to have an abortion, but she is considered too young to make decisions about her own body otherwise. How can she be considered legally mature enough to be responsible for another life but not her own? Where are all the feminists and other activists who would be rallying for this girl if they were taking one of those rights away?

It is also important to note here that it is not Cassandra’s mother or doctors who have brought this case against her in court to force her to get chemotherapy against her will; it is the state of Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families [DCF], which was granted temporary custody of Cassandra so they could force chemotherapy on her. The government has essentially kidnapped this girl – this woman – to force her to undergo a medical procedure she does not want.

The rest of us should pay very close attention to this case. It could easily happen to any of our families.It is a blatant violation of our rights and a direct attack against any medicine the government does not sanction.

What do you think? Has the government gone too far?

“Chemical Imbalance” is a Real Thing — Right?

You often hear someone who takes psychiatric medications say they have a chemical imbalance, or that they’ve been told they have one. Literally billions of dollars have been made selling psycho-pharmacological drugs to cure this imbalance. Millions of people take them. The problem with this is that there is really no such thing as a chemical imbalance. It doesn’t exist. You see, if it were a real thing, it could be measured. You could have a test and see which chemicals are not balanced. If someone has diabetes and their pancreas does not make enough insulin, this can be measured and proven. If someone’s body does not make enough red blood cells, this can be measured and proven. It should be the same for a chemical imbalance. However, this test does not exist.

It would also be true that if a chemical imbalance were a real thing, the same medication to correct an imbalance would work for everybody. Insulin doesn’t just sometimes not work for some people with diabetes who need insulin. It always works because the problem is measurable. This is not so with psychiatric medications. Not only do psychiatric medications not work the same for everybody, it is often not known how a psychiatric medication works inside the body at all. For example, many doctors – and patients – believe boosting serotonin levels helps fight depression. This is a very commonly-accepted medical theory. It was conceived in the 50’s and rose in popularity in the 80’s with the invention of Prozac and other medications like it. But regardless of what you’ve been told, this is not a fact. In fact, even after all this time there is still no proof of it at all and studies show that 60-70% of depressed patients do not respond to Prozac or similar drugs that boost serotonin. People are simply prescribed these medications – and ingest them – based on vogue theories, with no hard science to back them up, no idea how the drugs work, what the side- or long-term effects will be or anything else. This is dangerous and with many people on multiple medications now (often to counteract side-effects), it is no wonder that people have so many problems. This is especially true when you consider the fact that when a medication is found not to work, instead of discontinuing that medication, doctors will often just add more medication(s) to the medication(s) the person is already on.

Part of the reason the chemical imbalance theory became so popular is because doctors essentially made it up to sell drugs. Psycho-phamacological drugs to treat mental illness became much more popular and “mainstream” in the 80’s and 90’s, but people were still leery of labels due to the stigma attached to it and they were certainly unaccustomed to taking pills for something that was thought of as “all in their head.” So in order to demystify, de-stigmatize and put people at ease with taking a pill for a mental problem, doctors began making it sound as if the patient had a physical problem. Enter the chemical imbalance. This is not to say that many doctors did not wholeheartedly believe in the veracity of the chemical imbalance claim; undoubtedly many did and still do. This theory not only demystified mental illness for the patient, it demystified mental illness for doctors, too. It is supported by nothing, though.

Good health care should be about elimination first, not accession. The truth is that many so-called mental illness symptoms are caused by improper nutrition, chemical toxicity in the body, hormonal problems, reactions to environmental toxins, stress and many other things. Beforeany medication is prescribed, these things should be eliminated but they are generally never even mentioned to the patient at all. The patient is simply given pills and told to “call if there are problems.” This is very vague; patients often do not realize what these “problems” could be, or do not recognize them when they arise. Patients are not educated about side-effects or health risks when they are given prescriptions. They are certainly not told that no one (including their doctor) understands fully how these drugs interact with their bodies and that they may do more harm than good, if they even do anything at all.

The major downside to the chemical imbalance theory and the resulting popularity of treating mental problems with drugs is that psychiatrists and even family doctors have become little more than pill pushers and other therapies which actually do work and which address the root of the problem rather than just the symptoms of the problem (such as the so-called “talking cure”) have fallen by the wayside. It has become about convenience rather than cure. Doctors gain much from this. Pharmaceutical companies gain much from this. The government gains much from this. Only the patient loses.

(Reposted from our sister blog, The Little Shaman.)

The Dr. Oz Affair & Why The Govt. Wants To Shut Him Up

A discussion regarding the recent attacks on Dr. Mehmet Oz and why government brings out their mainstream media attack dogs to discredit him.

Remember that most of what he says is regarding natural cures and how eating the right foods can help you avoid or beat illness. Then you’ll know why they want to discredit and shut him up: too many people are listening to him. I have no care for him either way but this is just too obvious.

There are actually doctors in these articles implying that eating a balanced diet and certain foods cannot eliminate cancer risk, help eliminate disease or anything else. That is absolutely FALSE.

WARNING: This podcast contains foul language.

