Anonymous undertakes protests and other actions usually with the goal of promoting Internet freedom and Freedom of Speech; thus have set their sights on the media as well as tyrannical governments.

“You are the revolution.”

Their newest war is with the system, declaring a battle with the disinformation proliferated by cable television and any given stifling measures by countries set to keep their people uninformed.

A war against, “Those who would seek to divide us” is about to launch.

“It is time to take back the power.“

Anonymous fights for Freedom, not claiming to be patriots but putting the revolution in our hands — we are misinformed through the wealthy and powerful, corporations and governments, as they pull the strings while we become even more divided.

“Join the resistance. See you on the front lines.”

.

Anonymous targeted and successfully broke into the networks of both the Iranian and the Dubai governments, stealing more than 10,000 email messages as well as system usernames and passwords and releasing them online.

The Independent reports:

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs succumbed to a hacking attack perpetrated by Anonymous, which yielded the bulk of the email addresses. And, on Friday afternoon, a lone hacker – apparently with links to the group – struck the Dubai government’s system, releasing a “historic list of former gov.ae email passwords”, the domain used by the Arab Emirate.

While the first hack yielded around 10,000 emails, taken from the Iranian government and took control of some of its servers, the second was much smaller, including only around 100 usernames with passwords taken from the Dubai government, which are thought to be out-of-date. However, they serve to indicate the group’s reach just one day after another hacking group carried out an attack which yet again rocked Sony.

The hacktivist responsible for targeting Dubai said he had carried out the assault “because it’s time governments learn they have no power on the internet. This is our world”.

The revolution must be televised.

Facebook can now instantly identify your face out of its half a billion users worldwide.  Facebook is using this technology for its new “Tag Suggestions” feature.  The idea is that facial recognition technology will speed up the process of tagging friends and family in photos that have been posted on Facebook.

That sounds harmless enough, but the problem is that facial recognition technology has been automatically enabled for millions upon millions of Facebook users but they were never even told that the new technology would be automatically enabled on their accounts.

The following excerpt is from the blog post where Facebook officially announced this change…..

Because photos are such an important part of Facebook, we want to be sure you know exactly how tag suggestions work: When you or a friend upload new photos, we use face recognition software—similar to that found in many photo editing tools—to match your new photos to other photos you’re tagged in. We group similar photos together and, whenever possible, suggest the name of the friend in the photos.

So exactly how does this new technology function?

A recent Computerworld article explained exactly how this is going to work….

Facebook noted that starting in just a few weeks, its system will scan all photos posted to Facebook and will offer up the names of the people who appear in the frame. All of Facebook’s users are automatically being added to the database.

The facial recognition feature is automatically turned on. Users who don’t want the service must go in and manually opt out of it

So if anyone has ever posted a picture of you to Facebook, the company can now instantly identify you through the use of facial recognition technology.

That sounds a little creepy, doesn’t it?

Sadly, Facebook doesn’t seem to have much regard for our privacy these days.  Senior technology consultant Graham Cluley had the following to say about this recent change….

“Yet again, it feels like Facebook is eroding the online privacy of its users by stealth”

So what if you don’t want facial recognition technology enabled for your Facebook account?

Well, you have to manually go in and disable it.

The following video explains exactly how to opt out of the new “facial recognition” technology on Facebook….

But let’s not dump all of the blame on Facebook here.  The truth is that Google’s Picasa and Apple’s iPhoto also use facial recognition technology.

These kinds of “Big Brother” technologies are spreading and are becoming a part of the very fabric of the world in which we live.

Every single day a few more shreds of our privacy are stripped away.

Sometimes it is the government that is doing it.  Other times it is corporations that are doing it.

Either way, we are becoming more exposed all the time.

Increasingly, nearly everything that we do is being watched, tracked, traced, monitored, surveilled or controlled in some way.

For much more on how our world is slowly but surely being transformed into a “control grid”, I encourage you to check out some of the previous articles I have done on this topic….

1) “18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent To Life In U.S. Prisons”

2) “32 Signs That The Entire World Is Being Transformed Into A Futuristic Big Brother Prison Grid”

3) “Cell Phone Surveillance: Some Cell Phones Record Your Location Hundreds Of Times A Day”

4) “10 Examples That Should Convince Anyone That We No Longer Live In The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave”

If we do not stand up for privacy now, eventually we will have none left.

If we continue on the road that we are currently on, a day will come when everything we buy, everything we sell and everywhere we go will be very tightly tracked and controlled.

At some point we may have very few decisions left that are truly are own.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to end up living in some bizarre, futuristic version of George Orwell’s “1984″.

The facial recognition technology being used by Facebook is not going to change the world, but it is another small step towards a world where none of us have any privacy left.

The states do have the authority to regulate commercial activity but as you will see most of the people they are stopping are not engaged in commerce.

They always had a commercial lane but then decided to expand their operation onto the general public. ABSOLUTELY none of these laws, rules, or ordinances apply to the general public…they are for people with CDL licenses.

If you research the history of the “drivers license” you will find out they were issued to people who were engaged in COMMERCE.

Meaning, the only people that were to attain a “drivers license” were people who were “driving” using their vehicles to make money in the state. For instance, taxi cab drivers.

These inspection stations started around the 1920′s under the guise of keeping your food safe but really it was just another control mechanism.

I’m not saying no good came from them…I’m just saying that it was a means to control the flow of goods rather than keeping your food safe.

Incrementally as they gained the people trust is slowly got out of control. You don’t boil the frog all at once…you slowly turn the heat up.

With these checkpoints intact the free market was virtually gone and now a few people had the ability to control the price of food by manipulation. For instance, if an orange grower (mafia) in California wanted to increase his sales he could pay off someone at the checkpoint to keep Florida oranges from entering the state. An orange grower in Florida would (lobby) (donate) pay them to keep Texas oranges out.

“…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for “private gain.” For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

“The right to “travel” is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.

4409 — FRUIT POLICE SHOWDOWN – Introduction

4409 — FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN – PART 1

4409 — FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN – PART 2

4409 — FRUIT NAZI SHOWDOWN – PART 3

According to the several members of the Wasdin family the book published by Howard should be classified as fiction instead of non-fiction, because so many of the facts in the book appear to be made up.

The family recently has launched a campaign to clear the reputation of the authors deceased father Leon Wasdin.

“We are extremely dissapointed in Howard’s book” said Ron Wasdin, the brother of Leon Wasdin and the authors uncle. “Howard has lost respect with many people especially from his mother, sisters and all relatives.”

According to family members of Wasdin, many of the other facts in the book were made up and they are willing to stand together as a family to prove it. Here are some thoughts from the Wasdin family members:

Millie Wasdin (Howard’s Mother)

Howard weighed 5 pounds 4 ounces not 3 pounds and he did not come home in a shoe box. Not even a free clinic would allow that. Howard was not even born in a free clinic. I would never allow anyone to abuse my children even my soul mate; I would never allowed Leon to abuse my children.

Howard also did not attend kindergarten as he stated in his book. Leon took Howard in as his own child. He loved and raised his as his own. Leon always said, “The only steps in this family are at the front door.” Leon was always there for Howard and even served as his best man at his wedding to Michele.

Tammy (Howard’s Sister)

When I read the inserts of Howard E. Wasdin’s first memories of a child in chapter three, I was physically ill. We must not have grown up in the same house. My father instilled good values in me that I still carry today. He met all my needs, he provided for me physically and spiritually. I never went without anything. There was food on the table and there were always clothes to wear. I could always count on my father when I was in trouble. He loved me even when I didn’t do the right things.

Becky (Howard’s Younger Sister)

My memories of my daddy were when he took us in and adopted us, he treated us as equals. He was so proud. I remember my dad’s hands were firm when needed to be, but Howard did get away with more because he was the only boy.

I remember him doing things with us as a family. He took us to the park, and fishing and camping. He took us out to eat when we could afford going to restaurants. When I wasn’t close to home or couldn’t come home, I would call and he was the only one to talk me out of doing something stupid. Me and and my son Jeremy do love and miss him very much and I wish people that want to degrade him would just leave him alone and let him rest high on that mountain.

Steve (Howard’s Cousin)

I’ve only seen Howard get whipped once and it was for shooting someone with a BB gun, which he did deserve. The police officer actually told Uncle Leon to beat Howard for that. I never remember Uncle Leon being mean or abusive to Howard.

He would make you work, but it was not abusive. I don’t even remember seeing Uncle Leon drinking or even look at alcohol. Uncle Leon would go clip the watermelons and then we would go pick them up. Howard and I used to go swimming after working at the market. I remember getting paid for all the work we did with Uncle Leon. They would feed us while we were working too. I thought I had a good childhood with Uncle Leon.

Sue Wasdin (Howard’s Sister)

The book should be characterized as fiction. Several accounts about his childhood cannot be verified through anyone that was there at that time.

In Chp 3 he states his first memory was being four years old when his “Step Father” would come into the room after being on on a date with Howard’s mother. Smelling like alcohol, he pulled him out of bed and beat him until he tasted his own blood. This account is not substantiated by his mother, his other sister. and his Uncle Coy Kirkman and Aunt Louise Kirkman whom he lived with at the time. I can verify that I have never witnessed my father abuse anyone since the day I was born.

Leon, worked hard all his life to provide for his family. He was a modest God fearing man and lived for his family. He was brought up in a time where children learned values and respected their elders. He tried to teach these values to his children as well. He would give you the shirt off his back, but he expected his children to be respectful, responsible and work to their full potential.

My memories of the watermelon fields and having to pick up pecans are different from Howard’s. I remember he expected us to work but I also remember many jokes he would played on us and taking us to the open branch café. Afterwards we would go to the river to swim. I never remember Daddy getting a belt to us because we missed one pecan or if we didn’t work hard enough in the watermelon fields. I remember him telling us to go do it again and teaching us the right way to do a job, but he wasn’t abusive.

My father loved holidays and time together as a family. Daddy would surprise us when we were young by stopping by amusement parks and taking us to the Alligator Farm. I remember numerous camping trips, fishing trips and just drives down a dirt road. His smile and his jokes made the worst days bearable.

As a little girl I would go everywhere with him and sit on his tractor while he plowed and planted the fields. I remember as he walked and left foot prints in the sand I would jump to try to walk in his footsteps. This is still true today; I hope to be just half the parent he was. He taught me so much and always helped me when I was down. If it hadn’t been for his love and support, I don’t know if I would be here today.

These are some of the memories that differ from the book. There are also numerous others I could discredit in Howard’s book regarding his childhood. If you were to investigate you would find other information about Howard’s life that doesn’t add up. The real reason why he was asked to retire from the Seal Team and other accounts about his dishonesty and why he isn’t allowed back in Cambell County, Tenn. I am not here to bash him but I do want everyone to realize that this book is not nonfiction and should be classified as fiction.

Thanks,
Sue Wasdin

How can we be expected to set aside money, wages, and earning over our entire career through vehicles that ride along with the stock market when the market itself goes up and down faster and more frequently than most rides at Six Flags Great Adventure.

It seems that most companies expect their employees to put part of their money back into a 401k plan or IRA plan. The promise for doing this is a good return on investment, growth and you get to shelter part of your wages from taxes.

However once you put it in, the money is not yours anymore. You can’t touch it or move it without paying heavy taxes and penalties, but I suppose you can look at it.

“Just look at how much money I might have in 5 years if I don’t die, and the market doesn’t implode….nice.”

Meanwhile hedge funds and investment banks get to play around with your money through the funds you have been duped into investing in. Meanwhile, they are free to build up some companies and destroy others on a whim, in hopes of eliminating competition and consolidating power for their friends. While naturally making some money for themselves along the way.

Can you expect your money remain safe over the course of the next 20 to 50 years?

However if I just held back cash in a personal stock account or invested into real assets like gold, silver, land, property, or even put some money into ownership a local business. You could even buy a cow and have a better return and more freedom and control over your investments.

Now I am much more free to ride the markets up and down with my money, and I can move it, sell it, transfer it to whomever, whenever I want. I can tie a rope around my investment and walk it down the road if I please. This is starting to feel much more like true financial freedom.

Without full control of your money, to buy and sell, and enter and exit contracts at will, how could you expect to be safe, secure, or free.

There is however, much more risk involved when you have freedom. With real freedom comes the freedom to think and do stupid things.

“But it’s our wits that makes us men.” - Malcom Wallace from Braveheart

If you live your life in a box, insulated from every difficult decision, passing off all the choices and options on to others who would more gladly take the risks with your time and money, in exchange for the promise of a modest return at a later date. Then perhaps you do deserve to be conned, swindled and led to slaughter.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin wasn’t only talking about personal safety that we all hope to get from the Department of Homeland Security. To live truly free, you have to be able to put it all on the line. Sometimes you need to go ALL in, not just 10% over 25 years paid in 3 times a year, and matched by your employer. And God forbid, if you need to get it ALL OUT, should you really have to pay a premium to take back what used to be yours.

It makes absolutely no sense to give another penny to a group of individuals who has proved time and time again to be working solely for their own interests. A group who has been convicted of countless frauds and who has gambled away lifetimes worth of money.

What they know, that you don’t are the rules to the game. The economy works like a casino. Given enough time the house always wins. The trick is keeping you entertained long enough to let the house suck you dry, while giving you the impression that you are actually winning something.

Guaranteed, the individuals managing the funds you invest have never stepped foot in the city or state where the money came from.

When you invest into large money markets, pensions, or lifetime retirement funds you are willingly transporting your money out of the place where it came from and into the accounts of Wall Street money managers. Who will no doubt lend it back to your municipality at interest when your local tax revenues fall short of the budget. Thanks for the “bailout”.

However, taking control of you money is dangerous. Like the first time you hold a gun in your hand. All of a sudden you have an enormous power to suddenly create, or destroy. You could become rich, or you could lose everything, but hopefully somewhere in the middle. With great power comes even greater responsibility, but there is no nation of people that has ever earned their freedom while sitting on the sidelines.

Money is more than just means to move through life. It’s a representation of your time and labor. Every dollar you earn is a piece of your life spent to obtain it. It belongs to you, your family, and your community. You should not give even one penny away without careful consideration for who it goes to and what it means to you, because its much more just a penny. It’s minutes and seconds of your life that you can never get back.

When you pass on, you can leave behind some remnants of a market fund thats been taxed 50% and divided up after fee’s and etc. Or you maybe just leave behind Betsy the Cow, I’d like to see them try to come take half then.

Buy something real, while you still can.

Some of the doctors said the main reason was their exam tables or other equipment can’t handle people over a certain weight. But at least six said they were trying to avoid obese patients because they have a higher risk of complications.

“People don’t realize the risk we’re taking by taking care of these patients,” said Dr. Albert Triana, whose two-physician practice in South Miami declines patients classified as obese. “There’s more risk of something going wrong and more risk of getting sued. Everything is more complicated with an obese patient in GYN surgeries and in [pregnancies].”

Plantation ob-gyn partners Jeffrey Solomon and Isabel Otero-Echandi turn down any woman weighing more than 250 pounds.

Solomon and Otero don’t want to begin seeing heavy women and then have to send them to specialists if they later develop problems, said their office manager, who asked not to be named. The two doctors, like several of the others with weight cutoffs, declined to comment.

“This is not a high-risk practice,” the office manager said. “They are not experts in obesity.”

Turning down overweight people is not illegal for doctors, but the policy worried leaders of physician groups, medical ethics experts and advocates for the obese, all of whom said it violates the spirit of the medical profession.

“If I had that policy, I wouldn’t have a practice. I’d lose half my patients,” said Dr. Maureen Whelihan, a West Palm Beach ob-gyn. “We never turn down anyone. We would see them, and if we had to, we would refer them to a specialist.”

Leaders of eight local, state and national medical associations said they had never heard of doctors turning away patients solely because of weight. Several said obese people with no other health issues do not need special treatment.

“No doctor should be unable to treat patients just because they are heavy,” said Dr. Bruce Zafran, a Coral Springs ob-gyn.

So far, the weight cutoffs have been enacted only by South Florida ob-gyns, who have long complained of high numbers of lawsuits after difficult births and high rates for medical-malpractice insurance. More than half go without coverage.

Ob-gyns for years have declined to see pregnant women who are overweight, typically sending them to specialists. It’s new for them to turn down overweight women who are not pregnant, physician groups said.

Several ob-gyn offices said their ultrasound machines do not give good images of internal anatomy in obese women, making it harder to diagnose some medical problems.

The Plantation office manager said weight limits are not uncommon at offices owned, like hers, by the Coconut Grove medical services company VitalMD.

VitalMD treasurer Kerry Kuhn, an ob-gyn in Coral Springs, said he was unaware of his doctors setting weight limits, adding the company has nothing to do with doctor decisions.

“This is individual choice by a doctor,” Kuhn said. “Doctors know who they want to treat.”

Physicians, like any business, can decline service to whomever they choose for any reason — including personality conflicts — as long as it’s not discriminatory. The American Medical Association advises doctors that they cannot reject patients because of race, gender, sexual orientation or infectious diseases.

Doctors also are allowed to drop patients, if they believe they lack the medical skills to properly treat them. They must send notices and refer them to other doctors.

But decisions about patients typically are made after assessing the individual’s condition during an exam, not by ruling out an entire group, said Dr. Robert Yelverton, a board member of the Florida Obstetric and Gynecologic Society. He said he would discourage physicians from excluding the obese.

“Do I think it’s a good policy? No,” Yelverton said. “Overweight people need doctors. I don’t know where a patient in that situation would go if every practice had that policy.”

The AMA and the ob-gyn group declined to comment on doctors setting weight limits. A spokesman for the Obesity Action Coalition in Tampa said the restrictions sound like discrimination.

“This completely goes against the principles of being a doctor,” James Zervios said. “Health care professionals are there to help individuals improve their quality of health, not stigmatize them according to their weight.”

Called the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011 (PDF), the bill would create a “universal legal obligation” for companies to honor users’ opt-out requests on the Internet and mobile devices, and would give the Federal Trade Commission the power to take action against companies that don’t comply.

“Recent reports of privacy invasions have made it imperative that we do more to put consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to their personal information,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “I believe consumers have a right to decide whether their information can be collected and used online. This bill offers a simple, straightforward way for people to stop companies from tracking their movements online.”

According to the bill, the FTC would be tasked with coming up with standards for companies to implement within a year of the bill being signed into law. After a user makes a request to stop being tracked, the companies in question would only be able to continue collecting certain information on customers if it’s absolutely necessary in order for the site or service to function. That information must still be anonymized or destroyed after its usefulness expires, and the user must still give explicit consent for the information to be used that way.

Companies that violate the guidelines will have to answer to the FTC and state attorneys general—these groups will be able to pursue violators with civil penalties, and the FTC would be able to take it a step further by pursuing them under the FTC Act. The FTC would even be able to go after nonprofits for Do Not Track violations, despite those groups being generally exempt under the FTC Act.

Positive reaction from privacy groups

Privacy groups seem impressed with the bill, pointing out that the FTC has a good deal of flexibility in tailoring a persistent opt-out mechanism. “This legislation would give Americans the right and the right tools to browse the Internet without their every click being tracked,” Consumer Protection director Susan Grant said on a call to discuss the bill after it was introduced. Chris Calabrese from the ACLU agreed, describing the bill as “a crucial civil liberties protection for the twenty-first century.” Privacy Rights Clearinghouse founder Beth Givens said she was “very pleased” that Rockefeller introduced the bill, describing it as an “important step in the right direction.”

The reaction from these groups is markedly different than their reaction to the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 introduced by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) last month. There are a number of differences between the two bills—the Kerry and McCain bill does not have any provisions for a Do Not Track mechanism, and gives the Commerce Department more power than privacy advocates are comfortable with.

“It is important to note that the Commerce Department—as it should—primarily seeks to promote the interests of business. It is not, nor should it be expected to be, the primary protector of consumers’ interests,” Consumer Watchdog, the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Privacy Times wrote in a letter following the introduction of Kerry and McCain’s bill. “Commerce, therefore, must not have the lead role in online privacy.”

Of course, the final details for how companies are supposed to comply with the guidelines of Rockefeller’s bill have yet to be hammered out, but the privacy groups seemed optimistic that the FTC could handle the burden. After all, the FTC itself has been pushing for a Do Not Track mechanism online since 2010, and the Obama administration has voiced its support for some kind of “consumer privacy bill of rights.” Also, three of the four major browsers (Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari) either already support or will soon support Do Not Track opt-out headers originally developed by Mozilla, giving the FTC an easier launching point.

“This is a moment whose time has come,” said Consumer Watchdog’s Jamie Court.

We Americans, and ever more of the global population — eat too much sugar, and eating too much sugar is bad for us. (“Too much” of anything is bad for us, hence the name.)

