Up to 8,000 children in Flint, Michigan have potentially been poisoned by their own water supply, and so the Michigan Senate has bravely come together to push through a bill that… bans anal sex.
The insanity of this move is made even more outrageous by the fact that 1) Michigan already has a sodomy ban and 2) the ban is completely pointless. The 2003 Supreme Court case of Lawrence vs. Texas declared sodomy bans unconstitutional in all states.
So, to reiterate, rather than help citizens that are being poisoned by their own water, Michigan senators chose to spend their time and money upholding an already existing sodomy ban that is impossible to enforce.
The ban was able to pass because it was attached to an animal-rights bill mostly aimed at keeping pets out of the hands of animal abusers. The discriminatory measure is squeezed inside the section banning bestiality, an asinine suggestion by Michigan Senators that two consenting adults having the freedom to be intimate is equatable to sexual abuse of an animal.
The language of the bill reads “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature [sodomy] either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years…”
As Donald Trump and his ilk boast building a giant wall to keep immigrants out of the United States, more Americans than ever before are fleeing.
According to a new analysis, the number of American citizens turning their backs on the United States has skyrocketed in the last decade, breaking records each year.
Since 2008, the number of Americans renouncing their citizenship has increased 18 fold, making 2015 the third record-breaking year in a row.
As the US government continues to spread war across the globe and pass legislation granting tax breaks to mega-corporations while squeezing small businesses for every last dime, people are saying ‘enough is enough.’
According to CNNMoney, unlike most other countries, the U.S. taxes its citizens on all income, no matter where it’s earned or where they live. For Americans living abroad, that results in a mountain of paperwork so complex that they are often forced to seek professional help, forking out high fees for accountants and lawyers.
This excessive burden of handing over 30-40% of one’s income is unsustainable, and we are now seeing its effect.
However, those who are renouncing their citizenship do so because they can afford to flee to another country. As they leave, the tax burden will continue to be passed on to the middle class as the state attempts to squeeze more blood from a turnip.
The irony here is that those who are fleeing are not the super rich elite as they could care less about the tax laws — that they wrote. Just last week, the Free Thought Project reported on the newly established tax haven for the super-rich — located inside the US.
The words of Andrew Penney, managing director of Rothschild & Co., are extremely clear to the elite, who need not flee; the U.S. is now the world’s biggest tax haven. In a draft for a presentation in San Francisco, Penny wrote that the U.S. “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world.”
In the meantime, that same skewed tax code is forcing small business owners out of the country just so they can make ends meat.
Small business owners and the upper middle class aren’t the only ones fleeing at record rates either. According to a report by the Pew Research Center, more Mexican immigrants are leaving the United States than are coming into the country.
This negative shift in border flow is happening for the first time in over four decades. It seems the Land of the Free, is quickly becoming the land to escape from.
If history is any indicator, the American empire will continue to expand and as a result so will domestic tyranny and taxation. This mass exodus of people out of the US is the canary in the coal mine for what’s to come.
As politicians and their supporters push to close the borders, remember one thing. A wall big enough to keep them out, is also big enough to keep you in.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been seeking refuge for close to three years inside Ecuador’s Embassy in London where he has political asylum. Facing both investigations in Sweden and the US, he claims that he is doing well despite his circumstances.
Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning on claims of sexual misconduct, however no charges have been formally filed against him. In the US, a secret grand jury is investigating him for his role in publishing a collection of leaked documents regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as state department modes of communication known as cables.
And despite Assange’s asylum, WikiLeaks continues to disclose documents from leaked drafts of the British nuclear submarine whistleblower William McNeilly, and hidden information about a European union plan that seeks to use military force in order to curb the influx of migrants from Libya. Of the latter, WikiLeaks said, “The documents lay out a military operation against cross-Mediterranean refugee transport networks and infrastructure. It details plans to conduct military operations to destroy boats used for transporting migrants and refugees in Libyan territory, thereby preventing them from reaching Europe.
WikiLeaks has also published leaked chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a secretive trade agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries, including the United States. It would allow them to cover 40 percent of the global economy. The agreement was reached just this past October, after seven years of negotiations.
But as these matters of economic concern continue to be negotiated amongst the countries, details continue to be hidden from the public while WikiLeaks discloses information, like the “Investment Chapter,” which discusses the US negotiators’ motive to allow corporations to sue governments if their laws disrupt future profits a company has declared. Assange says the plan could “chill” the approval of health and environmental administrations.
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! sat down at the Edcuadorean Embassy in London for an exclusive interview with Assange to discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the US debate of what WikiLeaks has revealed concerning the treaty.
“It is very well guarded from the press and the majority of people and even from congressmen. But 600 U.S. companies are part of the process and have been given access to various parts of the TPP,” Assange says of the partnership. “Essentially, every aspect of the modern economy, even banking services, are in the TPP.
And so, that is erecting and embedding new, ultramodern neoliberal structure in U.S. law and in the laws of the other countries that are participating, and is putting it in a treaty form. And by putting it in a treaty form, that means—with 14 countries involved, means it’s very, very hard to overturn.”
To provide an example of how corporations can sue governments, Assange provides this example:
What if the government or a state government decides it wants to build a hospital somewhere, and there’s a private hospital, has been erected nearby? Well, the TPP gives the constructor of the private hospital the right to sue the government over the expected—the loss in expected future profits. This is expected future profits. This is not an actual loss that has been sustained, where there’s desire to be compensated; this is a claim about the future.
And to put this idea into practice, he discusses how similar measures have already been taken to affect environmental and health regulation laws, including in Togo, Australia, and Uruguay, which are all being sued by tobacco companies in order to keep health warnings off of cigarette packages. “Maybe the government is too powerful, and companies should have a right to sue the government under various circumstances. But it’s only multinationals that get this right,” Assange says. “Now, it’s not so easy to get up these cases and win them. However, the chilling effect, the concern that there might be such a case, is severe. Each one of these cases, on average, governments spend more than $10 million for each case, to defend it, even successfully. So, if you have, you know, a city council or a state considering legislation, and then there’s a threat from one of these multinationals about expected future profits, they know that even if they have the law on their side, even if this TPP is on their side, they can expect to suffer.”
Written by Alexa Erickson of www.collective-evolution.com
It was just yesterday when we documented the continuing slide in the loonie, which is suffering mightily in the face of oil’s inexorable decline.
As regular readers are no doubt acutely aware, Canada is struggling through a dramatic economic adjustment, especially in Alberta, the heart of the country’s oil patch. Amid the ongoing crude carnage the province has seen soaring property crime, rising food bank usage and, sadly, elevated suicide rates, as Albertans struggle to comprehend how things up north could have gone south (so to speak) so quickly.
The plunging loonie “can only serve to worsen the death of the ‘Canadian Dream'” we said on Tuesday.
As it turns out, we were right.
The currency’s decline is having a pronounced effect on Canadians’ grocery bills.
As Bloomberg reminds us, Canada imports around 80% of its fresh fruits and vegetables. When the loonie slides, prices for those goods soar. “With lower-income households tending to spend a larger portion of income on food, this side effect of a soft currency brings them the most acute stress” Bloomberg continues.
Of course with the layoffs piling up, you can expect more households to fall into the “lower-income” category where they will have to fight to afford things like $3 cucumbers, $8 cauliflower, and $15 Frosted Flakes.
As Bloomberg notes, James Price, director of Capital Markets Products at Richardson GMP, recently joked during an interview on BloombergTV Canada that “we’re going to be paying a buck a banana pretty soon.”
Have a look at the following tweets which underscore just how bad it is in Canada’s grocery aisles. And no, its not just Nunavut: it from coast to coast:
No “Jack Nasty” it’s not The Great Depression, but as we highlighted three weeks ago, it is Canada’s depression and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. “Last year, fruits and veggies jumped in price between 9.1 and 10.1 per cent, according to an annual report by the Food Institute at the University of Guelph,” CBC said on Tuesday. “The study predicts these foods will continue to increase above inflation this year, by up to 4.5 per cent for some items.”
If you thought we were being hyperbolic when we suggested that if oil prices don’t rise soon, Canadians may well eat themselves to death, consider the following from Diana Bronson, the executive director of Food Secure Canada:
“Lower- and middle-class people — many who can’t find a job that will pay them enough to ensure that they can afford a healthy diet for their families” — also feel the pinch of rising food prices”
“The wrong kind of food is cheap, and the right kind of food is still expensive.”
In other words, some now fear that the hardest hit parts of the country may experience a spike in obesity rates as Canadians resort to cheap, unhealthy foods. As we put it, “in Alberta it’s ‘feast or famine’ in the most literal sense of the phrase as those who can still afford to buy food will drown their sorrows in cheap lunch meat and off-brand ice cream while the most hard hit members of society are forced to tap increasingly overwhelmed food banks.”
And the rub is that there’s really nothing anyone can do about it.
Were the Bank of Canada to adopt pro-cyclical measures to shore up the loonie, they would risk choking off economic growth just as the crude downturn takes a giant bite out of the economy – no food pun intended.
Our military is all-volunteer for a reason. Time to end the pretense that we still need Selective Service.
By Christopher Preble February 5 at 11:03 AM
Christopher Preble is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a former officer in the U.S. Navy.
Marine recruits stand in line for lunch in the boot camp chow hall Feb. 26 at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Top military brass made headlines this week when they called for expanding the Selective Service System — as close as we come, these days, to a draft registry — to include women. Gen. Mark A. Milley, the Army chief of staff, and Gen. Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, both framed the issue as a matter of fairness: All eligible U.S. citizens should be included, Neller said, “Now that the restrictions that exempted women from [combat jobs] don’t exist.” But a better idea than requiring women to register is to do away with Selective Service altogether, for women and men.
[Army and Marine Corps chiefs: It’s time for women to register for the draft]
When it comes to the draft, or any lingering vestige of it, it’s time for Congress to end it, not mend it.
The entire draft architecture is anachronistic and unnecessary. We’ve operated with an all-volunteer force for decades; no one, regardless of gender, expects that they’ll be drafted; and the wars that we fight don’t depend upon conscription. Future wars aren’t likely to, either.
Selective service was instituted during World War I, but America’s first peacetime draft, the Selective Service Act of 1940, was enacted as much of Europe and parts of Asia descended into the maelstrom of another world war. Many Americans wanted desperately to stay out, but also understood the need to prepare for it. All told, around 10 million men were drafted during World War II, but the act expired after the war ended.
At a Senate committee hearing on Feb. 2, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) asked top military leaders if women should have to sign up for the selective service now that combat jobs are opening up to them. This is what they said. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
Selective service started up again in the late 1940s, but notably did not include President Harry Truman’s call for universal military training. Selecting some men via the draft provided the military with the troops it needed to prosecute the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But the idea of forcing all men to serve during peacetime never took hold because the requirements of those wars never called for 10 million-plus men to fight them. The selective nature of the draft exposed the system to charges of unfairness, particularly with respect to exemptions given during the Vietnam era for those able to ride out the war as college students, but it still made more sense than the alternative: compelling every man to serve in a military that didn’t need them.
Compulsory service is even less essential today. America’s wars of the post-conscription era have been fought by far smaller forces, and our mixed track record in those conflicts hasn’t been a function of the number of available troops. Rather, the inability to achieve decisive victory in places like Iraq and Afghanistan reflects the inherent difficulty of nation-building, and our body politic’s understandable weariness with open-ended and costly missions in distant lands. Although in the wake of Paris and San Bernardino, there’s been an uptick in public support for deployment of additional ground troops to combat the Islamic State, having a draft, with one or both sexes, is unlikely to make the public more supportive of large-scale, decades-long wars.
Meanwhile, a draft would likely reduce the military’s fighting effectiveness. Today’s force is uniquely capable precisely because it is comprised entirely of volunteers, men and women who choose to join the military for a variety of reasons, including the desire to serve their country, but also because of the exceptional opportunities and benefits available to those in uniform. Overall compensation for troops is more than competitive relative to their comparably skilled peers, and Americans are willing to invest in their professional development because we are confident that many of them will remain in service long enough for our investment to be worthwhile. By contrast, draftees of the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s weren’t expected to stick around after their obligation expired, and thus received minimal training. A conscripted military might be larger, but it wouldn’t be better.
I appreciate the sentiment argued for years by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — himself a Korean War combat veteran — that a draft would “compel the public to think twice before they make a commitment to send their loved ones into harm’s way.” But the idea that the all-volunteer military explains Washington’s propensity to go to war, or that a draft would force policymakers to rethink their interventionist impulses, overlooks the fact that few, if any, of our conflicts in the first two decades of the post-conscription era could be considered protracted ground wars, and likewise cannot explain why other countries around the world with volunteer militaries are far less war-prone than we.
Consider, also, one lesson of the Vietnam War. It may be true that self interest drove some men with other priorities to oppose that war, and that the draft, therefore, helped hasten the war’s end. On the other hand, the existence of a draft actually made it easier for President Lyndon Johnson to dramatically increase the size of the U.S. ground commitment in Vietnam with little public debate. The protests came too late to prevent more than 58,000 names from being carved into that memorial on the Mall.
Finally, it is highly unlikely that we’ll face threats that require troop deployments on a scale that would necessitate another draft. Policymakers in Washington have chosen to fight wars in the Middle East with smaller, more nimble and highly-trained special operators, along with air power, manned and unmanned, in part because the capabilities are available to them, but mostly because these wars do not engage vital U.S. national security interests or threaten our survival.
In the event that a mass-conscripted army was ever again required to defend our country from attack, Congress could immediately pass a law to make that happen. But any notion that today’s Selective Service System is what stands between us and military defeat is absurd. And the push to expand combat roles to women signals that more, rather than fewer, Americans are willing, voluntarily, to do their part to defend this nation. We should take this opportunity to recognize that we can get rid of the draft altogether.
Are people in the United States actually becoming more aggressive and violent, or is it merely a misperception caused by slanted news coverage?
Certainly we are exposed to far more neurotoxins than prior generations, and in much higher doses, in the form of the plethora of industrial chemicals that surround us and permeate every part of our environment. And while many different toxins are known to produce neurobehavioral effects, two categories in particular are worthy of further consideration: psychiatric drugs and heavy metals. Heavy metals such as lead and mercury are, of course, already well-known to cause brain damage and behavioral disturbances. Psychiatric drugs, likewise, are actually designed to alter the function of the brain — that is, if they disrupt your brain’s chemical equilibrium, it means they are working as designed.
Doping the people without cause
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antidepressants are among the top three most prescribed classes of therapeutic drugs in non-hospital settings. Yet even people who know of these drugs’ common metabolic and sexual side effects are often not aware that they can regularly produce psychiatric disturbances as well including anxiety, irritability and agitation. Nearly all antidepressants can also actually increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
Yet shockingly, a recent study in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found that more than 67 percent of those taking antidepressants had “never met the criteria for major depressive disorder” — that is, the condition that the drugs are supposedly meant to treat.
In addition, a full 38 percent of those taking the SSRI class of antidepressants have never been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder or social phobia.
“Many individuals who are prescribed and use antidepressant medications may not have met criteria for mental disorders,” the researchers wrote. “Our data indicate that antidepressants are commonly used in the absence of clear evidence-based indications.”
While antidepressants may be the most commonly prescribed of psychiatric drugs, they are not the only ones with mood- and behavior-altering side effects. The anti-smoking drug Chantix, for example, can cause “changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions,” according to the company that makes it. Indeed, as with antidepressants, any drug designed to modify the brain’s chemistry may change a person’s behavior, including for the worse.
According to the mental health watchdog group Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights, “Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.”
The group maintains a database of known psychiatric drug side effects at here.
Brain-damaging metals are everywhere
Another category of brain-damaging toxins that nearly all people are exposed to is heavy metals. Because these metals are so widely used in industrial manufacturing, they have permeated the environment and are now found in everything from air pollution and soil to household products such as electronics and even sewage sludge (which is spread on food crops as fertilizer).
Among the metals known to damage the brain and produce cognitive and behavioral effects are lead, mercury, aluminum and manganese.
As Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has pointed out, even people seeking to protect themselves from radioactivity exposure may inadvertently dose themselves with heavy metals. Zeolites, marketed for their ability to bind to radioactive isotopes and flush them from the body, all contain high levels of lead and aluminum. When zeolites are ground up, these toxins become even more bioavailable.
Sources for this article include:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/051912_psychosis_Big_Pharma_heavy_metals.html#ixzz3zOZ4l4xs