Were Jews ever really slaves in Egypt, or is Passover a myth?

Where is the real proof - archeological evidence, state records and primary sources?

By Josh Mintz / Jewish World blogger

Here's a question for you: what do actor Charlton Heston, DreamWorks animation studios and Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin all have in common? Well, they've all, at one time or another, perpetuated the myth that the Jews built the pyramids. And it is a myth, make no mistake. Even if we take the earliest possible date for Jewish slavery that the Bible suggests, the Jews were enslaved in Egypt a good three hundred years after the 1750 B.C. completion date of the pyramids. That is, of course, if they were ever slaves in Egypt at all.

We are so quick to point out the obvious lies about Jews and Israel that come out in Egypt – the Sinai Governors claims that the Mossad released a shark into the Red Sea to kill Egyptians, or, as I once read in a newspaper whilst on holiday in Cairo, the tale of the magnetic belt buckles that Jews were selling cheap in Egypt that would sterilize men on contact – yet we so rarely examine our own misconceptions about the nature of our history with the Egyptian nation.

We tend, in the midst of our disdain for Egyptian, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, to overlook the fact that one of the biggest events of the Jewish calendar is predicated upon reminding the next generation every year of how the Egyptians were our cruel slave-masters, in a bondage that likely never happened. Is this really so different from Jaws the Mossad agent?

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

It is hard to believe that 600,000 families (which would mean about two million people) crossed the entire Sinai without leaving one shard of pottery (the archeologist's best friend) with Hebrew writing on it. It is remarkable that Egyptian records make no mention of the sudden migration of what would have been nearly a quarter of their population, nor has any evidence been found for any of the expected effects of such an exodus; such as economic downturn or labor shortages. Furthermore, there is no evidence in Israel that shows a sudden influx of people from another culture at that time. No rapid departure from traditional pottery has been seen, no record or story of a surge in population.
In fact, there's absolutely no more evidence to suggest that the story is true than there is in support of any of the Arab world's conspiracy theories and tall tales about Jews.

So, as we come to Passover 2012 when, thanks to the “Arab Spring,” our relations with Egypt are at a nearly 40 year low, let us enjoy our Seder and read the story by all means, but also remind those at the table who may forget that it is just a metaphor, and that there is no ancient animosity between Israelites and Egyptians. Because, if we want to re-establish that elusive peace with Egypt that so many worked so hard to build, we're all going to have to let go of our prejudices.

Josh Mintz is completing his degree in International Relations and Middle Eastern studies and is the communications director at Friend a Soldier, an NGO that encourages dialogue with IDF soldiers.

Drug Names
by Peter M. Brigham, MD

In the research literature drugs are not referred to by brand names. In the context of rigorous attention to scientific data, as opposed to the world of sales and marketing, using trade names would suggest influence by commercial pressures, which would call into question the investigator's independence and objectivity. Shouldn't independence from commercial pressures be just as important in the clinical world? But, surprisingly, in day-to-day practice nobody seems to be at all concerned about this. Everyone — physicians, pharmacists, patients, insurance companies — seems to use brand names to refer to medications. I see this as directly related to the pervasiveness of pharmaceutical company marketing and I believe it is a serious problem. Part of the problem is that no one recognizes it as a problem.

Look at how fundamentally our thinking is affected. The alternative to using the brand name is to use the "generic" name, right? But this term in itself is misleading: what we call the "generic" name of the drug is actually the name of the drug! "Zoloft" was in fact a brand of the drug sertraline from the beginning, but everyone acts as though "sertraline" came into existence only after the patent on "Zoloft" expired. (Many people refer to sertraline as "generic Zoloft.") With older drugs our thinking is clearer — we don't think of aspirin as "generic Bayer," it's aspirin, and "Bayer" is one brand. It is remarkable that even doctors and pharmacists are often confused about this, and that it needs clarifying. Try ordering a new drug still on patent by its actual name and you're likely to get "I didn't think that had gone generic yet."

Actually, it's worse than that. I recently tried to order simvastatin from a mail order pharmacy and was told they didn't carry it — one of the dozen most prescribed drugs in the country! It took three people 10 minutes of searching around before I was told that they had "Zocor," however! A national mail-order pharmacy, and they didn't list the drug under its actual name — nor did anyone even seem to know the actual name of the drug!

"Tissues, tissues... let's see.... Hmmm, I guess we don't carry tissues.... Oh, wait — we have Kleenex, is that what you want?"

Brand name drug marketing is by far the biggest product promotion success in the whole world of commercial enterprise, because the primary brand names have not just become synonymous with the actual names of the drugs, they have replaced the actual names of the drugs. Adofen, Affectine, Alzac, Ansilan, Deproxin, Erocap, Fluctin, Fluctine, Fludac, Flufran, Flunil, and 27 other trade names besides the one everybody knows — all are brands of fluoxetine, but even pharmacists still call the stuff "Prozac." Imagine how the marketing folks at GM would be rubbing their hands with glee if everyone referred to their Toyotas and Hondas and Fords and Subarus as "Chevys!"

These habits are very deeply ingrained. For instance, remember that each nation handles its own trademarks and patents, so brand names are local to a specific country. On the psychopharmacology mailing list — a listserv that has over 1000 subscribers from all over the world — American psychopharmacologists routinely refer to "Celexa" and "Trileptal" and "Remeron" despite constant reminders that these names are unknown to prescribers in England, Indonesia, Turkey, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, etc. I have seen the periodic notice about not using brand names go out from the list moderator (as it has regularly for years) and the very next day someone from the US posts a comment mentioning "Luvox," prompting a follow-up question from a member in Japan politely asking what Luvox is. It is remarkable that even in a group of medical professionals, in a context in which it has a direct and personal impact on successful communication, and in the face of constant reminders, people still can't wake up to what they are doing. Judging by the psychopharm mailing list, this seems to be especially problematic in the US.

Note that Luvox is a particularly illuminating example, since the original manufacturer of fluvoxamine no longer makes this drug. Thus, there is actually no "Luvox" on the market any more. But try referring to it as fluvoxamine and see how many blank stares you get until you say, "You know... Luvox."

What is so insidious is that everyone seems completely unaware that there is a problem here. The health care system and the public have been hypnotized by the drug companies. I use the word deliberately: the methods used are classic hypnotic techniques. With doctors, the drug reps first establish a context of support and nurturance — gifts of "Cymbalta" pens and notepads, sandwiches — and then they set up a discussion that embodies a further distraction: they show us data on Cymbalta. We say, but what's the difference between Cymbalta and Effexor, they respond with more data about noradrenergic effects at low doses, we're partially convinced but a bit skeptical, etc. We think that we are being objective, that we're sophisticated enough to critically evaluate the data on Cymbalta and thus are immune to bias — and all the while the real marketing agenda succeeds brilliantly: we're talking about "Cymbalta," not about duloxetine. Cymbalta, Cymbalta, Cymbalta, Cymbalta. A lot of us end up a little fuzzy about what duloxetine is. ("Oh, you mean Cymbalta!")

I am convinced that this is one of the big reasons the drug companies find it worth their while to spend collectively over $11,000 per doctor per year on detailing: in between bites of "complimentary" chicken pesto panini they train us in a language and a habit of thinking. And we doctors remain completely unaware of what we have bought into and then talk to our patients and each other using exclusively brand names — the language that we learn from the drug reps — thereby teaching our patients how to think and talk about meds. All this is now reinforced by direct consumer marketing: "Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you!" Patients begin requesting "Paxil," and after the original patent expires some will say, "I don't want that generic stuff, I want Paxil." And we write prescriptions for "Paxil." And the shareholders are happy.

I think that a doctor should be somewhat embarrassed to use brand names in talking about medications. It suggests that her/his primary source of information about meds is the drug rep rather than the medical literature. It shows that s/he is not involved first and foremost in assessing the research data. When I use the actual names of the drugs instead of brand names, my viewpoint changes — the language reminds me that my position is that of an applied scientist, that my job is to weigh all the information available and make judgments about what is best for my patient based exclusively on the evidence, not on the pitch of a salesperson.

It has occurred to me more than once when talking with a drug company representative that I could say, "OK, I'll refer to olanzapine as 'Zyprexa' if you pay me for advertising your product each time I do it." But that would be grossly unethical, wouldn't it? Well, is it less unethical for me to do it for free? (Or for "free" lunches and pens and notepads and clocks and letter-openers and mugs?)

So I'm stubborn in fighting this. I'll endure the puzzled pause of a pharmacist when I phone in a refill for escitalopram — though, sadly, to be certain that they get the prescription right I usually have to add, "You know... Lexapro." I try to teach my patients the names, not just the brands, of the meds I prescribe them. I refuse to be a marketing tool. The drug companies may be taking over the world, but they're not going to take over my mind.


---------------------------------------------
COMMENT: OBEY - like a good little doggy - and be rewarded for your obedience.


Fail to obey, and you are shut out. That is an Evil country. What are you going to do about it, my fellow Americans?
---------------------------------------------

New Weight-Loss Equation: Researchers Determine Key Calorie Cutoff

By Rachael Rettner | LiveScience.com

VANCOUVER — Weight loss is not as simple as eating less and exercising more, and for those who struggle to shed the pounds, a new equation may offer some help.

Scientists are now using mathematics to better understand the physiology of weight loss, and more accurately predict just how much weight someone will lose on a specific diet and exercise regime, researchers said here today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting.

In the past, physicians assumed that eating 500 fewer calories per day would lead to about a pound of weight loss per week, said Kevin Hall, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

But it turns out, this rule of thumb is wrong, Hall said, because it doesn't take into account that metabolism slows down during dieting. Thus, predictions that used this rule were overly optimistic, Hall said. 

Hall and colleagues have developed a model that takes into account an individual's age, height, weight and physical activity level to better predict how much weight they might lose on a diet and exercise plan. Currently, the model is intended only for use by physicians and researchers scientists, Hall said.

Hall's research has also come up with a more realistic rule of thumb for weight loss. The new rule says you need to cut 10 calories per day from your diet for every pound you want to lose over a three-year period. So cutting 100 calories per day will lead to a 10-pound weight loss over three years, Hall said. Half of this weight loss would occur over the first year. To lose more weight after the three-year period, you'd have to cut more calories, Hall said.

The model may help policy makers understand the impact of public health measures on the obesity epidemic. For instance, one estimate of the effect of a 20 percent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages predicted that such a tax would lead to a 50 percent reduction in the number of overweight people in the United States in a five-year period. Hall 's new equation predicts about a 5 percent reduction in the percentage of overweight people in five years, Hall said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: IDIOCY. They continue to pretend that hormones don't exist. Yes, calories matter, but hormones ALSO matter. MOST people's bodies have very different hormonal responses to different foods - fats, carbs, and protein.

After being fat for 30 years, I read Gary Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories; he documented that 100% of the increase in calories over the past 40 years has been from two sources: flour and sugar. Both of those are carbs, not fat. So, I cut THOSE carbs - not raw fruit or cooked veggies - and took 4 inches off my waist. That was over two years ago. I am really enjoying being SMALL.

There is a ton of $ being made from keeping people fat and sick, by LYING to us about WHY "diets don't work." Those companies employ morons like the guy in the article above, who PRETEND to be smart and PRETEND to do science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The entire United States is now a war zone: S. 1867 passes the Senate with massive support

Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer

This is one of the most tragic events I have written about since establishing End the Lie over eight months ago: the horrendous bill that would turn all of America into a battlefield and subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without charge or trial has passed the Senate.

To make matters even worse, only seven of our so-called representatives voted against the bill, proving once and for all (if anyone had any doubt remaining) that our government does not work for us in any way, shape, or form.


S.1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year of 2012, passed with a resounding 93-7 vote.

That’s right, 93 of our Senators voted to literally eviscerate what little rights were still protected after the PATRIOT Act was hastily pushed in the wake of the tragic events of September 11^th, 2001.

The NDAA cuts Pentagon spending by $43 billion from last year’s budget, a number so insignificant when compared to the $662 billion still (officially) allocated, it is almost laughable.

The bill also contained an amendment which enacts strict new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and any entities that do business with it, a move which will likely have brutal repercussions for the Iranian people – just like the sanctions on Iraq did.

 Not a single Senator voted against this amendment, which was voted on soon before the entirety of S.1867 was passed, despite the hollow threats of a veto from the Obama White House.

Based simply on historical precedent, I trust Obama’s promises as much as I trust the homeless man who told me he was John F. Kennedy.

I wish that I could believe that the Obama administration would strike down this horrific bill but I would be quite ignorant and naïve if I did so.

Furthermore, the White House’s official statement doesn’t even say that they will veto the bill. In fact, it says, “the President’s senior advisers [will] recommend a veto.”

As Glenn Greenwald points out, the objection isn’t even about opposing the detention of accused terrorists without a trial, instead it is the contention that, “whether an accused Terrorist is put in military detention rather than civilian custody is for the President alone to decide.”

Obama’s opposition has nothing to do with the rule of law or protecting Americans, in fact, Senator Levin disclosed and Dave Kopel reported that, “it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power”.

As I have detailed in two past articles entitled Do not be deceived: S.1867 is the most dangerous bill since the PATRIOT Act and S.1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial, the assurances that this will not be used on American citizens are hollow, evidenced by the fact that the Feinstein amendment to S.1867, amendment number 1126, which, according to the official Senate Democrats page, was an attempt at “prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens” was rejected with a 45-55 vote.

Let’s examine some of the attempts to convince the American people that this will not change anything and that we will still be protected under law.

Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Antonio said:

In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in section 1031 that says that this includes ‘any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.’ This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with al-Qaida, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.

While this might sound reassuring to some, one must realize that the government can interpret just about anything as engaging “in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.

Consider the fact that the Homeland Security Police Institute’s report published earlier this year partly focused on combating the “spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative” which sets the stage for the government being able to declare that spreading the narrative amounts to “a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror”.

At the time I wrote:

Part of these domestic efforts highlighted in the report is combating the 'spread of the [terrorist] entity’s narrative' but never addressed is why exactly extremist groups have the ability to spread their narrative.

A frightening conclusion that can be drawn from the focus on the 'spread of the entity’s narrative' is that such claims could be used to justify limiting the American right to free speech.

It would be very easy to justify eliminating free speech if much of the United States was convinced of the danger of spreading terrorist narrative.

The report doesn’t specifically explain what the narrative is or why it is so dangerous, but one could assume that any anti-government, anti-war, anti-corporatist and pro-human rights speech could be squeezed under this umbrella. Essentially, anything that criticizes or questions the United States could easily be demonized because it is allegedly spreading 'the entity’s narrative'.

This raises an important question: could my work and the work of others devoted to exposing the fraud that is the “war on terror” and the intimate links between our government and the terrorist entities they are supposedly fighting be considered to be supporting these entities?
Unfortunately, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is possible for the following reasons:

1) The Department of Defense actually put a question on an examination saying that protests are an act of “low-level terrorism” (which they later deleted after the ACLU sent a letter demanding it be removed).

2) Anti-war activists and websites are deemed worthy of being treated as terrorists and being listed on terrorist watchlists.

3) We likely will never even be told how exactly the government is interpreting S.1867.

In the case of the PATRIOT Act (which is overwhelmingly used in cases that are unrelated to terrorism in every way), there is in fact a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, as revealed by Senator Ron Wyden back in May.
In October, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit (read the PDF here) in an attempt to force the government to reveal the details of the secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act.

As of now, we still do not know how the PATRIOT Act is interpreted by the government, meaning that we have no idea how it is actually being used.

I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make the assumption that S.1867 would be interpreted in a straightforward manner, meaning that all of the assurances being made by Senators are worthless.

Glenn Greenwald verifies this in writing the following as an update to the post previously quoted in this article, “Any doubt about whether this bill permits the military detention of U.S. citizens was dispelled entirely today when an amendment offered by Dianne Feinstein — to confine military detention to those apprehended “abroad,” i.e., off U.S. soil — failed by a vote of 45-55.”

Furthermore, as I detailed in my previous coverage of S.1867, Senator Lindsey Graham clearly said, in absolutely no uncertain terms whatsoever, “In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland.”

The fact that the establishment media continues to peddle the blatant lie that is the claim that S.1867 will not be used on American citizens is beyond me.


This is especially true when one considers the fact that lawyers for the Obama administration reaffirmed that American citizens “are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida,” although we all know that no proof or trial is required to make that assertion.

As evidenced by the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, no trial is needed for our illegitimate government to assassinate an American citizen.

We can only assume that it is just a matter of time until American citizens are declared to be supporting al Qaeda and killed on American soil without so much as a single court hearing.

CNN claims, “Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it’s not the bill’s intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.”

Yet, of course, they fail to cite the amendment, and quote Senator Feinstein in saying, “It supports present law,” even though Feinstein’s amendment was not passed.

The Associated Press reported, “Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeatedly pointed out that the June 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely.”

Yet they still quoted senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Christopher Anders who said, “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.”

The fact that the corporate-controlled establishment media is barely covering this – if at all – is just another piece amongst the mountains of evidence showing that they are complicit in the criminal conspiracy that is dominating our government.

Every single Senator that voted for this amendment is a traitor. It’s that simple. 97 of our so-called representatives, which you can see listed in full here, are actively working against the American people.
They are turning the United States into such a hellish police state that the world’s most infamous dictators would be green with envy.

Unsurprisingly, the top stories on Google News makes no mention of the atrocious attack on everything that America was built upon that is embodied by S.1867.

This legislation is clearly being minimized and marginalized in the press, as if it is some minor bill that will never be invoked in order to detain Americans indefinitely without charge or trial.

That is patently absurd and to assume such would be nothing short of ignorant to an extreme degree, given that the American government utilizes every single possible method to exploit, oppress and assault Americans who stand up for their rights.

Furthermore, the Senators who voted against S.Amdt.1126, the amendment to S.1867 which would have limited “the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031” should be considered traitorous criminals of the highest order, not to say that all 97 of those who voted for S.1867 are any better.

These Senators are not only defying their oath of office in waging war on the Constitution, they are also fighting to destroy the most critical rights we have in this country and in doing so are desecrating everything that our forefathers gave up their lives for.

Instead of British troops patrolling the streets in their red coats, it will be American soldiers who have the authority to detain you forever without a shred of evidence if they decide you’re a terrorist or supporting any organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
How they define that is anyone’s guess, but given that the entire interpretation of the PATRIOT Act is regarded as a state secret, we can assume that we will never even get to know.

Moreover, the fact that no charges or trial are needed under S.1867, the government needs no proof of supporting, planning, or committing terrorism whatsoever.

Since no evidence will ever be presented given that no trial or charges will ever be filed, they need not worry about that pesky thing called habeus corpus or anything resembling evidence of any kind.

All they need to do is declare that you’re an enemy combatant and suddenly you’re eligible to be snatched up by military thugs and locked away never to see the light of day again.

As far as I have seen, there are no detailed requirements set forth in the bill which have to be met before the military can indefinitely detain, and torture (or conduct “enhanced interrogation” if you’d prefer the government’s semantic work-around), Americans and people around the world.

What is stopping them from creating accounts for Americans who are actively resisting the fascistic police state corporatocracy which our once free nation has become on some jihadi website and using it has justification to claim these individuals are involved with terrorists?

What is stopping them from manufacturing any flimsy piece of evidence they can point to, even though they never actually have to present it or have it questioned in a court of law, in order to round up American dissidents?

The grim answer to these disturbing questions is: nothing. I regret having to say such a disheartening thing about the United States of America, a country I once thought was the freest nation in the world, but it is true.

I must emphasize once again that our government considers even ideology and protest to be a low-level act of terrorism, so if you’re anti-war, pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-justice, anti-corruption, or even worse, if you’re like me and expose the criminal government in Washington that supports terrorism while criminalizing American citizens, you very well might be labeled a terrorist.

Keep in mind that the House sister bill, H.R.1540, was passed with a 322-96 vote on May 26^th, now all that is stopping this ludicrous from utterly eliminating the Bill of Rights is resolving the differences which will be done by the following  appointed conferees: Levin; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson NE; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Manchin; Shaheen; Gillibrand; Blumenthal; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Wicker; Brown MA; Portman; Ayotte; Collins; Graham; Cornyn; Vitter.

Unsurprisingly, not a single person who voted against S.1867 is included in that list.

I do not hesitate in saying that what our so-called representatives have done is an act of treason that represents the single most dangerous move ever made by our government.

Every single square inch of the United States is now a war zone and you or I could easily be declared soldiers on the wrong side of the war and treated as such.

No proof, no charges, and no trial are required. They do not even have to draw spurious links to terrorist organizations in order to indefinitely detain you as they could easily declare the evidence critical to national security and thus withhold it for as long as they please.

I will continue to hope that Obama decides to go against every single thing he has done after being sworn in, but I think the chances are so slim that it is almost delusional to believe that he will do this.

After all, the only reason his administration is opposing it is because it doesn’t give the executive enough power, not because it strips away every legal protection we have.

If this is not the most laughably illegitimate reason to oppose the attack on all Americans that is S.1867, I don’t know what is.

The most important question that remains unanswered, for which I am not sure that I have a viable solution, is: how do we stop this? Is there any way we can bring down a criminal government packed to the brim with traitorous co-conspirators in a just, peaceful manner?


After all, if the American people resort to violence, we are no better than those bloodthirsty members of our armed forces and law enforcement who kill and beat human beings around our nation and the world with impunity.

However, if our military and police forces realize that at any moment they too could be deemed enemy combatants and treated like subhuman scum and thus decide to refuse all unlawful orders and arrest the real terrorists in Washington, we might be able to reinstate the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which once defined our nation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with your ideas, comments and information for future articles on this subject and any other issue for that matter. You can get in touch with me directly at Admin@EndtheLie.com and hopefully I will be able to read and respond if I’m not deemed an enemy combatant and shipped off to a CIA black site to be tortured into confessing to killing the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: This country is a police state and they are just making it "legal."

As to what to do about it, we have been under attack - both physical pollution and psychological warfare - our entire lives. It is our right as humans to defend ourselves when attacked; that right is not granted to us by a gov, and it cannot legitimately be taken away.
--------------------------------------------------

Health department tyrants raid local 'farm to fork' picnic dinner, orders all food to be destroyed with bleach

Friday, November 11, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

 

(NaturalNews) It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special "farm to fork" picnic dinner put on for guests -- and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.

For about five years now, Quail Hollow Farm has been growing organic produce and raising healthy, pasture-based animals which it provides to members as part of a CSA program. And it recently held its first annual "Farm to Fork Dinner Event," which offered guests an opportunity to tour the farm, meet those responsible for growing and raising the food, and of course partake in sharing a meal composed of the delicious bounty with others.

But when the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) got word of the event and decided to get involved, this simple gathering of friends and neighbors around a giant, family-style picnic table quickly became a convenient target for the heavy hand of an out-of-control government agency. And Monte and Laura Bledsoe, the owners and operators of Quail Hollow Farm, were unprepared for what would happen next. 

 

SNHD official Mary Oaks raids picnic without cause or warrant, orders destruction of dinner food

Laura Bledsoe explains in a letter to her guests written after the fact that two days prior to the event, SNHD contacted the farm to say that, because the picnic was technically a "public" event, the couple would have to obtain a "special use permit," or else face a very steep fine. Not wanting to risk having the event disrupted, the Bledsoes agreed to jump through all the demanded legal hoops even though their gathering was really just a backyard picnic.

But the day of the event, an inspector from SNHD, Mary Oaks, showed up and declared that all the food the Bledsoes would be serving was "unfit for consumption," and that it would have to be destroyed. Though there was no logical or lawful reasoning behind this declaration, and the Bledsoes had complied with all the requirements, Oaks insisted that the food be discarded and destroyed using a bleach solution.

One of the so-called reasons for this action included the fact that some of the food packaging did not contain labels, even though labels are not necessary if the food is eaten within 72 hours. Oaks also cited the fact that some of the meat was not US Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified, that the vegetables had already been cut and were thus a "bio-hazard," and that there were no receipts for the food (which was all grown on the farm, not purchased from a grocery store).

You can view pictures of the event, as well as video footage of Inspector Oaks raiding the party, at the following link:
http://www.reallyvegasphoto.com/Eve...

Unaware of their rights, the Bledsoes initially complied with Oaks' unlawful demands and destroyed the food. But shortly thereafter, Laura's husband Monte remembered that they had an emergency contact number for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) on their refrigerator.

Shocked that they even had to resort to this desperate measure, the Bledsoes called FTCLDF for advice and spoke with General Counsel Gary Cox, who instructed them to ask Oaks for a search and arrest warrant, which of course she did not have. The Bledsoes then asked Oaks to leave the property, upon which she allegedly stormed off in anger and screamed that she was going to call the police.

Police eventually arrived, but unaware of why they had been called and what the alleged crime was, they, too, left and offered their apologies to the Bledsoes. Fortunately, the Bledsoes were able to improvise with the chef to create a whole new meal for their guests, which ended up turning out to be a type of blessing in disguise, according to Laura.

The entire shocking incident serves as a reminder to know your rights when it comes to food and health freedom. Without a proper search or arrest warrant, so-called health inspectors or law enforcement officials have no business on your property. And if they ever try to pull a stunt like what happened at Quail Hollow Farm at your gathering, you have every right to demand that they vacate your property as well.

----------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT: Completely baseless charges, insane claims, unreasonable "solutions", AND SHE was actually in violation of the law. HOWEVER,  despite the Libertarian bent of Natural News' description of the reasons why this happened, it is NOT because of "the heavy hand of an out-of-control government agency"; this woman Mary is an obvious half-path.

This horrible evil will continue unless and until most people stop REFUSING to learn the FACTS about the heritability of psychopathy.

------------------------------------------------------------

School murder scandal shocks France

BBC News Europe

22 November 2011 Last updated at 04:35 ET
 

The French government has condemned the judiciary's handling of a teenager accused of rape who went on to murder a girl from his boarding school.

The boy, identified as Mathieu M, 17, had spent four months in jail for raping a minor in southern France.
He had been under judicial supervision. The school said it had not been fully aware of his past.
Last Friday, the body of Agnes, 13, was found in a forest close to the school. She had been raped and burned.

'Sexual aggression'
 
Agnes's mother, Paola Marin, said she would not have died "but for a little less negligence" from the school.
The victim's father, Frederic Marin, alleged that the school, Cevenol International in Chambon-sur-Lignon, had been aware of the boy's history and that he had problems involving "acts of sexual aggression".
Head teacher Philippe Bauwens told French radio station RTL that the school was aware the boy had had problems with the judiciary but did not know their nature.
"We had no contact with the judicial authorities," he said.

'Dysfunction'
 
After an emergency meeting with fellow ministers on Monday, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant told TF1 television that "there had been a dysfunction" in the case and that reform of the justice system for minors would be a priority after elections next spring.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon said that in the most serious cases where a minor was a suspect, they should be "placed in a secure educational centre".
He also asked cabinet colleagues to ensure that it was no longer possible for a pupil to be enrolled in a school without the head teacher being fully informed of serious cases involving judicial supervision.
French media report that Mathieu M was accused of raping a childhood friend and that after four months in custody had been assessed as not posing any danger.
His parents were said to have looked for another school for him to complete his education but had been rejected on several occasions before being given a place at Cevenol International.

Agnes disappeared on Wednesday last week and her body was found two days later. The prosecutor said she had been murdered in an extremely brutal manner.

--------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT: A clear case of a double-dose.

This horrible evil will continue unless and until most people stop REFUSING to learn the FACTS about the heritability of psychopathy.
--------------------------------------------------------

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

By Robert Lenzner

Forbes.com

Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US-- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want to even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.

Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners-- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%--  about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million--  are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.

The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation  to 28% .  Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again  to 20%-- raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 232% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms-- the most "rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent."

Make no mistake; the battle that is to be fought over the coming attempt to reverse this reduction in capital gains will be bloody and intense. The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office: more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that "Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed-- and volatile-- source of household  income," according to Laura D'Andrea Tyson,  University of California  business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.

No wonder the super wealthy plutocrats obtained the largest share of national income-- 25% of the nation's wealth- greater than any other  industrial nation in the  the period of 1979 to 2005. Make no mistake; after unemployment-- this disparity between the 1%-- 3 million-- or the 0.1%-- the 300,000-- and the other  312 million citizens of the U.S. has become the major theme of the Occupy Wall Street movement-- and an important national debate.

I commend you to the late Justice Louis Brandeis warning to the nation that " We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the  hands of a few, but we can't have both." We have to make up our minds to restore a higher, fairer capital gains tax to the wealthiest investor class-- or ultimately face increased social unrest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT: This is Capitalism - investors trying to maximize their profits, and they don't care what effect it has on anyone else.

The small business owner is not a Capitalist. Most privately held companies are not started/run by Capitalists. 

KILL the U.S. Military Empire by killing its funding.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire forever.

And why are capital gains taxed separately from other income? Why aren't the rich paying 39% on ALL income?

---------------------------------------------------------------