One of the reasons we eat too much sugar is because high-fructose corn syrup can be derived inexpensively from subsidized corn. An inexpensive sugar source makes it economical for food manufacturers to add copious amounts of sugar to our diets. The more sugar we get, the more we eat, and the more we want. So high-fructose corn syrup is an important reason we eat too much sugar, and eating too much sugar is bad for us. That, in turn, is why high-fructose corn syrup is bad for us; because it contributes to our excessive sugar intake. What makes HFCS bad is far more about quantity, than quality.

Qualitatively, HFCS and table sugar — sucrose — are all but identical, both biochemically and metabolically. Sucrose is comprised of pairings of glucose and fructose in a 1:1 ratio. HFCS can have a bit more fructose than glucose, or vice versa, but averages out very close to that same 1:1. Swapping out sugar for HFCS, or the opposite, is a lateral move — and not one for which food manufacturers deserve any credit or thanks.

That’s just about the whole story, stripped of any sugar coating.

Since my recent post on sugar, I’ve “enjoyed” comments from many of you; learned lots of new things about hummingbirds; entered an ongoing and spirited dialogue with Dr. Robert Lustig I look forward to continuing; shared in a briefer and slightly-less-cordial exchange with Gary Taubes; and have had cause to rethink my indulgence in literary flourishes.

The take-away messages here are too important to get lost in a sauce of hummingbirds and breast milk.

All nutritionists of any standing recognize that an excess of sugar is among the cardinal problems of the typical American diet (and other diets resembling it around the world). I know of virtually no nutrition or health professionals who fail to recognize this.

Further, formal guidance to limit intake of added sugar is provided by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans; the Dietary Reference Intakes of the Institute of Medicine; the World Health Organization; the American Dietetic Association; the American Diabetes Association; the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association; the American Academy of Pediatrics; and just about everybody else.

So there is nothing remotely newsworthy in noting that an excess of sugar is harmful. To get headlines on this topic, you have to be more provocative than that. Others say sugar is bad — maybe news can be made by claiming that sugar is poison, whether or not it’s true. (Since sugar, in the form of glucose, is manufactured by our bodies and circulates in our blood, labeling it ‘poison’ is intrinsically problematic.)

Dr. Lustig, in his video and his published work, emphasizes the unique potential harms of fructose as opposed to sugar in general. Leaving aside the legitimacy of the case against fructose, the question arises: how is it relevant? Much of the sugar in the food supply is either sucrose, or high-fructose corn syrup. They may sound very different, but as noted above, they are not. Both are roughly half fructose.

As for fructose on its own, it’s found in fruit, which is clearly not a problem, and fruit juice, which can be when consumed in excess, but is much less of a problem than soda. So then, on what basis is there an indictment of fructose to be made?

Hard on the heels of all this sugary hullabaloo came a report in the Journal of Consumer Research telling us this:

“…’healthy’ consumers who strive to eat a wholesome and healthy diet may become so focused on trying to eat well that they become more likely to choose unhealthy foods that are labelled as healthy. ”

I have seen this many times, so it comes as no surprise to me. In fact, the very notion that more nutritious foods inevitably cost more is actually urban legend, propagated by food labeling. Food that claims to be, or implies it is, more nutritious, reliably does cost more — because the shopper seeking out better nutrition is willing to spend more to get it. But often, perhaps more often than not, such food is more expensive, and less nutritious! Talk about adding insult to injury.

This is not merely my opinion; we’ve studied it. Using objective criteria to distinguish more from less nutritious foods, we found no net difference in price.

We have also seen, in the course of applying the NuVal scoring system to roughly 100,000 foods, innumerable examples where the product implying better nutrition on the basis of one nutrient attribute has lesser nutritional quality overall. One prime example of this is low-fat peanut butter, from which a bit of healthy oil is removed, and to which a lot of sugar and salt are added. On the NuVal scale, regular peanut butter scores a 20 on average; low-fat peanut butter scores a lamentable 7. Another example was a “1/3 less sugar” cereal, that did have less sugar- but also less fiber, more sodium, more trans fat, more starch, and poorer overall nutrition! A clear example of the dangers in vesting all dietary ills in any one nutrient.

Then, of course, there is the recent history of diet trends. We just cut fat, and got fatter and sicker because our diet quality did not improve. We just cut carbs, and repeated the folly. We might, now, just cut sugar, or fructose, and play it again, Sam. The ONAAT fallacy is a real and recurrent threat.

You might well find the case against sugar convincing. But T. Colin Campbell makes a similarly compelling case against animal protein. I recently had a discussion with Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn at a conference at the Cleveland Clinic, and he showed every sign of having as elaborate an argument prepared against lecithin.

If there are multiple contenders for the single nutrient that is public health enemy #1, the logical conclusion is that none is. If researchers who focus on alternative metabolic pathways can use them to indict alternative nutrients as causes of epidemic obesity and related chronic disease, it strongly suggests that no one such indictment may be taken too seriously. We should round up all of the usual suspects!

The reality has always been, and remains, that the overall quality of our foods, and our diets, is what matters to our health. Competing theories about which bad thing is worst, or which good thing is best about our diets have long distracted us, and may simply forestall progress in a favorable direction.

Let’s not let that happen…again.

Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org

Sales of all herbal remedies, except for a small number of popular products for ‘mild’ illness such as echinacea for colds and St John’s Wort for depression have been banned.

For the first time traditional products must be licensed or prescribed by a registered herbal practitioner.

Both herbal remedy practitioners and manufacturers fear they could be forced out of business as a result.

Some of the most commonly used products were saved after the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley approved a plan for the Health Professions Council to establish a register of practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal medicines.

However, many remedies were lost as it was only open to those who could afford the licensing process which costs between £80,000 to £120,000.

At least 50 herbs, including horny goat weed (so-called natural Viagra), hawthorn berry, used for angina pain, and wild yam will no longer be stocked in health food shops, says the British Herbal Medicine Association.

The 2004 EU directive demands that a traditional herbal medicinal product must be shown to have been in use for 30 years in the EU – or at 15 years in the EU and 15 years elsewhere – for it to be licensed.

The UK drug safety watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency, has issued more than a dozen alerts in the past two years, including a warning last month over a contaminated weight loss pill called Herbal Flos Lonicerae (Herbal Xenicol) due to concerns over possible side-effects.

Mr Lansley, in a written statement, said the Government wanted to ensure continuing access to unlicensed herbal medicines via a statutory register for practitioners ‘to meet individual patient needs’.

Acupuncture falls outside the EU directive and so remains unaffected.

Prince Charles, a long-standing supporter of complementary therapies, has voiced his support for formal regulation of herbal practitioners.

Up til now the industry has been covered by the 1968 Medicines Act. This was drawn up when only a small number of herbal remedies were available.

But recent studies show that at least six million Britons have used a herbal medicine in the past two years.

Professor George Lewith, professor of health research at Southampton University, said: ‘Evidence for the efficacy of herbal medicines is growing; they may offer cheap, safe and effective approaches for many common complaints.’

The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.

Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.

It’s a requirement that was tacked onto the law during the bitter debates over it last year.

The letter from Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informs medical providers and administrators that they should begin letting patients know before the new program kicks in this July.

“This is absurd,” said Glen Kline, a former NYPD emergency services officer. “It’s silly. It’s stupid. It’s asinine.”

“It’s comical at best, and I think it’s an insult to everyone who worked on The Pile and is sick and suffering from 9/11,” said John Feal, a former construction worker who lost half a foot at Ground Zero and runs the advocacy group Fealgood Foundation.

The provision was added in an amendment by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) during the heated debate over the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last May.

Sept. 11 responders in the committee room at the time mostly shook their heads at the move, which Democrats accepted on a voice vote after battling to bar other amendments on abortion and immigration that might have killed the bill.

But suddenly the point is no longer just a strategic concession to get a law passed.

As doctors and administrators begin acting on the federal instructions, participants in the 9/11 treatment and monitoring programs will soon be told that their names, places of birth, addresses, government ID numbers and other personal data will be provided to the FBI to ensure they are not terrorists.

Howard’s instructions include a sample letter to responders designed to minimize alarm.

“Although neither we nor [the Centers for Disease Control]/NIOSH anticipate the name of any individual in the current Programs will be on the list, CDC/NIOSH is expressly required by law to implement this particular requirement of the Act,” it says.

“Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to working with you and ensuring that you continue to receive uninterrupted services under the new WTC Health Program,” it concludes.

Feal, who counts hundreds of first responders in his foundation’s membership, predicted the letters would not go over well.

“When cops and firefighters get this at home, they’re going to hit the roof,” he said.

Kline, who sits on the Fealgood Foundation’s board, said he personally wasn’t offended, but couldn’t think of a good reason for cops and firefighters to be screened by the FBI in order to keep getting treatment.

“I mean, who are we even talking about — the undocumented workers who cleaned the office buildings?” wondered Kline Thursday. “We know who all the cops, firefighters and construction workers were. They’re all documented.

“Is the idea that a terrorist stayed to help clean up? And then stayed all these years to try and get benefits?” he asked. “In all the things I’ve seen out of Washington, this probably takes the cake.”

Some are more understanding.

“Do we want terrorists getting money? No,” said Anthony Flammia, a former NYPD Highway Patrol officer and Sept. 11 responder. “How do you know if there were any terrorists there? Were they there as observers, watching? Probably.”

But he noted that his perspective likely would not be shared, especially if people whose names are similar to actual terror suspects get flagged, as happens with air travelers.

“I’ve got nothing to hide, so it’s no big deal for me, but there’s got to be safeguards in place to protect the people who are innocent,” Flammia said. “It’s going to be controversial,” he added. “It’s probably going to create an uproar, but I think it will dissipate. I hope they’re ready to answer people’s questions.”

Congressman Stearns said in a statement that his intent was to answer exactly the questions raised by Flammia.

“This amendment was adopted in the full Energy and Commerce Committee without opposition and it merely requires that the names of those receiving health benefits be cross-checked with the terrorist watch list to ensure that no terrorists get these benefits,” Stearns said.

“These benefits are not just for our first responders; nearly anyone who was in the vicinity or worked on a cleanup crew afterward is eligible,” he noted.

The prohibition is included in two parts of the bill. One specifically covers responders, while the other deals with all survivors, including office workers, bystanders and residents.

Feal acknowledged that the terrorist screening has to be done because it is the law, and that the letters have to go out.

But he holds Stearns responsible, as well as several other Republicans who were hostile to the 9/11 bill, and tried to tack all manner of amendments onto it.

“I think Congressman Stearns is stabbing at pettiness. He’s a buffoon,” Feal said. “We get sicker and die, and they’re going to disseminate a letter wondering whether we’re terrorists or not. … I think everybody needs to start showing a little more compassion.”

The Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) made by Cellebrite can extract data off 95% of cell phones on the market. It can also grab GPS information from units in most vehicles. According the company’s profile[PDF], the UFED is stand-alone gadget designed for “recovery and analysis” used by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, military and governments across the world in 60 different countries.

The ACLU of Michigan has been trying to get more information to determine if the Michigan State Police (MSP) are using these gadgets to “violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches if a warrant is not issued.” Back in 2008, after the ACLU filed the first FOIA request for logs, reports and records of use, the MSP said Okay but it will cost $544,680 to retrieve and assemble the documents to disclose how five of the devices were being used. The MSP wanted $272,340 deposit before showing the ACLU documents. After sending 70 different FOIA requests in November, narrowing the time period and the UFED models, the ACLU was told no documents existed with that criteria. It’s like a endlessly expensive and unfruitful fishing expedition for information.

There are many different UFED models, but most can access current or past phone lock codes,access any deleted data, or as stated on the company’s website for the UFED Physical Analyzer 2.0, it can decode chat, email, instant messages, call logs, text messages, web bookmarks and history, Facebook contacts, Skype contacts/calls/chats, photos, videos . . . pretty much whatever you have on your phone. Besides those forensic features, the UFED Ruggedized model can also clone a SIM Card when it is PIN locked or when “SIM is not available.”

The ACLU of Michigan sent this letter [PDF] to the MSP which included the statements, “Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide. No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure.”

The smarter and more powerful our technology gets, the more intelligence agencies will want ways to exploit it. Such mobile forensic devices could be utilized by thieves who might get their hands on lost or stolen phones. A smart phone is like a little laptop packed full of personal details. If those details are being extracted just to see if the person is suspicious of anything, then that violates our Fourth Amendment rights. If UFED can basically scrape all the data in under a couple minutes, then it may be tempting to authorities with voyeuristic tendencies.

Some feds are predisposed to voyeurism. For example, the FBI gathered evidence of insider trading by intercepting more than 1,000 phone calls of former Galleon Group trader Craig Drimal. New York District Judge Sullivan “scolded” FBI investigators for “voyeuristic intrusion” while eavesdropping on private, intimate calls between Drimal and his wife, reported the Galveston County Daily News. The FBI should have stopped listening and hung up once it was clear that the phone calls were not related to their investigation. Despite the 10-page ruling which criticized the government for failing to stop listening during privileged, non-pertinent calls, the judge did not allow the wiretap evidence to be suppressed. “Given the wiretap’s scope and the substantial manpower needed to sustain it, the Court concludes that, on the whole, the wiretap was professionally conducted and generally well-executed,” Sullivan wrote.

PogoWasRight’s Dissent makes an excellent point that also crossed my mind. The “judge may be troubled by it, but there really doesn’t seem to be an adverse consequences to the prosecution.”

Image Credit: Cellebrite Brochure [PDF]

The concerns relate to an artificial brown colouring agent that the researchers say could be causing thousands of cancers.

‘The caramel colouring used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other foods is contaminated with two cancer-causing chemicals and should be banned,’ said the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a health lobby group based in Washington, DC.

‘In contrast to the caramel one might make at home by melting sugar in a saucepan, the artificial brown colouring in colas and some other products is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulphites under high pressure and temperatures.

‘Chemical reactions result in the formation of two substances known as 2-MI and 4-MI which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukaemia in laboratory mice or rats.’

America’s National Toxicology Program says that there is ‘clear evidence’ that both 2-MI and 4-MI are animal carcinogens, and therefore likely to pose a risk to humans.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found significant levels of 4-MI in five brands of cola.

The executive director of the CSPI, Michael F Jacobson, has petitioned America’s food regulator, the Food & Drug Administration, to take action.He said: ‘Carcinogenic colourings have no place in the food supply, especially considering that their only function is a cosmetic one.’

Mr Jacobson said the name ‘caramel colouring’ does not accurately describe the additives, explaining: ‘It’s a concentrated dark brown mixture of chemicals that simply does not occur in nature.’

He added that while regular caramel could not be described as healthy, ‘at least it is not tainted with carcinogens’.

U.S. regulations distinguish between four types of caramel colouring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. The CSPI wants the two made with ammonia to be banned and has received backing from five prominent cancer experts, including several who have worked at the National Toxicology Program.

The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulphite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulphites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods.

The CSPI admitted that any risk associated with consumption of the chemicals would be extremely small. It said the ten teaspoons of sugar found in a can of regular cola would be more of a health problem.

However, it argued the levels of 4-MI in the tested colas still may be causing thousands of cancers in the U.S. population alone.

Earlier this week, it was claimed that Coca-Cola’s secret recipe had been leaked. It was even suggested it might be possible to recreate the taste and look on the kitchen table.

The leak claims were denied by the company, where a spokesman said: ‘Many third parties have tried to crack our secret formula. Try as they might, they’ve been unsuccessful because there is only one “Real Thing”.’

Coca-Cola and Pepsi did not respond to a request for a response to the CSPI claims.

This morning Coca-Cola rejected the CSPI’s concerns.

A spokesman said: ‘Our beverages are completely safe. CSPI’s statement irresponsibly insinuates that the caramel used in our beverages is unsafe and
maliciously raises cancer concerns among consumers.

‘This does a disservice to the very public for which CSPI purports to serve.

‘Studies show that the caramel we use does not cause cancer.’

The company said its drinks do not contain 2-MEI. It said they do contain 4-MEI in trace amounts.

It said: ‘These extrapolations by CSPI to human health and cancer are totally unfounded.’

They have said that their organic tomato subsidiary, Muir Glen, will being to use the new can liners during the next harvest.

Thus far, there has been no word on whether General Mills will use BPA-free alternatives on any of its other canned products, but the report mentioned that they have not found BPA alternatives that will work for all of the different foods they package in cans.

BPA has been connected to a range of health concerns like cancer, developmental problems and reproductive issues in laboratory tests. Some states and cities in the U.S. have banned its use in certain products, primarily in items for young children that will come into contact with food. Many companies have voluntarily removed BPA from their products or required suppliers to provide BPA-free options.

The chemical is found in numerous products, but its use in hard plastics and plastic liners in metal cans have been of primary concern because in those cases it can more easily leach into foods and, in turn, into people’s bodies.

Muir Glen started using the BPA cans over this summer, but the company does not have plans to label the cans as BPA free.

They did however release this statement:

“One alternative has proven safe and viable in our processing of tomatoes – and Muir Glen has begun the transition to cans with liners that do not use BPA with this year’s tomato harvest. It is an approved non-epoxy alternative. Can coatings used by Muir Glen also comply fully with all applicable U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for safe use in food contact applications. The BPA free cans will have a Better If Used By code date year of 2013.”

If you want to support the use of BPA free cans you can look for the Muir Glen’s Organic Tomatoes to be labeled in the cans “Best Used by 2013″

Florida is among several states now holding what military style “no refusal” checkpoints. Something you would expect more to see in Iraq or Afghanistan, not your local town.

With an influx of federal money into the cities from the Dept. of Homeland Security, city police across the states are increasingly holding large DUI checkpoints.

At a “no refusal” checkpoint if you choose to refuse an on-site breath test during one of the random stops made, an on-site judge issues a warrant that allows police to draw blood from your arm right on the side of the road.

“In the past, police routinely asked suspected drunk drivers to blow into devices that extrapolated their blood’s alcohol content from their breath. Now, authorities in most states are taking blood, by force if necessary.“

Not everyone is on board, though. Some states and lawmakers have challenge the checkpoints and blood taking, and one New Hampshire judge has ruled them Un-Constitutional.

DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of rights saying,

“It’s a slippery slope and it’s got to stop somewhere,” Hayslett explained, “what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?”

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

“Now you’ve got attorneys telling their clients, don’t blow, don’t blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they’re not operating as the state or the government says they’re supposed to operate,” said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

“We don’t want to violate people’s civil rights. That’s the last thing we want to do, but we’re here to save lives,” Unfried said.

However many others still feel that it is unnecessary, intimidating, and perhaps goes too far.

People should feel secure in their travel and not be subjected to random searches and submissions, be it on the road, on a train, an airplane terminal, or inside their own house.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.

U.S. History or Searches and Seizures

In Colonial America legislation was explicitly written to enforce English revenue gathering policies.

Until 1750, all handbooks for justices of the peace, the issuers of warrants, contained or described only general warrants.

William Cuddihy, Ph.D. in his dissertation entitled The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, claims there existed a “colonial epidemic of general searches.” According to him, until the 1760s, a “man’s house was even less of a legal castle in America than in England” as the authorities possessed almost unlimited power and little oversight.

Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became precedent for the Fourth Amendment:

Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One Person’s Experience At A DUI Checkpoint

The 20-mile stretch along the Arkansas River where an estimated 100,000 drum fish were found washed ashore and floating looks much different now.

Investigators from local and state agencies took samples from the affected area. Stephens says fish kills occur every year, but the magnitude of this one is unusual, and disease could be the cause.

A pollutant would have affected cross species. Stephens says, “Ninety-nine percent of them were Drum, which is a bottom feeder. It’s not a game fish in Arkansas.”

The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission is also investigating thousands of dead birds in Beebe, Ar. about 100 miles down-river from Ozark.

About 2,000 black birds fell from the sky off Windwood Drive just before New Years.

Stephen Bryant recalls, “Millions, millions fly over every night. You look up at the sky and it’s just black and then last night at about 10:30 I came out here and saw a bird drop.”

In a matter of hours on New Years Eve thousands of birds fell from the sky to their death.

He mystery is unraveling like scenes from a movie, dozens of U.S. Environmental Services crews spent the day picking up the birds, walking between homes and climbing on roofs with protective hazmat suits and breathing masks,.

Charles Boldrey stands outside watching the crews, “Nobody knows, I asked these guys who are out here picking them up and they don’t seem to know anything. Nobody seems to know anything. It just kind of freaked everybody out.”

There are a variety of dead black birds, mostly red winged and a duck was also found.

Katherina Yancy with Today’s THV found one bird still living. It was confused, injured, continuously walked in circles and didn’t make a sound or attempt to fly.

Bryant says, “Something out of a movie and Hazmat people are walking around not telling us anything.”

Rowe said that it didn’t appear as though the birds died of any poisoning or other event. “Since it only involved a flock of blackbirds and only involved them falling out of the sky it is unlikely they were poisoned, but a necropsy is the only way to determine if the birds died from trauma or toxin,” she said. Testing will begin on Monday.

“I’ve been to Iraq and back and not seen nothing like this,” Beebe resident Jeff Drennan told local Fox16 News on Sunday.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The rights group submitted their report this week, titled “Torture not Treatment: Electric Shock and Long-Term Restraint in the United States on Children and Adults with Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Center,” after an in-depth investigation revealed use of restraint boards, isolation, food deprivation and electric shocks in efforts to control the behaviors of its disabled and emotionally troubled students.

Findings in the MDRI report include the center’s practice of subjecting children to electric shocks on the legs, arms, soles of feet and torso — in many cases for years — as well as some for more than a decade. Electronic shocks are administered by remote-controlled packs attached to a child’s back called a Graduated Electronic Decelerators (GEI).

The disabilities group notes that stun guns typically deliver three to four milliamps per shock. GEI packs, meanwhile, shock students with 45 milliamps — more than ten times the amperage of a typical stun gun.

A former employee of  the center told an investigator, “When you start working there, they show you this video which says the shock is ‘like a bee sting’ and that it does not really hurt the kids. One kid, you could smell the flesh burning, he had so many shocks. These kids are under constant fear, 24/7. They sleep with them on, eat with them on. It made me sick and I could not sleep. I prayed to God someone would help these kids.”

Noting that it believes United States law fails to provide needed protections to children and adults with disabilities, MDRI calls for the immediate end to the use of electric shock and long-term restraints as a form of behavior modification or treatment and  a ban on the infliction of severe pain for so-called therapeutic purposes.

“Torture as treatment should be banned and prosecuted under criminal law,” the report states.

The U.S. Department of Justice opened a “routine investigation” of the center in February of this year in response to a September 2009 letter signed by 31 disability organizations claiming that the center violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Judge Rotenberg CEO and founder Dr. Matthew L. Israel began his first program in California back in 1977. In 1981, a 14-year old boy died face down, tied to his bed, while living in the California center.  Dr. Israel was not held responsible for the death. After an investigation by the State of California, Israel relocated to Rhode Island, and then to Massachusetts, where his facility still operates today.

Mother Jones magazine published an extensive investigative report on the Rotenberg Center in 2007 titled “School of Shock.” Reporter Jennifer Gonnerman asked, “How many times do you have to zap a child before it’s torture?”

Children at the Judge Rotenberg Center are often shackled, restrained and secluded for months at a time, the report says.  Social isolation, and food deprivation as forms of punishment are common.  Mock and threatened stabbings — to forcibly elicit unacceptable behaviors resulting in electric shock punishments (Labeled as Behavioral Research Lessons or BRLs, by the center) were reported to MDRI as well as state regulatory bodies.

A former student of the center reportedly tells MDRI, “The worst thing ever was the BRLs. They try and make you do a bad behavior and then they punish you. The first time I had a BRL, two guys came in the room and grabbed me – I had no idea what was going on. They held a knife to my throat and I started to scream and I got shocked. I had BRLs three times a week for stuff I didn’t even do. It went on for about six months or more. I was in a constant state of paranoia and fear. I never knew if a door opened if I would get one. It was more stress than I could ever imagine. Horror.”

Behaviors that the center deemed “aggressive,” as well as those considered “minor,” or “non-compliant” — such as raising one’s hand without permission — are all considered punishable by electric shocks, restraints, and other punishments to students.

“One girl who was blind, deaf and non-verbal was moaning and rocking,” a former teacher says in the report. “Her moaning was like a cry. The staff shocked her for moaning. Turned out she had broken a tooth. Another child had an accident in the bathroom and was shocked.”

The rights group investigation found that the Rotenberg center is the only known facility in the United States, “Or perhaps the world,”  that employs the use of electricity, long-term restraints and other punishments to deliberately inflict pain upon its children and then refer to it as “treatment.” The electric shocks alone are cited as having possible long-term effects such as muscle stiffness, impotence, damage to teeth, scarring of the skin, hair loss, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), severe depression, chronic anxiety, memory loss and sleep disturbances.

The MDRI report states that more than any other source for its information, they relied upon information readily obtained from the Judge Rotenberg Center’s own website.

In response to MDRI’s report, the Judge Rotenberg Center said, “There is no credible evidence that for these most severe forms of behavior disorders, there is any pharmacological or psychological treatment that can effectively treat these students or even keep them safe. JRC is the only program willing to address the reality of these children’s disorders and endure the political firestorm in order to save these children and give them an education and a future.”

The complete rebuttal from the center can be read in full at JRC’s website.

Despite these risks I took a chance and filled out the forms. The current climate here in the US has given me some serious concerns about the safety of the U.S. Dollar and my investments in the stock market. I felt like I needed to protect my savings with something I could physically put my hands on like gold or silver.

Within 2 weeks I received my Investors Kit along with only one or two emails, one confirming my sign-up and another monthly newsletter.

I was blown away by the quality of the Free Investor’s Kit. It came in a large envelope packed full of papers and information. Inside was a folder with several high quality full color pages printed on High Gloss paper and several brochures and documents with all the information that YOU NEED TO KNOW.

What Comes In The Goldline Free Investors Pack?

1. Precious Metals and Rare Coins Investors Guide

Tables of Contents:
I: Introduction to Precious Metals
II: Advantages of Owning Gold & Silver
III: Most Popular Coins & Products
IV: Why Investors & Collectors Choose Goldline
V: How To Acquire Precious Metals & Rare Coins

2. Coin Facts For Investors and Collectors to Consider

Facts, risks, and policies collectors should know:
Diversification, Holding Period, IRA Accounts, Buy Back Policy, Delivery, Storage, Risks In Precious Metal Investing, Pricing, Bullion Purchases, Exchange Transactions, Refund Policy

3. Account and Storage Agreement Information

Any and everything you need to know about Goldline International’s Terms and Conditions.

4. One-Time Special Offer Coupon for Free Shipping on my order.

5. Complimentary Issue of The American Advisor Newsletter
Goldline’s newsletter, American Advisor, provides timely news and information about our economy, precious metals and rare coins. The Investor’s Kit also included an offer for 1 Year Free subscription to the American Advisor.

Listen to the American Advisor Radio Podcast Here.

6. Pre-Paid FedEX Air Mail Envelope

7. Vintage Copy of 1933 Executive Order Gold Confiscation Act.

Under Executive Order Of The President issued April 5, 1933 all persons are required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all GOLD COINS, GOLD BULLION, AND GOLD CERTIFICATES now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, brand or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System.

8. Personalized Letter written to me from my Goldline Account Executive.

How was the customer service at Goldline?

About a week after receiving my Goldline Investors Kit I got the first phone call. Normally I don’t pick-up unknown phone numbers so I let it go to voicemail. It was from the same acount executive that left his business card in my free investors kit.

He was polite and basically said:

Hi John, we’ve got your phone number here because you requested some information online. I’d love to get a chance to talk with you about how we can help you with your investments at Goldline. Give me call back at this number…

It was a short message and not too pushy. I actually did not call them back right away, but my account executive called me two more times in the span of about 2 weeks and left a message each time. After that I did not hear back from him again.

Overall I would say that they were very professional and courteous. I was afraid to give out my ‘real’ phone number, but you can trust not to have problems with Goldline.

How Can I Get A Free Goldline Investors Pack?

1. Call Goldline at 1-800-827-4653 to speak with a Account Exec.

2. Sign up in the Gold investment section

3. Follow the links in the side bar.

Stunned witnesses reported seeing a comet-like fireball in the sky and a number of local residents took photos of the strange ball of light.

A local bus driver, giving his name only as Yu, said he had seen a strange glowing object in the sky late on Wednesday afternoon.

‘The thing suddenly ran westwards fast, like it was escaping from something,’ he said.

Inbound flights were diverted to nearby airports while outbound flights were delayed for three to four hours.

Some Chinese experts claimed that the strange sight was actually debris from a US intercontinental ballistic missile.

Chinese officials later said that they knew what the object had been but were unable to make it public because there was a ‘military connection.’

A Chinese airport was closed after this mysterious object was spotted in the sky.

Arcing over Zhejiang’s provincial capital Hangzhou, the UFO appeared to glow with an eerie white light and left a bright trail in its wake.

Xiaoshan Airport was closed after the UFO was detected at around 9 pm and dozens of flights had to be diverted.

Photo’s Of The Chinese UFO

There were 2 published photo’s of the Unidentified Object. However the first is rumored to be a fake time-lapsed photo of a helicopter. The Second photo has yet to be explained and more accurately depicts what was captured by amateur video.

Photo 1:

Photo 2:

Time Lapse Photo’s Of Helicopters

Amateur Video Of The Chinese UFO

Joe Kernan said “Your basic tenant here is that we havent really fixed anything….for what caused the problems during the crisis and we’re going to see it rear its ugly head again here soon?”

Vickers later replied: “Unless the plunge protection team comes in over the next couple of days, the markets are looking very dicey here.”

When a disgusted Joe Kernan asks if Vickers was making a joke about the PPT, the response is “absolutely not – it’s common knowledge that the government steps in and does things to step on the gas and buy stock here and there.” To which Byron Wien has a strong retort: “I don’t believe it.” All that and much more in the clip below. In the meantime, the market is sure having a field day with stocks as once again bad news are discarded and the smallest glimmer of positivity serves as a springboard for yet another ramping short covering spree.

At most, pet shop owner Joan Higgins, 66, expected a slap on the wrist for breaking new animal welfare laws which ban the sale of pets to under-16s.

Instead, the great-grandmother was taken to court, fined £1,000, placed under curfew – and ordered to wear an electronic tag for two months.

The punishment is normally handed out to violent thugs and repeat offenders.

The prosecution of Mrs Higgins and her son Mark is estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,000 and has left her with a criminal record.

Mark, 47, was also fined and ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work in the community. Last night, as an MP criticised the magistrates, Mrs Higgins – who has run the pet shop for 28 years – said the family’s eight-month ordeal had left them traumatised.

She added: ‘It’s ridiculous. I mean, what danger am I that I have to wear an electronic tag? These last few months have been a very stressful time.’

The seven-week curfew imposed by the court means she is unable to babysit her great-grandson at his home or go to bingo sessions with her sister, and will be unable to attend a Rod Stewart concert after tickets were bought for her by her nephew, actor Will Mellor.

Her son said: ‘I think it’s a farce. What gets me so cross is that they put my Mum on a tag – she’s nearly 70, for goodness’ sake.

‘She’s a great-grandma so she won’t be able to babysit a newborn baby. You would think they have better things to do with their time and money.’

Mr Higgins claimed the undercover operation was a clear case of entrapment – when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime – and said the case should never have gone to court.

He said: ‘The council sent the 14-year-old in to us. It is hard to tell how old a lad is these days. He looked much older than 14.’

He added that his mother almost fainted in the dock when magistrates told her she could go to prison for the offence. ‘I told her they wouldn’t send her to prison but she was still worried,’ he said. ‘The only other time she has been in court is when she did jury service.’

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is illegal to sell pets – including goldfish – to children under the age of 16 unless they are accompanied by an adult. Pet shops must also provide advice on animal welfare to buyers. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to 12 months, or a fine of up to £20,000, or both.

The Higgins family’s ordeal began when council officials heard that Majors Pet Shop in Sale, Greater Manchester, was selling animals to children.

They sent the 14-year-old schoolboy into the shop to carry out a test purchase and Mr Higgins sold him the goldfish without questioning his age or providing any information about the care of the fish.

A council officer in the shop at the time also noticed a cockatiel in a cage that appeared to be in a poor state of health. A vet found the bird had a broken leg and eye problems. It was later put down.

Mrs Higgins and her son were charged with selling the fish to a person aged under 16 and with causing unnecessary suffering to a cockatiel by failing to provide appropriate care and treatment.

Pleading guilty, Mrs Higgins told Trafford magistrates the cockatiel had not been for sale and she had been bathing its eye daily.

She had intended to take it to the vet but had been distracted and worried because her other son was in hospital.

The court heard that Mrs Higgins had possessed a licence to sell animals for many years and had never had any problems before.

She was fined £1,000 and given a community order with a curfew requiring her to stay home between 6pm and 7am for seven weeks.

Mrs Higgins did not have her licence to sell animals removed, but both she and her son were told that if they ever appeared in court for a similar offence they could face a jail sentence.

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, said: ‘You simply couldn’t make it up. It is absolutely ludicrous that old ladies should be hounded through the courts and electronically tagged for something like this.

‘At a time when courts are being told not to lock up career burglars we have them issuing severe punishments like this on little old ladies.’ Mr Davies, who has served as a special constable for three years, said: ‘Not only is it traumatic for her but it is a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money. It is ridiculous.
‘Instead of getting 14-year-old boys to act in this type of sting they should have them trying to nail people who sell drugs outside our schools.’

Trafford Council said it launched an investigation after an unsubstantiated complaint that the shop had sold a gerbil to a 14-year-old girl with learning disabilities. The council claimed the animal later died after the child placed it in a disposable coffee cup with a plastic lid on top.

But the complaint did not form part of the legal action in court and its truth cannot be verified.
Mrs Higgins said the shop had not stocked gerbils for months before the complaint anyway.

Defending the goldfish case, Iain Veitch, head of public protection at Trafford Council, said: ‘The evidence presented for this conviction clearly demonstrates that it is irresponsible to sell animals to those who are not old enough to look after them.

‘Let this conviction send out a message that we will not tolerate those who cause unnecessary suffering to animals. The council will always try to support pet and business owners so that they are able to care for their animals properly, but where they continually ignore the advice they are given, we will not hesitate to use our statutory powers.’

The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health.

Criminals who committed more serious offenses but received lesser punishments.