What Phil Robertson Has Taught Us

You’d have to be living under a rock not to know about the comments Phil Robertson of the wildly successful tv show Duck Dynasty made in a recent interview with GQ magazine. Mr. Robertson was asked his opinion about homosexuality, what constitutes sin in his opinion and about civil rights when he was growing up. True to form, the 67 year old patriarch answered honestly, paraphrasing scripture and in his usual blunt manner. The result has been a media firestorm.

I generally don’t pay much attention to media circuses. They are usually overblown, ridiculous and short-lived. However, this one caught my attention and not just because I like and respect Mr. Robertson very much. I am aghast that this kind of blatant discrimination can not only occur in the year 2013 but even more so that it would be defended. Phil is absolutely being discriminated against but let’s put that aside just for a moment. He was practicing free speech as well, but let’s put that aside, too. Just for a moment, while we examine something a little less difficult to see with the naked mind.

Phil Robertson is 67 years old. He was born in the bayous and backwoods of Louisiana. He has lived there his entire life. His life consists of hunting, fishing and preaching the word of God. This man does not live in the world of Progressive pleasantries and political correction. He just doesn’t. Even before this happened, that was very easy to see. To expect him to respond to such questions in any way other than exactly as he did would be naive at best and ridiculously unfair at worst.

The show is built on and centered around the conservative fundamentalist Christian values of this family. Now the patriarch is being punished for expressing these same values? That is absurd. This show has been on television for years. The Robertsons’ faith was never a secret. Indeed, it was a recurring theme and in some ways the centerpiece of every episode.

The most interesting – and exciting – thing about this to me is how it has galvanized people. People are speaking out. They are standing up. I have seen support for Phil from many gay, lesbian, bisexual and African-American people. They feel that Mr. Robertson’s First Amendment rights are being violated and that he is being discriminated against for his religious beliefs. I agree. They also feel that they have the right to live their lives as they want to and so does Mr. Robertson. I agree with that, too. The media witch hunt is being absolutely swallowed whole by the wave of support for this man. People are tired of being bullied by special interest groups and manipulated by the media. They are tired of being told how and when they should be offended, how they should react to things, what opinions they should have and most especially what it is ok to say.

I saw a comment on an article yesterday. It was the only comment I saw that was not in support of Mr. Robertson. The commenter asked (sarcastically) if the Constitution gave people the right to be racist. Another commenter answered and said simply, “Yes. It does.” And he is correct. The First Amendment protects even unsavory, offensive and obnoxious opinions. It especially protects unsavory, offensive and obnoxious opinions. Or it’s supposed to. I myself advocate Absolute Free Speech. By that I mean that I don’t think there should be any restrictions on it in any way whatsoever. None.

I am not religious but the growing disrimination against Christians is beginning to alarm me. Even those who I’ve debated with that are against Phil don’t seem to really be offended on behalf of gays. Not really. They seem to have actually been offended by the mere mention of religion. For many, it seems to be a platform for them to express their own bigoted and discriminatory views against Christians. I’m no expert but it would seem that the answer to perceived bigotry and discrimination can hardly be more bigotry and discrimination.

In the end, what we can learn from Phil Robertson has nothing to do with any of this. It has to do with how he lives and what’s important to him. He spends his time with his family, not staring at a phone. He spends time in nature, rather than staring at the tv all day. He talks to the young children and gives them guidance, moral values, advice and direction, rather than hoping somehow they learn it themselves. We can learn a lot from Mr. Robertson and his family.

When A&E began this show, I am sure they expected Americans to tune into the freakshow (think Honey Boo-boo) and laugh at the stupid rednecks. But something wonderful happened; Americans saw a real family that lived by values, who actually got along and loved each other. They saw a television show with no drinking, no drugs, no nudity or sex, not even profanity. And they loved it.

So let the firestorm rage across the internet. Let the media witch hunters tweet, blog and post their brains out. You can be sure Phil Robertson hasn’t heard a word of it.

Katie Couric Next To Be Ruined Over Truth About Vaccines?

As seen on NaturalNews.com:

Investigative journalist and television personality Katie Couric is being crucified by many of her colleagues in the mainstream media for daring to allow the truth about the notorious human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil to be discussed on national television. Following the recent airing of a segment on her show Katie, entitled “The HPV Vaccine Controversy,” the persecution became so intense that Couric caved and issued a public apology for basically just doing her job by presenting both sides of the story.

During the segment, which aired on December 4, Couric interviewed two mothers whose daughters were injured or killed following vaccination with Gardasil. One of the mothers, Emily Tarsell, talked about how her daughter Christina died in bed not long after getting vaccinated with Gardasil, which a follow-up investigation revealed to be an adverse reaction to the shot. The other mother, Rosemary Mathis, director of the HPV-truth organization SaneVax, Inc., told how her daughter developed a strange chronic illness post-Gardasil.

Couric also gave some airtime to Dr. Diane M. Harper, M.D., one of the developers of the HPV vaccine who, in the process of defending the vaccine, admitted on air that more than 70 previously healthy young girls are known to have died from neurological reactions after getting the jab. As you may recall from previous reports, Dr. Harper received funding from both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to develop the two HPV vaccines currently on the market, Gardasil and Cervarix, so it is quite telling that she would make such admissions publicly. (*Dr. Harper was in the news previously for admitting that the risks associated with the vaccine are greater than any possible us it has.)

Vaccine industry unleashes wrath on Couric for telling truth about Gardasil

It is important to note that nothing presented during the segment was in any way inaccurate or sensationalized. In fact, Couric’s bravery in presenting a side of the HPV vaccine story that is rarely, if ever, told on mainstream television is a breath of fresh air in a world choked by the fumes of industry propaganda. But Couric’s deviation from the status quo with regard to HPV vaccines — the rest of the news media would have us all believe that HPV vaccines are undeniably safe in every regard — is costing her in terms of her career and reputation.

Ridiculous headlines like “Is Katie Couric the Next Jenny McCarthy?” and “Why is Katie Couric Promoting Vaccine Skeptics?” are popping up all over the web. Some so-called news outlets are even declaring Couric’s career to be “over,” all because she made the courageous decision to give a voice to those whose families have been harmed or killed by a vaccine that even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is on record admitting does not prevent cervical cancer.

“As for efficacy, more than 100 strains of HPV exist, 30 of them are associated with cervical cancer, and the vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix) target just two types — numbers 16 and 18,” writes Maressa Brown for The Stir. “[B]ecause slow-growing cervical cancer takes ages to develop, any vaccine would need to be 100 percent effective for at least 15 years to truly prevent the disease,” she adds, noting that Gardasil admittedly loses its efficacy after just five years.

Add to this the nearly 150 deaths and more than 32,000 adverse events associated with Gardasil, and it becomes clear that Couric made the responsible choice to warn her viewers about the potential dangers associated with the vaccine. But she rustled a lot of feathers in the process, which sadly could spell the end of her career in mainstream journalism.

This is why they won’t tell you the truth. Some of them want to – I really believe that, actually – but they can’t because the entire rest of the community conspires to ruin them if they do. You might say they should just tell us the truth anyway and their careers be damned, but part of the way they are ruined is by destroying their credibility so that no one will listen to them. And they know that.

You Are What You Eat: Human Intelligence Is Slowly Declining

As seen as UndergroundHealth:

Would you be surprised to hear that the human race is slowly becoming dumber, and dumber?

Despite our advancements over the last tens or even hundreds of years, some ‘experts’ believe that humans are losing cognitive capabilities and becoming more emotionally unstable. One Stanford University researcher and geneticist, Dr. Gerald Crabtree, believes that our intellectual decline as a race has much to do with adverse genetic mutations. But human intelligence is suffering for other reasons as well.

According to Crabtree, our cognitive and emotional capabilities are fueled and determined by the combined effort of thousands of genes. If a mutation occurred in any of of these genes, which is quite likely, then intelligence or emotional stability can be negatively impacted.

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues,” the geneticist began his article in the scientific journal Trends in Genetics.

Further, the geneticist explains that people with specific adverse genetic mutations are more likely than ever to survive and live amongst the ‘strong.’ Darwin’s theory of ‘survival of the fittest’ is less applicable in today’s society, therefore those with better genes will not necessarily dominate in society as they would have in the past.

While this hypothesis does have some merit: are genes really the primary reason for the overall cognitive decline of the human race? If humans really are lacking in intelligence more than before, it’s important to recognize other possible causes. Let’s take a look at how our food system plays a role in all of this.

It’s sad, but true; our food system today is contributing to lower human intelligence across the board.

Pesticides are Diminishing Human Intelligence

One study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that pesticides, which are rampant among the food supply, are creating lasting changes in overall brain structure — changes that have been linked to lower intelligence levels and decreased cognitive function. Specifically, the researchers found that a pesticide known as chlorpyrifos (CPF) has been linked to ”significant abnormalities”. Further, the negative impact was found to occur even at low levels of exposure.

Lead researcher Virginia Rauh, a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health, summarized the findings:

“Toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning.”

Processed Foods, High Fructose Corn Syrup Making People ‘Stupid’

Following 14,000 children, British researchers uncovered the connection between processed foods and reduced IQ. After recording the children’s’ diets and analyzing questionnaires submitting by the parents, the researchers found that if children were consuming a processed diet at age 3, IQ decline could begin over the next five years. The study found that by age 8, the children had suffered the IQ decline. On the contrary, children who ate a nutrient-rich diet including fruit and vegetables were found to increase their IQ over the 3 year period. The foods considered nutrient-rich by the researchers were most likely conventional fruits and vegetables.

Interestingly, one particular ingredient ubiquitous in processed foods and sugary beverages across the globe -high fructose corn syrup – has been tied to reduced IQ. The UCLA researchers coming to these findings found that HFCS may be damaging the brain functions of consumers worldwide, sabotaging learning and memory. In fact, the official release goes as far to say that high-fructose corn syrup can make you ‘stupid’.

Gene mutations may have something to do with the ongoing decline in human intelligence, but let’s stop to think for a moment what we’re doing to ourselves to make this decline even more prominent.

 

%d bloggers like this: