"Dr. Kalani Raphael, associate professor and nephrology and hypertension specialist at the University of Utah, and colleagues investigated pH, carbon dioxide and bicarbonate in association with long-term survival and found that low levels of bicarbonate may be linked to an increased risk for premature death. Sodium bicarbonate assists your body in balancing pH levels, possibly extending life.
If you want to balance your pH levels by getting more sodium bicarbonate in your diet, eating more fruits and vegetables is the key. Fruits and vegetables high in potassium and bicarbonate will have a negative potential renal acid load (PRAL) score. This represents the amount of acid produced by the kidneys after metabolism. The higher the negative, the more potassium and bicarbonate they will provide. Apples, raisins, spinach, bananas, carrots, broccoli, lemons are a few sources that will boost your potassium and bicarbonate levels.
Take baking soda mixed with water about 60-90 minutes before exercise, about 2-3 teaspoons mixed in water. However this quantity caused stomach upset for some people. If this is the case, test smaller amounts spaced out over time, such as 1 teaspoon 2 hrs before exercise and another teaspoon 1 hr before exercise. The theory as to why baking soda helps exercise performance is that it helps reduce the effects of lactic acid on the muscles and allows you to do more reps before fatigue sets in.” http://thenutritionwatchdog.com/baking- ... eath-risk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
THAT's LIFE...
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"A lot of the great flicks in recent years have come with those names attached. Disney does some great movies, right? And Warner Brothers, Lucasfilm and Twentieth Century Fox
So why are those companies requiring that consumers watch nudity, if filmmakers decide to include it in a film? Or hear profanity? Or see violence?
That’s the question that will be raised in a case against a company called VidAngel.com, which filters movies for consumers according to their wishes.
The company recently announced the addition of legendary Hollywood intellectual property attorney David W. Quinto to its legal team.
“Mr. Quinto’s first task will be to spearhead its defense of a lawsuit brought by four major Hollywood studios hoping to enjoin VidAngel from offering its filtering service to the public,” the company confirmed just days ago.
“David’s decision to join VidAngel as general counsel represents the single most significant development in the case to date. Having successfully represented iconic Hollywood institutions such as the Oscar, the Academy Awards and the Producers Guild of America, as well clients dealing with cutting edge Internet legal issues, there is no one better suited to oversee our legal strategy,” said Neal Harmon, CEO of VidAngel.
“David wrote the original legal opinion upon which VidAngel’s business model is based, and today’s announcement demonstrates his full confidence that values consumers seeking to filter content will prevail in court,” Harmon said.
“It is a privilege to be asked by VidAngel to focus on winning a landmark copyright case sure to make new law. I am confident that the studios have overreached by trying to enjoin a service expressly authorized by Congress for the protection of children, and I look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate that in court,” Quinto said.
At issue is the process set up by Vidangel under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 that enables families to watch movies that have been filtered by a third party, removing nudity, vulgar language and other material deemed offensive.
In an interview with Diane Howard, which was made available to WND, Quint explained that the law protects artists by increasing penalties for copyright infringement, but it also allows the use of technology to filter potentially offensive content, to protect families.
But VidAngel’s process of filtering movies has prompted the film companies to sue, which in turn has led to antitrust action by VidAngel against the studios.
The complaint against the studios charges they “have interfered with VidAngel’s attempts to partner with streaming content providers to filter movies.”
“Plaintiffs have also sought to improperly expand their copyright monopoly, seeking to deprive consumers of their right to buy and sell copyright works.”
VidAngel buys a legal copy of each movie title and matches it to each user, providing the legal DVD owner with a version that has had objectionable portions excised.
The studios went to court to claim that the VidAngel process violated their movie ownership rights.
“The [studios] claim that this is not about their desire to stop yet another filtering company, rather it’s about our process for buying, preparing and transmitting filtered content. This case is fundamentally about filtering, and as that becomes clear in the legal process, we are confident that the courts will uphold the law of the land,” said Harmon. “We hope that the filing will help these studios to realize that they are asking the court to shut down a service that will allow millions to filter content for themselves and their children.”
In the interview with Howard, Quinto explained the law provides “protection for consumers such as by leaving the filter specification to the discretion of families while permitting private viewing.”
The law, he said, allows a third party to stream filtered movies – but not make fixed or bootleg copies – and that’s what the company is doing.
“Consumers lawfully purchase a DVD or Blu-Ray and then choose what they want filtered. VidAngel streams the content to them precisely as they have requested,” he said.
He said it’s common sense that such features allow consumers to buy movies they otherwise would not.
If the studios get their way, the Family Home Movie Act would be meaningless, he said.
The company has posted a video online to show the impact of the objectionable material in movies, some of which contain hundreds of incidents of foul language, nudity and violence.
The paintballs represent the offensive material in a movie and how much that has changed since Clark Gable’s first swear word on film in 1939:"
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/vidangel-fig ... V6blMYb.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So why are those companies requiring that consumers watch nudity, if filmmakers decide to include it in a film? Or hear profanity? Or see violence?
That’s the question that will be raised in a case against a company called VidAngel.com, which filters movies for consumers according to their wishes.
The company recently announced the addition of legendary Hollywood intellectual property attorney David W. Quinto to its legal team.
“Mr. Quinto’s first task will be to spearhead its defense of a lawsuit brought by four major Hollywood studios hoping to enjoin VidAngel from offering its filtering service to the public,” the company confirmed just days ago.
“David’s decision to join VidAngel as general counsel represents the single most significant development in the case to date. Having successfully represented iconic Hollywood institutions such as the Oscar, the Academy Awards and the Producers Guild of America, as well clients dealing with cutting edge Internet legal issues, there is no one better suited to oversee our legal strategy,” said Neal Harmon, CEO of VidAngel.
“David wrote the original legal opinion upon which VidAngel’s business model is based, and today’s announcement demonstrates his full confidence that values consumers seeking to filter content will prevail in court,” Harmon said.
“It is a privilege to be asked by VidAngel to focus on winning a landmark copyright case sure to make new law. I am confident that the studios have overreached by trying to enjoin a service expressly authorized by Congress for the protection of children, and I look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate that in court,” Quinto said.
At issue is the process set up by Vidangel under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 that enables families to watch movies that have been filtered by a third party, removing nudity, vulgar language and other material deemed offensive.
In an interview with Diane Howard, which was made available to WND, Quint explained that the law protects artists by increasing penalties for copyright infringement, but it also allows the use of technology to filter potentially offensive content, to protect families.
But VidAngel’s process of filtering movies has prompted the film companies to sue, which in turn has led to antitrust action by VidAngel against the studios.
The complaint against the studios charges they “have interfered with VidAngel’s attempts to partner with streaming content providers to filter movies.”
“Plaintiffs have also sought to improperly expand their copyright monopoly, seeking to deprive consumers of their right to buy and sell copyright works.”
VidAngel buys a legal copy of each movie title and matches it to each user, providing the legal DVD owner with a version that has had objectionable portions excised.
The studios went to court to claim that the VidAngel process violated their movie ownership rights.
“The [studios] claim that this is not about their desire to stop yet another filtering company, rather it’s about our process for buying, preparing and transmitting filtered content. This case is fundamentally about filtering, and as that becomes clear in the legal process, we are confident that the courts will uphold the law of the land,” said Harmon. “We hope that the filing will help these studios to realize that they are asking the court to shut down a service that will allow millions to filter content for themselves and their children.”
In the interview with Howard, Quinto explained the law provides “protection for consumers such as by leaving the filter specification to the discretion of families while permitting private viewing.”
The law, he said, allows a third party to stream filtered movies – but not make fixed or bootleg copies – and that’s what the company is doing.
“Consumers lawfully purchase a DVD or Blu-Ray and then choose what they want filtered. VidAngel streams the content to them precisely as they have requested,” he said.
He said it’s common sense that such features allow consumers to buy movies they otherwise would not.
If the studios get their way, the Family Home Movie Act would be meaningless, he said.
The company has posted a video online to show the impact of the objectionable material in movies, some of which contain hundreds of incidents of foul language, nudity and violence.
The paintballs represent the offensive material in a movie and how much that has changed since Clark Gable’s first swear word on film in 1939:"
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/vidangel-fig ... V6blMYb.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
Wow.. this is something else. Watch the video at this link:
"Dennis Michael Lynch is the host of “Unfiltered,” a program for Newsmax. But unless there’s a surprise in line, Wednesday was his last broadcast.
Lynch himself said: “This will be, odds are, my last night.”
In a fiery monologue captured by Mediaite, the Trump supporter denounced his own network for not going hard enough in defense of Donald Trump.
He said he’d been ordered to use “pre-made packages” on his show, even ones critical of Fox News and Trump. The “Fair and Balanced” network has experienced a rough few months, with former Chairman Roger Ailes leaving in the wake of multiple charges of sexual harassment.
Near the end, Lynch said he’s unwilling to take the fight to Fox News, saying they’re the best weapon for the conservative movement.
Shortly after that, his crew informed him he’d been cut off air.”
http://teapartyjournal.com/newsmax-host ... t-his-mic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Dennis Michael Lynch is the host of “Unfiltered,” a program for Newsmax. But unless there’s a surprise in line, Wednesday was his last broadcast.
Lynch himself said: “This will be, odds are, my last night.”
In a fiery monologue captured by Mediaite, the Trump supporter denounced his own network for not going hard enough in defense of Donald Trump.
He said he’d been ordered to use “pre-made packages” on his show, even ones critical of Fox News and Trump. The “Fair and Balanced” network has experienced a rough few months, with former Chairman Roger Ailes leaving in the wake of multiple charges of sexual harassment.
Near the end, Lynch said he’s unwilling to take the fight to Fox News, saying they’re the best weapon for the conservative movement.
Shortly after that, his crew informed him he’d been cut off air.”
http://teapartyjournal.com/newsmax-host ... t-his-mic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"The leaders of an Islamic center filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Sterling Heights after the city last year rejected their plans to build a mosque that was strongly opposed by many residents. In the federal lawsuit, the American Islamic Community Center accuses the city of being biased against Muslims, citing e-mails from city officials that talked about getting investigated the possibility of the mosque’s leaders being terrorists. In one e-mail, a police official asks if the FBI can be contacted to see if the mosque leaders are “on their radar.”
Last year, the planning commission of Sterling Heights voted 9-0 to reject building a mosque on 15 Mile between Ryan and Mound roads. City officials and residents have said their rejection was not based on bigotry, noting that the city already has a mosque, but over concerns that the location was not suitable for such a large building and could cause traffic problems.
The case is one of several that have come up in recent years across metro Detroit involving mosques facing stiff opposition from nearby residents. The lawsuit alleges that the constitutional rights of the mosque members were violated in denying the mosque. Residents who opposed the Shia mosque have said the building would be in a residential area that would cause congestion and wasn’t suitable to area around 15 Mile.”
http://www.gopusa.com/muslims-sue-sterl ... mhide=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last year, the planning commission of Sterling Heights voted 9-0 to reject building a mosque on 15 Mile between Ryan and Mound roads. City officials and residents have said their rejection was not based on bigotry, noting that the city already has a mosque, but over concerns that the location was not suitable for such a large building and could cause traffic problems.
The case is one of several that have come up in recent years across metro Detroit involving mosques facing stiff opposition from nearby residents. The lawsuit alleges that the constitutional rights of the mosque members were violated in denying the mosque. Residents who opposed the Shia mosque have said the building would be in a residential area that would cause congestion and wasn’t suitable to area around 15 Mile.”
http://www.gopusa.com/muslims-sue-sterl ... mhide=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://libertyalliance.com/california-c ... ahu-akbar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"California Church Service Disrupted by Mob of Muslims Chanting “Allahu Akbar”! The chant, bellowed through a bullhorn by a passenger in a passing car, did disrupt the service at St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, Calif., according to Fox News. Parishioners felt threatened by what many described as the menacing manner in which the message was delivered, prompting Father Josiah Trenham to send out an email urging calm:
"Keep a special vigilance over the property and our children while we are at church. Pray that these provocative young men might repent of their intimidation and be saved."
Ryan Mauro, a professor of homeland security at Liberty University and national security analyst for the Clarion Project, told Fox that this type of intrusion is part of a growing trend, adding:
Many churches are now hiring self-defense instructors for classes or security guards that include off-duty police. If you are an Islamist terrorist seeking self-glory, executing a priest will bring you more attention than executing an average civilian."
"California Church Service Disrupted by Mob of Muslims Chanting “Allahu Akbar”! The chant, bellowed through a bullhorn by a passenger in a passing car, did disrupt the service at St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, Calif., according to Fox News. Parishioners felt threatened by what many described as the menacing manner in which the message was delivered, prompting Father Josiah Trenham to send out an email urging calm:
"Keep a special vigilance over the property and our children while we are at church. Pray that these provocative young men might repent of their intimidation and be saved."
Ryan Mauro, a professor of homeland security at Liberty University and national security analyst for the Clarion Project, told Fox that this type of intrusion is part of a growing trend, adding:
Many churches are now hiring self-defense instructors for classes or security guards that include off-duty police. If you are an Islamist terrorist seeking self-glory, executing a priest will bring you more attention than executing an average civilian."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://conservativetribune.com/walmart- ... ove-after/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Despite confirming to reporters that a cashier intentionally refused to ring up a local police officer at a Walmart in St. Cloud, Florida, Walmart’s corporate office has refused to fire the employee, let alone issue a formal apology.
“This is an unfortunate situation, but we cannot comment on an active HR investigation,” was all a spokesperson for the multinational retail corporation had to say when questioned by WFTV.
The adjectives outrageous and disgraceful only just begin to describe the foul nature of Walmart’s response, especially given what exactly the employee did.
According to the officer, when he asked the cashier why she was refusing to ring him up, she pointed to her skin. Moreover, a second employee reportedly laughed as the incident unfolded.
Many would argue that both the unnamed woman and her ostensible co-conspirator ought to be terminated immediately, but apparently, Walmart disagreed.
As a result, the St. Cloud Police Department has been forced to take action.
“In response to local inquiries concerning the allegation where an employee of Walmart refused to serve a St. Cloud Police Officer; a formal complaint has been filed with Walmart’s corporate office,” the department wrote on Facebook. “The St. Cloud Police Department trusts that Walmart will handle the situation properly and professionally.”
Hopefully, the department is right in its trust, though knowing the anti-cop climate that is festering in America right now, some are doubtful.
This incident should never have occurred in the first place, but because of the disingenuous grievance mongering being peddled by both the White House and the liberal media, incidents like this are on the verge of becoming the norm.
There are still an awful lot of Americans who strongly support their law enforcement officers, however. Walmart had better get its act together before it finds itself boycotted by a few million of them."
"Despite confirming to reporters that a cashier intentionally refused to ring up a local police officer at a Walmart in St. Cloud, Florida, Walmart’s corporate office has refused to fire the employee, let alone issue a formal apology.
“This is an unfortunate situation, but we cannot comment on an active HR investigation,” was all a spokesperson for the multinational retail corporation had to say when questioned by WFTV.
The adjectives outrageous and disgraceful only just begin to describe the foul nature of Walmart’s response, especially given what exactly the employee did.
According to the officer, when he asked the cashier why she was refusing to ring him up, she pointed to her skin. Moreover, a second employee reportedly laughed as the incident unfolded.
Many would argue that both the unnamed woman and her ostensible co-conspirator ought to be terminated immediately, but apparently, Walmart disagreed.
As a result, the St. Cloud Police Department has been forced to take action.
“In response to local inquiries concerning the allegation where an employee of Walmart refused to serve a St. Cloud Police Officer; a formal complaint has been filed with Walmart’s corporate office,” the department wrote on Facebook. “The St. Cloud Police Department trusts that Walmart will handle the situation properly and professionally.”
Hopefully, the department is right in its trust, though knowing the anti-cop climate that is festering in America right now, some are doubtful.
This incident should never have occurred in the first place, but because of the disingenuous grievance mongering being peddled by both the White House and the liberal media, incidents like this are on the verge of becoming the norm.
There are still an awful lot of Americans who strongly support their law enforcement officers, however. Walmart had better get its act together before it finds itself boycotted by a few million of them."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://personalliberty.com/protestors-surround-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Street protests are all too common these days, and blocking traffic has become one of the favourite methods of public protest. If you, as a motorist, round a corner and find yourself in the middle of a protest march, or if protestors suddenly surround your car, you need to take action quickly.
Dave Young, founder and director of Arma Training, stresses that immediate action is important, but such action requires forethought and a thorough understanding of the laws of self-defence in your state.
“Most state’s self-defence laws allow you to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family, but you may not use deadly force unless you are facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm,” Young said. “Some prosecutors could see using your car to drive away from a protest as using force, even deadly force. So the first thing you must do is assess the threat level.”
If the protestors are merely blocking your way, you may be able to use a reasonable level of force to get out of the situation, but you must remember that someone who was not at the scene will evaluate your decisions.
In Wisconsin, the use of force is outlined in state statute 939.48, which reads:
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
Call 911
Local law enforcement may already be aware of the protest and may even have people on the scene. If you make them aware that you are trapped in a large, angry crowd they may take action to attempt to disperse the crowd and facilitate a rescue, but don’t count on it. Officers at the scene may not be prepared for a riot situation, and it may take several minutes or more before police feel they have the resources to take on a large crowd. You could be injured or killed waiting for help.
Capture the Images
One of the best ways to show what you were facing and begin the basis for an effective legal defence of your actions is to record video of the incident. Most cell phones have video recorders these days. If you are with a companion, have the companion record as much of the incident as possible. Try to remain quiet while recording so as to caption the words as well as the actions of the protestors.
Do not attempt to record video and drive if you are alone. In that case, start the recorder, capture as much of the action as you can, then leave the recorder on, put it down and focus on your escape.
Keep Moving If You Can
Turing around and immediately leaving the area, if possible, is your best option. If you cannot turn around or go around the group, driving your car slowly through a group of protestors may be seen as a reasonable use of force. But unless you can articulate a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, you can’t use your car as a deadly weapon by driving over people or accelerating through the crowd.
“If you can drive away, do so. That might mean driving on the sidewalk or on the shoulder of the road or through the median,” said Young. “Escape is your first option.”
If Things Turn Violent
If the protest turns violent and people begin throwing objects, striking your vehicle or attempting to overturn your vehicle, you have to act quickly. If you reasonably believe the protestors are going to attempt to enter your vehicle, drag you out and injure you, the time to use force — perhaps even deadly force — has come. Young suggests the following:
Immediately get your family to lay down in the car while shielding their eyes and covering their skin to protect them from breaking glass or hard objects thrown at or into the car. If possible, pull the back seat down and take cover in the trunk area.
Get your car out of the danger area. Drive where you need to in order to escape. Avoid areas where your car might get stuck or hung up. If you can’t see effectively, driving “blind” is dangerous — but you have to weigh that danger against the danger of remaining where you are. If you have to use your car to push people out of the way or drive over people trying to stop you, then you must do it. Remember that you will be held accountable for your actions, so make sure you can prove that you believed you were in immediate danger.
Get out of sight of the protestors. If you are in contact with the police, tell them where you are going. If not, call them immediately after you get out of the dangerous situation and be prepared to make a full report.
If Your Car Is Stopped, Stalled or Disabled
If you can’t move and the crowd does not appear to be dangerous, you might just be better off sitting tight and waiting for things to disperse. But if the crowd appears to be dangerous, you are now in a very serious, life-threatening emergency. And this requires a plan (and likely some very intense actions on your part). You will have to determine if you can safely and effectively leave your car and move to a protected area.
Again, if protestors are not attempting to make entry into your vehicle, it may be better to just sit tight until things subside. But Young suggests immediately leaving the vehicle if any of the follow things happen:
The vehicle is not operational, has stalled or will not move.
There is fire inside or directly outside your vehicle.
Protestors are smashing your windows or attempting to make entry into your immobile vehicle.
This is where an effective plan is all but required. If you are planning to leave your vehicle, remember that you will likely be fighting your way out of your vehicle and fighting your way to safety. Do not leave in a panic. Think things through. First and foremost, Young suggests looking for an area that could provide relative safety and determining a direction of travel to that area.
If you are responsible for family members or others who are with you, explain the importance of trying to stay together. This may limit your movement and defensive options, especially if you have young children, but is it paramount that you keep everyone accounted for.
Access your defensive situation, taking a quick inventory of all the items you may be able to use as weapons when fighting your way to safety. In addition to your personal firearm, do you have knives, impact weapons or anything else you can use in your defence?
Do not leave your car without ensuring you take important items with you. This includes your identification, house keys, cell phone and any weapons.
Young suggests you consider the following as you prepare to fight your way out of the situation:
Can you operate your firearm effectively from inside your vehicle?
Have you ever fired through glass? (Flying glass could cut you or damage your eyes.)
Are you and your companions prepared for the discharge of a firearm in a confined space? (This is extremely loud.)
Is everyone prepared to move when the time comes?
“Fighting through a large, violent crowd is one of the most dangerous situations in the world. Often the sheer number of attackers can overwhelm even heavily armed and well-trained individuals. Exiting your vehicle is the last resort in a very dangerous situation,” said Young. “The first and best option is to avoid such situations. If you happen upon such a protest, do your best to get away immediately because there is no telling when the crowd can turn violent.”
— Kevin Michalowski
"Street protests are all too common these days, and blocking traffic has become one of the favourite methods of public protest. If you, as a motorist, round a corner and find yourself in the middle of a protest march, or if protestors suddenly surround your car, you need to take action quickly.
Dave Young, founder and director of Arma Training, stresses that immediate action is important, but such action requires forethought and a thorough understanding of the laws of self-defence in your state.
“Most state’s self-defence laws allow you to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family, but you may not use deadly force unless you are facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm,” Young said. “Some prosecutors could see using your car to drive away from a protest as using force, even deadly force. So the first thing you must do is assess the threat level.”
If the protestors are merely blocking your way, you may be able to use a reasonable level of force to get out of the situation, but you must remember that someone who was not at the scene will evaluate your decisions.
In Wisconsin, the use of force is outlined in state statute 939.48, which reads:
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
Call 911
Local law enforcement may already be aware of the protest and may even have people on the scene. If you make them aware that you are trapped in a large, angry crowd they may take action to attempt to disperse the crowd and facilitate a rescue, but don’t count on it. Officers at the scene may not be prepared for a riot situation, and it may take several minutes or more before police feel they have the resources to take on a large crowd. You could be injured or killed waiting for help.
Capture the Images
One of the best ways to show what you were facing and begin the basis for an effective legal defence of your actions is to record video of the incident. Most cell phones have video recorders these days. If you are with a companion, have the companion record as much of the incident as possible. Try to remain quiet while recording so as to caption the words as well as the actions of the protestors.
Do not attempt to record video and drive if you are alone. In that case, start the recorder, capture as much of the action as you can, then leave the recorder on, put it down and focus on your escape.
Keep Moving If You Can
Turing around and immediately leaving the area, if possible, is your best option. If you cannot turn around or go around the group, driving your car slowly through a group of protestors may be seen as a reasonable use of force. But unless you can articulate a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, you can’t use your car as a deadly weapon by driving over people or accelerating through the crowd.
“If you can drive away, do so. That might mean driving on the sidewalk or on the shoulder of the road or through the median,” said Young. “Escape is your first option.”
If Things Turn Violent
If the protest turns violent and people begin throwing objects, striking your vehicle or attempting to overturn your vehicle, you have to act quickly. If you reasonably believe the protestors are going to attempt to enter your vehicle, drag you out and injure you, the time to use force — perhaps even deadly force — has come. Young suggests the following:
Immediately get your family to lay down in the car while shielding their eyes and covering their skin to protect them from breaking glass or hard objects thrown at or into the car. If possible, pull the back seat down and take cover in the trunk area.
Get your car out of the danger area. Drive where you need to in order to escape. Avoid areas where your car might get stuck or hung up. If you can’t see effectively, driving “blind” is dangerous — but you have to weigh that danger against the danger of remaining where you are. If you have to use your car to push people out of the way or drive over people trying to stop you, then you must do it. Remember that you will be held accountable for your actions, so make sure you can prove that you believed you were in immediate danger.
Get out of sight of the protestors. If you are in contact with the police, tell them where you are going. If not, call them immediately after you get out of the dangerous situation and be prepared to make a full report.
If Your Car Is Stopped, Stalled or Disabled
If you can’t move and the crowd does not appear to be dangerous, you might just be better off sitting tight and waiting for things to disperse. But if the crowd appears to be dangerous, you are now in a very serious, life-threatening emergency. And this requires a plan (and likely some very intense actions on your part). You will have to determine if you can safely and effectively leave your car and move to a protected area.
Again, if protestors are not attempting to make entry into your vehicle, it may be better to just sit tight until things subside. But Young suggests immediately leaving the vehicle if any of the follow things happen:
The vehicle is not operational, has stalled or will not move.
There is fire inside or directly outside your vehicle.
Protestors are smashing your windows or attempting to make entry into your immobile vehicle.
This is where an effective plan is all but required. If you are planning to leave your vehicle, remember that you will likely be fighting your way out of your vehicle and fighting your way to safety. Do not leave in a panic. Think things through. First and foremost, Young suggests looking for an area that could provide relative safety and determining a direction of travel to that area.
If you are responsible for family members or others who are with you, explain the importance of trying to stay together. This may limit your movement and defensive options, especially if you have young children, but is it paramount that you keep everyone accounted for.
Access your defensive situation, taking a quick inventory of all the items you may be able to use as weapons when fighting your way to safety. In addition to your personal firearm, do you have knives, impact weapons or anything else you can use in your defence?
Do not leave your car without ensuring you take important items with you. This includes your identification, house keys, cell phone and any weapons.
Young suggests you consider the following as you prepare to fight your way out of the situation:
Can you operate your firearm effectively from inside your vehicle?
Have you ever fired through glass? (Flying glass could cut you or damage your eyes.)
Are you and your companions prepared for the discharge of a firearm in a confined space? (This is extremely loud.)
Is everyone prepared to move when the time comes?
“Fighting through a large, violent crowd is one of the most dangerous situations in the world. Often the sheer number of attackers can overwhelm even heavily armed and well-trained individuals. Exiting your vehicle is the last resort in a very dangerous situation,” said Young. “The first and best option is to avoid such situations. If you happen upon such a protest, do your best to get away immediately because there is no telling when the crowd can turn violent.”
— Kevin Michalowski
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://constitution.com/new-public-scho ... eld-trips/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"During a training session for teachers in the Anne Arundel County Public School District instructing teachers at how to best support transgender students, Bob Mosier, the chief communications officer for the district, told teachers that they should allow “biological” boys to sleep in the same rooms as “biological” girls on field trips… and then he instructed the teachers NOT TO TELL PARENTS about it.
“So, many of you might be asking yourselves, ‘So I’m at an overnight field trip, and I have student who’s biologically a male, identifies as a female, and we’ve worked with that student and her family, and that student wants to sleep in the dorms, or whatever sleeping arrangements are, with the females. They don’t want to sleep in a room by themselves; they want to sleep with the rest of the females. So what do we do?
“And the answer is, they sleep with the females. That’s not the easy answer; it’s the right answer. And in some cases, it’s going to cause issues, because the private information piece doesn’t allow you to share that with parents of all of the other campers.”
"During a training session for teachers in the Anne Arundel County Public School District instructing teachers at how to best support transgender students, Bob Mosier, the chief communications officer for the district, told teachers that they should allow “biological” boys to sleep in the same rooms as “biological” girls on field trips… and then he instructed the teachers NOT TO TELL PARENTS about it.
“So, many of you might be asking yourselves, ‘So I’m at an overnight field trip, and I have student who’s biologically a male, identifies as a female, and we’ve worked with that student and her family, and that student wants to sleep in the dorms, or whatever sleeping arrangements are, with the females. They don’t want to sleep in a room by themselves; they want to sleep with the rest of the females. So what do we do?
“And the answer is, they sleep with the females. That’s not the easy answer; it’s the right answer. And in some cases, it’s going to cause issues, because the private information piece doesn’t allow you to share that with parents of all of the other campers.”
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.gopusa.com/?p=14166?omhide=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.toddstarnes.com/column/unive ... e-workshop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From Binghamton Review
By Todd Starnes
"Nothing screams tolerance and diversity like a university workshop designed to target white people.
The State University of New York in Binghamton has a bit of explaining to do after they held a workshop titled, “#StopWhitePeople2K16.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives!
The workshop was an official part of the residential assistant training program at the taxpayer-funded university.
The Binghamton Review, the university’s conservative newspaper, exposed this nonsense and they deserve a round of applause for their efforts.
It’s not exactly clear how they intend to stop all of us white folks, but the course smacks of blatant bigotry disguised as cultural awareness.
Get a load of the course description:
“The premise of this session is to help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within.”
I developed a micro-aggression just reading that nonsense.
“The terrifying implication here is not that students on campus think it is appropriate to call an event by that name, but that the university seems to endorse it as a proper part of a RA training,” Binghamton Review journalist Howard Hecht wrote.
“For a university dedicated to providing an inclusive environment, calling an event ‘#StopWhitePeople2K16’ seems counterproductive at best,” Hecht continued. “The name is divisive.”
Well said, Howard.
You will be relieved to know the grownups at SUNY-Binghamton say they really don’t hate white people.
“We verified that the actual program content was not ‘anti-white’,” said Brian Rose, vice president for student affairs.
Whew! What a relief.
“The program title, ‘#StopWhitePeople2K16’ was drawn from a familiar hashtag in use on Twitter, and was not invented by the program facilitators,” he said in a prepared statement. “It is my understanding that the hashtag is commonly used ironically.”
Ah yes, the old “I’m not a racist, I’m just a plagiarist defense.”
Mr. Rose said as many as 50 RA’s attended the session – which he stressed was voluntary.
The content included discussions on reverse racism, the relationship of communities of color with police, whiteness and so on and so forth.
“What we strive to do from an administrative level is cultivate an environment where our students listen to one another, learn from one another and do so in a manner that doesn’t cause unnecessary harm,” Mr. Rose said. “I have no indication that this particular program was inconsistent with the respectful environment we hope to support and sustain.”
In other words “#StopWhitePeople2K16” is just another name for “Blame the White Guy 101.”
http://www.toddstarnes.com/column/unive ... e-workshop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From Binghamton Review
By Todd Starnes
"Nothing screams tolerance and diversity like a university workshop designed to target white people.
The State University of New York in Binghamton has a bit of explaining to do after they held a workshop titled, “#StopWhitePeople2K16.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a must-read for Conservatives!
The workshop was an official part of the residential assistant training program at the taxpayer-funded university.
The Binghamton Review, the university’s conservative newspaper, exposed this nonsense and they deserve a round of applause for their efforts.
It’s not exactly clear how they intend to stop all of us white folks, but the course smacks of blatant bigotry disguised as cultural awareness.
Get a load of the course description:
“The premise of this session is to help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within.”
I developed a micro-aggression just reading that nonsense.
“The terrifying implication here is not that students on campus think it is appropriate to call an event by that name, but that the university seems to endorse it as a proper part of a RA training,” Binghamton Review journalist Howard Hecht wrote.
“For a university dedicated to providing an inclusive environment, calling an event ‘#StopWhitePeople2K16’ seems counterproductive at best,” Hecht continued. “The name is divisive.”
Well said, Howard.
You will be relieved to know the grownups at SUNY-Binghamton say they really don’t hate white people.
“We verified that the actual program content was not ‘anti-white’,” said Brian Rose, vice president for student affairs.
Whew! What a relief.
“The program title, ‘#StopWhitePeople2K16’ was drawn from a familiar hashtag in use on Twitter, and was not invented by the program facilitators,” he said in a prepared statement. “It is my understanding that the hashtag is commonly used ironically.”
Ah yes, the old “I’m not a racist, I’m just a plagiarist defense.”
Mr. Rose said as many as 50 RA’s attended the session – which he stressed was voluntary.
The content included discussions on reverse racism, the relationship of communities of color with police, whiteness and so on and so forth.
“What we strive to do from an administrative level is cultivate an environment where our students listen to one another, learn from one another and do so in a manner that doesn’t cause unnecessary harm,” Mr. Rose said. “I have no indication that this particular program was inconsistent with the respectful environment we hope to support and sustain.”
In other words “#StopWhitePeople2K16” is just another name for “Blame the White Guy 101.”
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"Bill Whittle and his Firewall videos have become a major weapon in the Freedom Center's arsenal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL9j_s_eLvU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Published on 30 Aug 2016
In this powerful and timely Firewall, Bill Whittle provides shocking evidence that demolishes the central, Big Lie of Black Lives Matter "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL9j_s_eLvU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Published on 30 Aug 2016
In this powerful and timely Firewall, Bill Whittle provides shocking evidence that demolishes the central, Big Lie of Black Lives Matter "
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... zards.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Washing your clothes is not as harmless as you might imagine. Detergents carry toxins and your clothes lose microfibers when washed, polluting the water supply. Your clothes may also harbor flame retardant chemicals, even if you carefully purchase "green" furniture.
Just as purchasing organic foods is integral to your overall health and wellness, so is purchasing organic fabrics. The benefits of organic clothing relate to that which is ABSENT from the fabric — toxic chemicals and pesticides.
Lightweight, synthetic polyester fabrics, while popular because they are fast-drying, also retain more odor-causing bacteria than organic cotton material.1 In a study using 26 volunteers, researchers found the odor-causing bacteria under your arms is different than those populating your polyester t-shirt.
The microbes on the polyester are difficult to remove and cause you to smell before you even start your workout. Most manufactured clothing has also been sprayed with flame retardant chemicals. While they may wash out of your clothes, this adds toxins into the water supply.
Your Clothes May Poison Food Supply
How flame retardant chemicals and phthalates are found in the environment has puzzled scientists as the manufacturers have not reported spillages. Turns out these hormone disruptors and potential carcinogens appear to be making their way into the waterways through your washing machine.
In a recent study from the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), researchers were able to directly link plastics and man-made fibers to the pollution in fish you may have eaten last night.
The researchers sampled fish from markets in Indonesia and California, finding the difference was not in the amount of pollutants, but in the type between both countries.
Lead author of the study, Chelsea Rochman, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis School of Medicine, was quoted in EcoWatch, saying: "It's interesting that there isn't a big difference in the amount of debris in the fish from each location, but in the type — plastic or fiber. We think the type of debris in the fish is driven by differences in local waste management."
Each washing of a synthetic fleece jacket releases 1.7 grams of microfiber. The older the jacket, the more microfibers are released.3 Up to 40 percent of these microfibers leave the wastewater treatment plant and end up in the surrounding lakes, rivers and ocean.
Current studies have found microfibers are more prevalent than microbeads, and are particularly dangerous, as the fibers are small enough to easily be eaten by fish and other wildlife, accumulating in the gut and concentrating in the bodies of other animals higher up the food chain.
Fibres are found in both marine and freshwater fish. When Abigail Barrows, chief investigator for Global Microplastics Initiative, sampled over 2,000 marine and fresh water fish, 90 percent had microfiber debris in their bodies.
Patagonia Took a First Step
Ecologist Mark Browne, Ph.D., post-doctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, published a study during which he sampled sediment from 15 beaches around the world.4 He found high concentrations of acrylic and polyester fibers close to waste water treatment plants.
He reached out to large manufacturers to help fund further study, but only one company, Eileen Fisher, a clothing company that promotes sustainable manufacturing of clothes, offered to help.
In 2015, more research into the effects of microfibers in the environment was published and Jill Dumain, Patagonia's director of environmental strategy, was paying attention. They commissioned a study to determine if products from Patagonia were contributing to the problem.
The new study found that during laundering, one fleece jacket may release as many as 250,000 microfibers. Based on an estimate from sales of the jackets, 100,000 jackets washed in one year would result in the equivalent of 11,900 plastic grocery bags released into the environment, from just one company.
Washing machines also play a role in releasing microfibers into the wastewater. Scientists are calling for appliance companies to investigate the effectiveness of adding filters to catch the microfibers.
Research found that top loading machines released 5.3 times more microfibers than front loading models. Swedish statistician Hans Rosling estimates the problem will only grow as the number of washing machines put into use continues to climb.
In 2010, 2 billion people used washing machines, and 9 billion worldwide are expected to use them by 2050.
Flame Retardants and Plasticizers Move From the Air to Your Clothes
Flame retardants are used in furniture, electronics, polyurethane foam, cables, clothing and building insulation. This group of chemicals does not break down into safer chemicals in the environment.
They may travel great distances from the point of origin, accumulate in people and animals in the food chain and have long-term toxic effects.
In recent years, flame retardant chemicals have come under fire as studies show they do not work well and are extremely toxic, posing a severe health hazard to fire fighters.
When the tobacco industry was pressured into making cigarettes safer to protect against house fires, tobacco manufacturers paired with chemical companies to convince officials that dousing furniture in chemicals was a better choice than altering the cigarettes.
The ruse worked, but firefighter, health, science and consumer groups are now pushing for a ban on flame retardants, as studies show they pose serious health risks even when not lit.
Exposure to these chemicals at a critical point in development may damage your reproductive system, and cause deficits in learning, memory, motor skills and behavior. Some have also been identified as carcinogenic.
Now, a pilot study has found cotton and polyester fabrics pick up not only flame retardant chemicals but also plasticizers, such as phthalates, from indoor air. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. They leach out from the plastics as the product ages, and are toxic to you and the environment.
Phthalates have carcinogenic effects and affect reproduction and development.When clothing carrying the chemicals is washed, the chemicals enter wastewater and are released into the environment.
What's the Problem With These Chemicals?
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been used as flame retardant chemicals for the past 25 years. Unfortunately, they don't work as promised and actually produce more toxic smoke than untreated objects. Once in your home, they become a part of the dust and air you breathe.
PBDEs are classified as persistent organic pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meaning they persist in the environment and your body, particularly fatty tissue. This includes your brain, which is 60 percent lipids.
Scientists from the U.S. and Beijing discovered PBDE-47 was instrumental in interfering with the growth of new neurons that are necessary for learning and memory in adults.
Perhaps the most condemning evidence against this class of chemicals is the role they may play in autism. When the brains of adults with autism were examined, researchers found persistent organic pollutants in every sample.
Exposure to phthalates can occur when you microwave foods in plastic containers, eat or drink foods that were wrapped or stored in plastic, when children suck or chew on soft plastic or vinyl products, and if you are exposed to medical devices such as IV tubing, blood transfusions and catheters.
Read labels, call the manufacturer and ask your healthcare provider to use phthalate-free products. Studies on lab animals indicate phthalates have the following effects:
Early onset puberty
Poor male reproductive development
Impaired hormone system function
Reproductive and genital defects
Low testosterone levels and sperm count in adolescent males
Chemicals in Your Clothes May Damage Your Fertility
A number of studies have demonstrated a 50 percent decline in adult male sperm count over the last 50 years.19 Reasons have included poor diet, stressful lifestyle and environmental factors. Recently, researchers found microfibers released from your clothing may bind with chemicals, such as phthalates and flame retardants, in your laundry before released into the sewer system.
Phthalates are easily released from plastics as they are not chemically bound to the product. This is why many soft plastics become hard and brittle over time. The phthalates are deposited into your air, food and liquids. Phthalates affect not only the amount of sperm but also the quality of the genetic material, affecting both fertility and the health of your children.
Studies have also demonstrated that women with the highest concentrations of phthalates suffer the lowest levels of libido. Emily Barrett, Ph.D., who studies prenatal phthalate exposure, was quoted in the Telegraph, saying:
"Low libido can take its toll on relationships and wellbeing. For a lot of women with loss of libido there is no obvious reason why and it is important to know [how] these chemicals might contribute. The leading source of some phthalates is food. We think that the more processing food goes through, the more likely it is to take these chemicals on.
One of the recommendations that might be made to potentially lower your exposure is to eat less processed food and to pick fresh things without packaging. Organic foods are maybe better because phthalates are sometimes used in pesticides. But you are never going to be able to totally eliminate phthalates from your life unless policy changes."
How to Reduce Your Exposure to Phthalates
Until policy changes, it may be impossible to eliminate phthalates entirely from your environment. However, you can make a significant impact on your health and that of your children by recognizing the products high in phthalates and reducing or eliminating them from your immediate environment.
Products containing phthalates include the following. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but may serve to help you identify the products in your home most likely to increase your risk.
Vinyl raincoats and rain boots
Household cleaners, glues and paints
Steering wheels, vinyl seating and plastic consoles
Plastic food wraps and soft plastic food containers
Shower curtains
Soft plastic toys
Nail polish and hair spray
Scented candles
PVC water pipes, vinyl flooring and mini-blinds
Plastic school supplies
Scented shampoos, soaps, moisturizers and aftershave lotions
Sex toys and lubricating oils
How to Reduce Your Exposure to Flame Retardants
Like phthalates, flame retardants are so widely used that it's difficult to avoid them completely. However, there are steps you can take to reduce your exposure, including the following:
• Avoid fire-resistant, stain-resistant and/or water-repellant fabrics. Your best bet is to buy organic fabrics, especially when it comes to clothing.
• Avoid upholstered furniture with the TB117 label. If the label states: "This article meets the flammability requirements of California Bureau of Home Furnishings Technical Bulletin 117," it most likely contains flame retardants.
However, even upholstered furniture that's unlabeled may contain flame retardants. To find out if your furniture contains flame retardants, you can send a sample to Duke University. For more information and full instructions, please see my previous article, "Firefighters Are Still Fighting Deadly Flame Retardants."
• Furniture products filled with cotton, wool or polyester tend to be safer than chemical-treated foam; some products also state that they are "flame-retardant free." Organic wool (100 percent) is naturally flame-resistant.
• Avoid baby products with foam. Nursing pillows, high chairs, strollers and other products containing polyurethane foam most likely contain flame retardants.
• Avoid foam carpet padding. If possible, minimize the use of foam carpet padding, which often contains flame retardants. If removing carpeting, take precautions to avoid exposures. You'll want to isolate your work area from the rest of your house to avoid spreading it around, and use a HEPA filter vacuum to clean up.
PBDEs are often found in household dust, so clean up with a HEPA-filter vacuum and/or a wet mop often. Be especially careful with polyurethane foam products manufactured prior to 2005, such as upholstered furniture, mattresses and pillows, as these are most likely to contain PBDEs.
If you have any of these in your home, inspect them carefully and replace ripped covers and/or any foam that appears to be breaking down. Also avoid reupholstering furniture by yourself as the reupholstering process increases your risk of exposure."
"Washing your clothes is not as harmless as you might imagine. Detergents carry toxins and your clothes lose microfibers when washed, polluting the water supply. Your clothes may also harbor flame retardant chemicals, even if you carefully purchase "green" furniture.
Just as purchasing organic foods is integral to your overall health and wellness, so is purchasing organic fabrics. The benefits of organic clothing relate to that which is ABSENT from the fabric — toxic chemicals and pesticides.
Lightweight, synthetic polyester fabrics, while popular because they are fast-drying, also retain more odor-causing bacteria than organic cotton material.1 In a study using 26 volunteers, researchers found the odor-causing bacteria under your arms is different than those populating your polyester t-shirt.
The microbes on the polyester are difficult to remove and cause you to smell before you even start your workout. Most manufactured clothing has also been sprayed with flame retardant chemicals. While they may wash out of your clothes, this adds toxins into the water supply.
Your Clothes May Poison Food Supply
How flame retardant chemicals and phthalates are found in the environment has puzzled scientists as the manufacturers have not reported spillages. Turns out these hormone disruptors and potential carcinogens appear to be making their way into the waterways through your washing machine.
In a recent study from the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), researchers were able to directly link plastics and man-made fibers to the pollution in fish you may have eaten last night.
The researchers sampled fish from markets in Indonesia and California, finding the difference was not in the amount of pollutants, but in the type between both countries.
Lead author of the study, Chelsea Rochman, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis School of Medicine, was quoted in EcoWatch, saying: "It's interesting that there isn't a big difference in the amount of debris in the fish from each location, but in the type — plastic or fiber. We think the type of debris in the fish is driven by differences in local waste management."
Each washing of a synthetic fleece jacket releases 1.7 grams of microfiber. The older the jacket, the more microfibers are released.3 Up to 40 percent of these microfibers leave the wastewater treatment plant and end up in the surrounding lakes, rivers and ocean.
Current studies have found microfibers are more prevalent than microbeads, and are particularly dangerous, as the fibers are small enough to easily be eaten by fish and other wildlife, accumulating in the gut and concentrating in the bodies of other animals higher up the food chain.
Fibres are found in both marine and freshwater fish. When Abigail Barrows, chief investigator for Global Microplastics Initiative, sampled over 2,000 marine and fresh water fish, 90 percent had microfiber debris in their bodies.
Patagonia Took a First Step
Ecologist Mark Browne, Ph.D., post-doctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, published a study during which he sampled sediment from 15 beaches around the world.4 He found high concentrations of acrylic and polyester fibers close to waste water treatment plants.
He reached out to large manufacturers to help fund further study, but only one company, Eileen Fisher, a clothing company that promotes sustainable manufacturing of clothes, offered to help.
In 2015, more research into the effects of microfibers in the environment was published and Jill Dumain, Patagonia's director of environmental strategy, was paying attention. They commissioned a study to determine if products from Patagonia were contributing to the problem.
The new study found that during laundering, one fleece jacket may release as many as 250,000 microfibers. Based on an estimate from sales of the jackets, 100,000 jackets washed in one year would result in the equivalent of 11,900 plastic grocery bags released into the environment, from just one company.
Washing machines also play a role in releasing microfibers into the wastewater. Scientists are calling for appliance companies to investigate the effectiveness of adding filters to catch the microfibers.
Research found that top loading machines released 5.3 times more microfibers than front loading models. Swedish statistician Hans Rosling estimates the problem will only grow as the number of washing machines put into use continues to climb.
In 2010, 2 billion people used washing machines, and 9 billion worldwide are expected to use them by 2050.
Flame Retardants and Plasticizers Move From the Air to Your Clothes
Flame retardants are used in furniture, electronics, polyurethane foam, cables, clothing and building insulation. This group of chemicals does not break down into safer chemicals in the environment.
They may travel great distances from the point of origin, accumulate in people and animals in the food chain and have long-term toxic effects.
In recent years, flame retardant chemicals have come under fire as studies show they do not work well and are extremely toxic, posing a severe health hazard to fire fighters.
When the tobacco industry was pressured into making cigarettes safer to protect against house fires, tobacco manufacturers paired with chemical companies to convince officials that dousing furniture in chemicals was a better choice than altering the cigarettes.
The ruse worked, but firefighter, health, science and consumer groups are now pushing for a ban on flame retardants, as studies show they pose serious health risks even when not lit.
Exposure to these chemicals at a critical point in development may damage your reproductive system, and cause deficits in learning, memory, motor skills and behavior. Some have also been identified as carcinogenic.
Now, a pilot study has found cotton and polyester fabrics pick up not only flame retardant chemicals but also plasticizers, such as phthalates, from indoor air. Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. They leach out from the plastics as the product ages, and are toxic to you and the environment.
Phthalates have carcinogenic effects and affect reproduction and development.When clothing carrying the chemicals is washed, the chemicals enter wastewater and are released into the environment.
What's the Problem With These Chemicals?
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been used as flame retardant chemicals for the past 25 years. Unfortunately, they don't work as promised and actually produce more toxic smoke than untreated objects. Once in your home, they become a part of the dust and air you breathe.
PBDEs are classified as persistent organic pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meaning they persist in the environment and your body, particularly fatty tissue. This includes your brain, which is 60 percent lipids.
Scientists from the U.S. and Beijing discovered PBDE-47 was instrumental in interfering with the growth of new neurons that are necessary for learning and memory in adults.
Perhaps the most condemning evidence against this class of chemicals is the role they may play in autism. When the brains of adults with autism were examined, researchers found persistent organic pollutants in every sample.
Exposure to phthalates can occur when you microwave foods in plastic containers, eat or drink foods that were wrapped or stored in plastic, when children suck or chew on soft plastic or vinyl products, and if you are exposed to medical devices such as IV tubing, blood transfusions and catheters.
Read labels, call the manufacturer and ask your healthcare provider to use phthalate-free products. Studies on lab animals indicate phthalates have the following effects:
Early onset puberty
Poor male reproductive development
Impaired hormone system function
Reproductive and genital defects
Low testosterone levels and sperm count in adolescent males
Chemicals in Your Clothes May Damage Your Fertility
A number of studies have demonstrated a 50 percent decline in adult male sperm count over the last 50 years.19 Reasons have included poor diet, stressful lifestyle and environmental factors. Recently, researchers found microfibers released from your clothing may bind with chemicals, such as phthalates and flame retardants, in your laundry before released into the sewer system.
Phthalates are easily released from plastics as they are not chemically bound to the product. This is why many soft plastics become hard and brittle over time. The phthalates are deposited into your air, food and liquids. Phthalates affect not only the amount of sperm but also the quality of the genetic material, affecting both fertility and the health of your children.
Studies have also demonstrated that women with the highest concentrations of phthalates suffer the lowest levels of libido. Emily Barrett, Ph.D., who studies prenatal phthalate exposure, was quoted in the Telegraph, saying:
"Low libido can take its toll on relationships and wellbeing. For a lot of women with loss of libido there is no obvious reason why and it is important to know [how] these chemicals might contribute. The leading source of some phthalates is food. We think that the more processing food goes through, the more likely it is to take these chemicals on.
One of the recommendations that might be made to potentially lower your exposure is to eat less processed food and to pick fresh things without packaging. Organic foods are maybe better because phthalates are sometimes used in pesticides. But you are never going to be able to totally eliminate phthalates from your life unless policy changes."
How to Reduce Your Exposure to Phthalates
Until policy changes, it may be impossible to eliminate phthalates entirely from your environment. However, you can make a significant impact on your health and that of your children by recognizing the products high in phthalates and reducing or eliminating them from your immediate environment.
Products containing phthalates include the following. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but may serve to help you identify the products in your home most likely to increase your risk.
Vinyl raincoats and rain boots
Household cleaners, glues and paints
Steering wheels, vinyl seating and plastic consoles
Plastic food wraps and soft plastic food containers
Shower curtains
Soft plastic toys
Nail polish and hair spray
Scented candles
PVC water pipes, vinyl flooring and mini-blinds
Plastic school supplies
Scented shampoos, soaps, moisturizers and aftershave lotions
Sex toys and lubricating oils
How to Reduce Your Exposure to Flame Retardants
Like phthalates, flame retardants are so widely used that it's difficult to avoid them completely. However, there are steps you can take to reduce your exposure, including the following:
• Avoid fire-resistant, stain-resistant and/or water-repellant fabrics. Your best bet is to buy organic fabrics, especially when it comes to clothing.
• Avoid upholstered furniture with the TB117 label. If the label states: "This article meets the flammability requirements of California Bureau of Home Furnishings Technical Bulletin 117," it most likely contains flame retardants.
However, even upholstered furniture that's unlabeled may contain flame retardants. To find out if your furniture contains flame retardants, you can send a sample to Duke University. For more information and full instructions, please see my previous article, "Firefighters Are Still Fighting Deadly Flame Retardants."
• Furniture products filled with cotton, wool or polyester tend to be safer than chemical-treated foam; some products also state that they are "flame-retardant free." Organic wool (100 percent) is naturally flame-resistant.
• Avoid baby products with foam. Nursing pillows, high chairs, strollers and other products containing polyurethane foam most likely contain flame retardants.
• Avoid foam carpet padding. If possible, minimize the use of foam carpet padding, which often contains flame retardants. If removing carpeting, take precautions to avoid exposures. You'll want to isolate your work area from the rest of your house to avoid spreading it around, and use a HEPA filter vacuum to clean up.
PBDEs are often found in household dust, so clean up with a HEPA-filter vacuum and/or a wet mop often. Be especially careful with polyurethane foam products manufactured prior to 2005, such as upholstered furniture, mattresses and pillows, as these are most likely to contain PBDEs.
If you have any of these in your home, inspect them carefully and replace ripped covers and/or any foam that appears to be breaking down. Also avoid reupholstering furniture by yourself as the reupholstering process increases your risk of exposure."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.ldsliving.com/All-Missionari ... ampaign=mr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A 7.1 magnitude earthquake struck 100 kilometres off the northeast coast of New Zealand with possible tsunami like activity and aftershocks. I want to assure you that all of the missionaries in the New Zealand Hamilton Mission in the affected areas have been spoken to and are safe and well and in no immediate threat of danger.
President Jeffrey D. Cummings
New Zealand Hamilton Mission President"
A 7.1 magnitude earthquake struck 100 kilometres off the northeast coast of New Zealand with possible tsunami like activity and aftershocks. I want to assure you that all of the missionaries in the New Zealand Hamilton Mission in the affected areas have been spoken to and are safe and well and in no immediate threat of danger.
President Jeffrey D. Cummings
New Zealand Hamilton Mission President"
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
Georgetown … will give preference in admissions to the descendants of slaves owned by the Maryland Jesuits as part of its effort to atone for profiting from the sale of enslaved people.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
https://alinakneepkens.net/over-eten/?u ... DesignTAXI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/32523040/ho ... ade/#page1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This video shows the graphic gelatin making process, the key ingredient in gummy lollies.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/32523040/ho ... ade/#page1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This video shows the graphic gelatin making process, the key ingredient in gummy lollies.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://ijr.com/2016/08/684205-christian ... 1472138367" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"When a Christian woman went to get her driver's license picture renewed in Alabama, things didn't go how she hoped.
The woman, Yvonne Allen, wanted to wear her headscarf (which she keeps on for religious reasons) for the photo.
When it was time for her to take her picture, however, according to the complaint, she was immediately asked if she was "a Muslim." After responding that she wasn't, the clerk said:
"You're not a Muslim, Christian women do not cover their hair."
Unsure of how to handle the situation, Allen asked to talk with a supervisor. Again, however, she was told that she wasn't "a Muslim" so she couldn't take her picture with her head covered.
Still in need of the picture, Allen eventually removed her headscarf. Before the clerk took the photo, Allen asked if she could close the door a little for some privacy. Yet, the clerk refused.
The experience didn't just damage Allen because she felt her religious beliefs were being violated, it damaged her because she has to show her ID in so many different situations. And she says that makes her feel ashamed and like she is being "disobedient to God."
Even though most Christian women do not wear headscarves today, some still wear them because they believe that's what Corinthians 11:10 requires. The verse reads:
"Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
It isn't clear if that's why Allen has such strong beliefs.
Following the experience, Allen wrote three letters to a judge to consider her case. But she reportedly didn't get a response.
With the continued need get a new photo for her license and feeling as if she wasn't being heard, she filed a lawsuit with the ACLU. AL.com reported on what the lawsuit is demanding:
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order Lee County officials to allow Allen to retake her driver license photo with her headscarf and to award Allen damages and attorneys' fees.
The lawsuit names Lee County Probate Judge Bill English and Chief Clerk Becky Frayer as defendants. Frayer declined comment Tuesday and English had not responded to a request for comment prior to publication of this story.
A study by the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) states that while the rules for wearing headgear in identification photos vary by state, 46 states -- including Alabama -- do allow for "religious/cultural exemptions" for headgear or consider headgear as "normal wear."
In fact, the Alabama Department of Public Safety states:
The photograph of each applicant must be a "full face" photo. A "full face" photo is one in which the applicant is facing the camera directly...Head coverings and headgear are only acceptable due to religious beliefs or medical conditions, and even then, may not obscure any portion of the applicant's face...Photographs of applicants wearing headgear not specifically religious in nature are not acceptable.
Allen claims that Lee County officials violated her First Amendment rights and the Alabama Constitution, which says, "No preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship."
"When a Christian woman went to get her driver's license picture renewed in Alabama, things didn't go how she hoped.
The woman, Yvonne Allen, wanted to wear her headscarf (which she keeps on for religious reasons) for the photo.
When it was time for her to take her picture, however, according to the complaint, she was immediately asked if she was "a Muslim." After responding that she wasn't, the clerk said:
"You're not a Muslim, Christian women do not cover their hair."
Unsure of how to handle the situation, Allen asked to talk with a supervisor. Again, however, she was told that she wasn't "a Muslim" so she couldn't take her picture with her head covered.
Still in need of the picture, Allen eventually removed her headscarf. Before the clerk took the photo, Allen asked if she could close the door a little for some privacy. Yet, the clerk refused.
The experience didn't just damage Allen because she felt her religious beliefs were being violated, it damaged her because she has to show her ID in so many different situations. And she says that makes her feel ashamed and like she is being "disobedient to God."
Even though most Christian women do not wear headscarves today, some still wear them because they believe that's what Corinthians 11:10 requires. The verse reads:
"Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
It isn't clear if that's why Allen has such strong beliefs.
Following the experience, Allen wrote three letters to a judge to consider her case. But she reportedly didn't get a response.
With the continued need get a new photo for her license and feeling as if she wasn't being heard, she filed a lawsuit with the ACLU. AL.com reported on what the lawsuit is demanding:
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order Lee County officials to allow Allen to retake her driver license photo with her headscarf and to award Allen damages and attorneys' fees.
The lawsuit names Lee County Probate Judge Bill English and Chief Clerk Becky Frayer as defendants. Frayer declined comment Tuesday and English had not responded to a request for comment prior to publication of this story.
A study by the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) states that while the rules for wearing headgear in identification photos vary by state, 46 states -- including Alabama -- do allow for "religious/cultural exemptions" for headgear or consider headgear as "normal wear."
In fact, the Alabama Department of Public Safety states:
The photograph of each applicant must be a "full face" photo. A "full face" photo is one in which the applicant is facing the camera directly...Head coverings and headgear are only acceptable due to religious beliefs or medical conditions, and even then, may not obscure any portion of the applicant's face...Photographs of applicants wearing headgear not specifically religious in nature are not acceptable.
Allen claims that Lee County officials violated her First Amendment rights and the Alabama Constitution, which says, "No preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"Fifty-three-year-old Steve Eckel – a retired police officer – was in a New Jersey Kohl’s parking lot on his way to the store when another customer was walking back to her car from the store. The woman noticed a baby inside a car in the back seat, sweating and screaming with a blanket covering her. Immediately, the two notified employees in Kohl’s and called 911.
But Eckel wasn’t going to risk the baby’s life, waiting for paramedics to show up. He asked a couple passersby if they had a tire iron he could borrow. When they told him they didn’t have anything like that, he remembered that he had a sledgehammer in the back of his vehicle.
He retrieved it, and returned to try to break one of the front door windows. At first, the glass wouldn’t break, but it finally “exploded” when he hit the corner of the window right next to the mirror.
After it shattered, he got the baby girl out of the car – which could have been as hot as 120 degrees Fahrenheit inside.
Eckel brought the baby inside Kohl’s, undressed her down to her diaper, and soaked her in water. At that point, she started looking much better.
The baby’s mother returned to her car with her other older kids, and saw the shattered window, and the empty car seat and panicked. By that time, the police had shown up on the scene, and after identifying her as the mother, asked her to sit on the curb and later arrested her for child endangerment. Police and the two people who saved the girl’s life estimated that the baby was in the car for about 40 minutes. Thanks to those two, the baby girl is still alive.
When CNN sister network HLN – the same network that fired Dr. Drew for questioning Hillary Clinton’s health – interviewed Steve Eckel about the incident, he was wearing a Trump 2016 t-shirt. When HLN first aired the interview, it was plain as day.
But when they aired the same interview later, they felt the need to blur his shirt so that no one knew that he supported Donald Trump.
I imagine if he had a Hillary Clinton 2016 shirt, their lead story would have been, “Hillary Clinton Supporter Saves Baby’s Life!” But since he happens to support Trump, viewers don’t need to know that. They wouldn’t want their viewers getting the “wrong idea.”
http://eaglerising.com/36487/hero-saves ... irt-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But Eckel wasn’t going to risk the baby’s life, waiting for paramedics to show up. He asked a couple passersby if they had a tire iron he could borrow. When they told him they didn’t have anything like that, he remembered that he had a sledgehammer in the back of his vehicle.
He retrieved it, and returned to try to break one of the front door windows. At first, the glass wouldn’t break, but it finally “exploded” when he hit the corner of the window right next to the mirror.
After it shattered, he got the baby girl out of the car – which could have been as hot as 120 degrees Fahrenheit inside.
Eckel brought the baby inside Kohl’s, undressed her down to her diaper, and soaked her in water. At that point, she started looking much better.
The baby’s mother returned to her car with her other older kids, and saw the shattered window, and the empty car seat and panicked. By that time, the police had shown up on the scene, and after identifying her as the mother, asked her to sit on the curb and later arrested her for child endangerment. Police and the two people who saved the girl’s life estimated that the baby was in the car for about 40 minutes. Thanks to those two, the baby girl is still alive.
When CNN sister network HLN – the same network that fired Dr. Drew for questioning Hillary Clinton’s health – interviewed Steve Eckel about the incident, he was wearing a Trump 2016 t-shirt. When HLN first aired the interview, it was plain as day.
But when they aired the same interview later, they felt the need to blur his shirt so that no one knew that he supported Donald Trump.
I imagine if he had a Hillary Clinton 2016 shirt, their lead story would have been, “Hillary Clinton Supporter Saves Baby’s Life!” But since he happens to support Trump, viewers don’t need to know that. They wouldn’t want their viewers getting the “wrong idea.”
http://eaglerising.com/36487/hero-saves ... irt-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IOpbj8ajZs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full
Very interesting indeed.
Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full
Very interesting indeed.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2016 ... 7SRCAPFSP4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
" Josiah Cooper-Pope, born 15 weeks premature, did fine in the neonatal intensive care unit for the first 10 days of his life.
Then, suddenly, his tiny body started to swell. Overnight, he grew so distended that his skin split.
His mother, Shala Bowser, said nurses at Chippenham Hospital in Richmond, Virginia, told her that Josiah had an infection and that she should prepare for the worst. On Sept. 2, 2010, she was allowed to hold him for the first and last time as he took his final breath. He was 17 days old.
What no one at the hospital told Bowser was that her newborn was the fourth baby in the neonatal unit to catch the same infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, better-known as MRSA. It would sicken eight more, records show – nearly every baby in the unit – before the outbreak had run its course.
The shock of her son’s death came back to her when, after being contacted by Reuters earlier this year about the outbreak, Bowser went to Virginia’s Division of Vital Records to get a copy of Josiah’s death certificate. The cause of death: “Sepsis due to (or as a consequence of): Prematurity.” Sepsis is a complication of infection, but there was no mention of MRSA.
“My heart hurts,” Bowser said, sobbing. “I saw what this did to him. And then they just threw a bunch of words on the death certificate.”
According to their death certificates, Emma Grace Breaux died at age 3 from complications of the flu; Joshua Nahum died at age 27 from complications related to a skydiving accident; and Dan Greulich succumbed to cardiac arrhythmia at age 64 after a combined kidney and liver transplant.
In each case – and in others Reuters found – death resulted from a drug-resistant bacterial infection contracted while the patients were receiving hospital care, medical records show. Their death certificates omit any mention of the infections.
Fifteen years after the U.S. government declared antibiotic-resistant infections to be a grave threat to public health, a Reuters investigation has found that infection-related deaths are going uncounted, hindering the nation’s ability to fight a scourge that exacts a significant human and financial toll."
" Josiah Cooper-Pope, born 15 weeks premature, did fine in the neonatal intensive care unit for the first 10 days of his life.
Then, suddenly, his tiny body started to swell. Overnight, he grew so distended that his skin split.
His mother, Shala Bowser, said nurses at Chippenham Hospital in Richmond, Virginia, told her that Josiah had an infection and that she should prepare for the worst. On Sept. 2, 2010, she was allowed to hold him for the first and last time as he took his final breath. He was 17 days old.
What no one at the hospital told Bowser was that her newborn was the fourth baby in the neonatal unit to catch the same infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, better-known as MRSA. It would sicken eight more, records show – nearly every baby in the unit – before the outbreak had run its course.
The shock of her son’s death came back to her when, after being contacted by Reuters earlier this year about the outbreak, Bowser went to Virginia’s Division of Vital Records to get a copy of Josiah’s death certificate. The cause of death: “Sepsis due to (or as a consequence of): Prematurity.” Sepsis is a complication of infection, but there was no mention of MRSA.
“My heart hurts,” Bowser said, sobbing. “I saw what this did to him. And then they just threw a bunch of words on the death certificate.”
According to their death certificates, Emma Grace Breaux died at age 3 from complications of the flu; Joshua Nahum died at age 27 from complications related to a skydiving accident; and Dan Greulich succumbed to cardiac arrhythmia at age 64 after a combined kidney and liver transplant.
In each case – and in others Reuters found – death resulted from a drug-resistant bacterial infection contracted while the patients were receiving hospital care, medical records show. Their death certificates omit any mention of the infections.
Fifteen years after the U.S. government declared antibiotic-resistant infections to be a grave threat to public health, a Reuters investigation has found that infection-related deaths are going uncounted, hindering the nation’s ability to fight a scourge that exacts a significant human and financial toll."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2016 ... 7SRCAPFSP4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Watch this amazing result!
An experimental cancer treatment based on rainforest berries has been successfully shown to destroy tumours in a matter of days.
A drug based on the fruit of the Australian blushwood tree is currently undergoing trials in Queensland."
"Watch this amazing result!
An experimental cancer treatment based on rainforest berries has been successfully shown to destroy tumours in a matter of days.
A drug based on the fruit of the Australian blushwood tree is currently undergoing trials in Queensland."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.naturalnews.com/055242_medic ... nment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Sinister, hidden motives are being revealed at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The agency recently announced a new invasive plan for the "control of communicable diseases," by detaining people suspected of being ill and then forcibly medicating them against their will.
The CDC's new proposal, published in the Federal Register [#2016-18103], will give the agency police state powers, permitting CDC officials to detain and forcibly inject chemicals into anyone they deem a threat to public health. There's no rationale for such detainments either. According to the proposal, the "CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual's earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent."
Who owns your body?
This proposal is an open declaration that the U.S. government now owns your body. At least that's what the CDC seems to be claiming. The truth of the matter is that each individual has certain inherent, inalienable human rights that must be defended. Each human owns their own body, and should never be legally bound to become the government's property for forced injections or experimentation.
Vaccines cause severe health problems; even the kangaroo court system set up by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cannot keep up with the increase in cases of realized vaccine damage. Thousands of cases of such damage are dismissed by the court, and in spite of this, over 3 billion in select payoffs have been issued to vaccine injured families since the court was established. (The court basically functions to give vaccine manufacturers immunity from judicial accountability.)
CDC wants to hear from you
The CDC wants to hear from you about their proposed power trip rule. This is an excellent opportunity to tell the agency exactly how nefarious and overreaching their new proposal is.
If the CDC takes on these new powers, all they will need is for the media to build up enough public fear against some new strain of virus, for a new vaccine to be introduced and forced on the public. Anyone who dares to ask questions or refuse could then be forcibly injected and jailed. As the proposal reveals, "... individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties."
Coordinated vaccine compliance plot unveiled
Be aware that there is a coordinated, global effort to indoctrinate and force people into vaccine and pharmaceutical obedience. You are not only viewed as a subject without rights, but according to internal WHO documents, you are viewed as an adversary who needs to be psychologically manipulated into believing in vaccine "science." If this new CDC rule goes through, it's not unrealistic to assume that any information you give out as you declare your opposition to forced injections could be used in the future to track you down and inject you against your will.
If this course of action sounds familiar, you're probably thinking of the medical experimentation that was forced on Jews during the holocaust. When the Nazis claimed ownership over Jewish people's bodies they eventually used police state power to round them up and do whatever they wanted with them in the camps. In essence, the CDC's new rule gives the government authority to incarcerate Americans en masse, relocating them to camps to be medically experimented on with vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.
CDC doing away with informed consent
Personal protection (by whatever means) has never been more important, as the CDC accelerates this same type of Nazi ideology by claiming ownership over your body. Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to unleash a United Nations global police force into neighborhoods to round up vaccine dissenters. If the government claims ownership over your body, and has the military power to do whatever they want, people will take orders and do their jobs, no questions asked. As the document states,"When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer."
Finally, the document reveals that the CDC is doing away with informed consent altogether, (even though the American Medical Association still upholds it): "CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual's consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part."
http://www.naturalnews.com/055242_medic ... z4JntaZKKc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Sinister, hidden motives are being revealed at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The agency recently announced a new invasive plan for the "control of communicable diseases," by detaining people suspected of being ill and then forcibly medicating them against their will.
The CDC's new proposal, published in the Federal Register [#2016-18103], will give the agency police state powers, permitting CDC officials to detain and forcibly inject chemicals into anyone they deem a threat to public health. There's no rationale for such detainments either. According to the proposal, the "CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual's earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent."
Who owns your body?
This proposal is an open declaration that the U.S. government now owns your body. At least that's what the CDC seems to be claiming. The truth of the matter is that each individual has certain inherent, inalienable human rights that must be defended. Each human owns their own body, and should never be legally bound to become the government's property for forced injections or experimentation.
Vaccines cause severe health problems; even the kangaroo court system set up by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cannot keep up with the increase in cases of realized vaccine damage. Thousands of cases of such damage are dismissed by the court, and in spite of this, over 3 billion in select payoffs have been issued to vaccine injured families since the court was established. (The court basically functions to give vaccine manufacturers immunity from judicial accountability.)
CDC wants to hear from you
The CDC wants to hear from you about their proposed power trip rule. This is an excellent opportunity to tell the agency exactly how nefarious and overreaching their new proposal is.
If the CDC takes on these new powers, all they will need is for the media to build up enough public fear against some new strain of virus, for a new vaccine to be introduced and forced on the public. Anyone who dares to ask questions or refuse could then be forcibly injected and jailed. As the proposal reveals, "... individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties."
Coordinated vaccine compliance plot unveiled
Be aware that there is a coordinated, global effort to indoctrinate and force people into vaccine and pharmaceutical obedience. You are not only viewed as a subject without rights, but according to internal WHO documents, you are viewed as an adversary who needs to be psychologically manipulated into believing in vaccine "science." If this new CDC rule goes through, it's not unrealistic to assume that any information you give out as you declare your opposition to forced injections could be used in the future to track you down and inject you against your will.
If this course of action sounds familiar, you're probably thinking of the medical experimentation that was forced on Jews during the holocaust. When the Nazis claimed ownership over Jewish people's bodies they eventually used police state power to round them up and do whatever they wanted with them in the camps. In essence, the CDC's new rule gives the government authority to incarcerate Americans en masse, relocating them to camps to be medically experimented on with vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.
CDC doing away with informed consent
Personal protection (by whatever means) has never been more important, as the CDC accelerates this same type of Nazi ideology by claiming ownership over your body. Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to unleash a United Nations global police force into neighborhoods to round up vaccine dissenters. If the government claims ownership over your body, and has the military power to do whatever they want, people will take orders and do their jobs, no questions asked. As the document states,"When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer."
Finally, the document reveals that the CDC is doing away with informed consent altogether, (even though the American Medical Association still upholds it): "CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual's consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part."
http://www.naturalnews.com/055242_medic ... z4JntaZKKc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
"A four metre high, half mile long, wall will soon grace the port at Calais, to keep migrants from entering ferries illegally. (The Guardian, 7th Sept). It will be built either side of the main two-lane road leading to the terminals. Migrants try to jump cars and trucks at this point, often using violence and weapons, so the idea is welcome to travellers.
The wall has French approval and will cost £17 million. Fences have been in place for some time, but “people are still getting through”, said immigration minister, Robert Goodwill. The illegal camp will be behind the wall, but it seems the wall will not be long enough, because it doesn’t cover the stretch of road next to the sea.
Smooth concrete will be used to prevent easy scaling of the wall, though determined migrants will not be deterred. Some local residents have protested because of the visual impact… but these are the same people whose lives have been ruined by the presence of so many illegal migrants who literally rule Calais with violence! They fail to acknowledge that the camp problem belongs to France and Calais, not to Britain, but it is Britain who will suffer the surge of Muslims if they are allowed illegal entry. Aid workers complain that migrants will take even more dangerous risks to get through. The response of most UK residents would be “Tough” – it is not their problem, but France’s, and, the migrants are illegal anyway, and attack road users from and to the UK.
UK haulage companies, on the other hand, think it wastes money that should go into increased security along the two-lane road. The immigration minister replied that the wall is only part of a larger package, including a safe parking area for trucks, which are attacked daily by migrants. UK ministers are trying to get him to visit the ‘Jungle’ (the Calais migrant camp). However, writers like myself, who monitor and observe these places, do not see why he should go there – the migrants are illegal, and only want to obtain benefits from an already cash-strapped UK. To put it bluntly, Muslim illegals are simply not wanted, especially in the light of Europe-wide violence and rapes from illegals in Germany and elsewhere. The whole issue is driven by Merkel, whose insane migrant policies remain, to harass and plague nationals.
An Irish multi-millionaire UN immigration leader, Peter Sutherland, has called the wall ‘inhumane’. This provoked outrage from those who speak bluntly about the illegal activities of people who are not even refugees. (Almost none of the millions flooding into Europe have refugee or asylum status according to international law – so WHY should they be tolerated?). Sutherland was blasted as a ‘globalist elite’ who, like Soros, wants unlimited movement of people (essential for the creation of a one world socialist government). But, the protestors say – these “wealthy fat-cats” would not have the illegals living within a hundred miles of their properties! Sutherland said that when Trump promised a wall to keep Mexican illegals out, “people in Europe recoiled in disgust” (Daily Express). Typically, only ardent socialists would think that way – most people in the UK do not want this influx of people who hate the West, live illegally at the same time as reaping social security benefits, and impose sharia-type demands on the host country. Few want to work, and they demand housing, education, free health benefits, and much more. Yet, they don’t want to obey laws. This is why most normal folks in Europe want to kick Muslim migrants out.
Al Jazeera, of course. carried the headline “UK slated over planned anti-refugee wall” (8th Sept). Comments were sent in by socialists, but no-one else. As an experiment I tried over six times to send a comment, but the comment box refused to allow me to send it! Why? Probably because I pointed out that Al Jazeera, like so many media outlets, insist on calling the illegals ‘refugees’, They are NOT refugees or asylum seekers according to international law! (See my own article in iPatriot on the definitions). The people at Calais are economic migrants – and these are not defined as refugees, but simply as ‘illegals’ with no right of entry. Nor are they escaping war (also precisely defined by law), and most are NOT Syrian.
A logical question arises that asks WHY people are so against a wall? “If a large number of illegals came to live alongside your house, wreaking mayhem, being violent, raping your female family, and demanding everyone obeys their Islamic mantra… would you want them there?” Of course not! The whole ethos of opposition to a wall is surreal, and opposition is all on the side of socialists and Islamists. It is notable that the UK people do not have a voice in this issue, especially as their well-being and safety as Islamic power grows, takes second place. If it takes a Trump wall to stop the menace, then so be it! Sutherland and Soros would do it if these people desecrated THEIR property!"
http://ipatriot.com/uk-build-wall-calais/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The wall has French approval and will cost £17 million. Fences have been in place for some time, but “people are still getting through”, said immigration minister, Robert Goodwill. The illegal camp will be behind the wall, but it seems the wall will not be long enough, because it doesn’t cover the stretch of road next to the sea.
Smooth concrete will be used to prevent easy scaling of the wall, though determined migrants will not be deterred. Some local residents have protested because of the visual impact… but these are the same people whose lives have been ruined by the presence of so many illegal migrants who literally rule Calais with violence! They fail to acknowledge that the camp problem belongs to France and Calais, not to Britain, but it is Britain who will suffer the surge of Muslims if they are allowed illegal entry. Aid workers complain that migrants will take even more dangerous risks to get through. The response of most UK residents would be “Tough” – it is not their problem, but France’s, and, the migrants are illegal anyway, and attack road users from and to the UK.
UK haulage companies, on the other hand, think it wastes money that should go into increased security along the two-lane road. The immigration minister replied that the wall is only part of a larger package, including a safe parking area for trucks, which are attacked daily by migrants. UK ministers are trying to get him to visit the ‘Jungle’ (the Calais migrant camp). However, writers like myself, who monitor and observe these places, do not see why he should go there – the migrants are illegal, and only want to obtain benefits from an already cash-strapped UK. To put it bluntly, Muslim illegals are simply not wanted, especially in the light of Europe-wide violence and rapes from illegals in Germany and elsewhere. The whole issue is driven by Merkel, whose insane migrant policies remain, to harass and plague nationals.
An Irish multi-millionaire UN immigration leader, Peter Sutherland, has called the wall ‘inhumane’. This provoked outrage from those who speak bluntly about the illegal activities of people who are not even refugees. (Almost none of the millions flooding into Europe have refugee or asylum status according to international law – so WHY should they be tolerated?). Sutherland was blasted as a ‘globalist elite’ who, like Soros, wants unlimited movement of people (essential for the creation of a one world socialist government). But, the protestors say – these “wealthy fat-cats” would not have the illegals living within a hundred miles of their properties! Sutherland said that when Trump promised a wall to keep Mexican illegals out, “people in Europe recoiled in disgust” (Daily Express). Typically, only ardent socialists would think that way – most people in the UK do not want this influx of people who hate the West, live illegally at the same time as reaping social security benefits, and impose sharia-type demands on the host country. Few want to work, and they demand housing, education, free health benefits, and much more. Yet, they don’t want to obey laws. This is why most normal folks in Europe want to kick Muslim migrants out.
Al Jazeera, of course. carried the headline “UK slated over planned anti-refugee wall” (8th Sept). Comments were sent in by socialists, but no-one else. As an experiment I tried over six times to send a comment, but the comment box refused to allow me to send it! Why? Probably because I pointed out that Al Jazeera, like so many media outlets, insist on calling the illegals ‘refugees’, They are NOT refugees or asylum seekers according to international law! (See my own article in iPatriot on the definitions). The people at Calais are economic migrants – and these are not defined as refugees, but simply as ‘illegals’ with no right of entry. Nor are they escaping war (also precisely defined by law), and most are NOT Syrian.
A logical question arises that asks WHY people are so against a wall? “If a large number of illegals came to live alongside your house, wreaking mayhem, being violent, raping your female family, and demanding everyone obeys their Islamic mantra… would you want them there?” Of course not! The whole ethos of opposition to a wall is surreal, and opposition is all on the side of socialists and Islamists. It is notable that the UK people do not have a voice in this issue, especially as their well-being and safety as Islamic power grows, takes second place. If it takes a Trump wall to stop the menace, then so be it! Sutherland and Soros would do it if these people desecrated THEIR property!"
http://ipatriot.com/uk-build-wall-calais/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
Sirocco
- Praise Me!
- Posts: 3808
Re: THAT's LIFE...
Elizabeth wrote:"A four metre high, half mile long, wall will soon grace the port at Calais, to keep migrants from entering ferries illegally. (The Guardian, 7th Sept). It will be built either side of the main two-lane road leading to the terminals. Migrants try to jump cars and trucks at this point, often using violence and weapons, so the idea is welcome to travellers.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2016 ... RCAPEZBAT5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"This is a list of celebrities (slebs) who have threatened to leave America if Donald Trump becomes president.
1. Chelsea Handler
Who is she? A potty-mouthed comedian.
Where would she move? Spain, just like fellow comedian Amy Schumer:
“I did buy a house in another country just in case, so all of these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t, I will leave the country,” she said on Live with Kelly and Michael.
2. Neve Campbell
Who is she? An actress, most recently of House of Cards fame (although my personal favorite work of hers is and always will be Scream).
Where would she move? Canada
“His honesty is terrifying,” she told Huffington Post UK.
3. Lena Dunham
Who is she? The creator of Girls and a known rape-hoaxer
Where would she move? Canada
“I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will,” she said at the Matrix Awards.
4. Keegan Michael-Key
Who is he? A comedian and star of Key & Peele
Where would he move? Canada
“It’s easy. It’s like 10 minutes from Detroit and that’s where I’m from,” he told TMZ.
5. Chloë Sevigny
Who is she? An actress
Where would she move? Nova Scotia
She answered simply, “Nova Scotia” to a question of where she would move if Trump were elected.
6. Al Sharpton
Who is he? A professional race-baiter An activist
Where would he move? “Out of here”
“If Donald Trump is the nominee, I’m open to support anyone, while I’m also reserving my ticket out of here if he wins,” he said at a press conference.
7. Natasha Lyonne
Who is she? An actress, most notably in Orange is the New Black and American Pie.
Where would she move? A mental hospital, but only for a little while
“[I’ll move] to a mental hospital for a while because you’re like ‘why is this happening?'” she said.
8. Spike Lee
Who is he? An Oscar-winning director
Where would he move? To… Brooklyn?
If Trump wins, he’ll be “moving back to the republic of Brooklyn, New York,” he reported to Vanity Fair.
9. Amber Rose
Who is she? A model
Where would she move? As yet undetermined
“I can’t even think about it! I’m moving, I’m out! I can’t. And I am taking my son with me!” she told US Weekly.
10. George Lopez
Who is he? A comedian
Where would he move? Mexico
“If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration, we’ll all go back,” he told TMZ.
11. Raven-Symoné
Who is she? An actress and co-host of “The View”
Where would she move? Altogether now: Canada
“My confession for this election is if any Republican gets nominated, I’m going to move to Canada with my entire family. I already have my ticket,” she said on The View.
Note: Her leaving was contingent on any Republican candidate winning the election–not just Trump.
12. Whoopi Goldberg
Who is she? An actress and co-host of “The View”
Where would she move? As yet undetermined
“I don’t want it to be America. Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know,” she said.
13. Miley Cyrus
Who is she? A pop star
Where would she move? As yet undetermined, but probably Australia if she’s still engaged to Liam Hemsworth by then. (Actually she is married to Liam)
“My heart is broken into a 100000 pieces…I am moving if this is my president! I don’t say things I don’t mean!” she wrote in an Instagram post.
14. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Who is she? Liberal-as-liberal-can-be Supreme Court Justice
Where would she move? New Zealand (Hey, Miley!)
“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president… Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,” she told The New York Times.
BONUS: British columnist Katie Hopkins said she would move to America if Trump becomes president"
"This is a list of celebrities (slebs) who have threatened to leave America if Donald Trump becomes president.
1. Chelsea Handler
Who is she? A potty-mouthed comedian.
Where would she move? Spain, just like fellow comedian Amy Schumer:
“I did buy a house in another country just in case, so all of these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t, I will leave the country,” she said on Live with Kelly and Michael.
2. Neve Campbell
Who is she? An actress, most recently of House of Cards fame (although my personal favorite work of hers is and always will be Scream).
Where would she move? Canada
“His honesty is terrifying,” she told Huffington Post UK.
3. Lena Dunham
Who is she? The creator of Girls and a known rape-hoaxer
Where would she move? Canada
“I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will,” she said at the Matrix Awards.
4. Keegan Michael-Key
Who is he? A comedian and star of Key & Peele
Where would he move? Canada
“It’s easy. It’s like 10 minutes from Detroit and that’s where I’m from,” he told TMZ.
5. Chloë Sevigny
Who is she? An actress
Where would she move? Nova Scotia
She answered simply, “Nova Scotia” to a question of where she would move if Trump were elected.
6. Al Sharpton
Who is he? A professional race-baiter An activist
Where would he move? “Out of here”
“If Donald Trump is the nominee, I’m open to support anyone, while I’m also reserving my ticket out of here if he wins,” he said at a press conference.
7. Natasha Lyonne
Who is she? An actress, most notably in Orange is the New Black and American Pie.
Where would she move? A mental hospital, but only for a little while
“[I’ll move] to a mental hospital for a while because you’re like ‘why is this happening?'” she said.
8. Spike Lee
Who is he? An Oscar-winning director
Where would he move? To… Brooklyn?
If Trump wins, he’ll be “moving back to the republic of Brooklyn, New York,” he reported to Vanity Fair.
9. Amber Rose
Who is she? A model
Where would she move? As yet undetermined
“I can’t even think about it! I’m moving, I’m out! I can’t. And I am taking my son with me!” she told US Weekly.
10. George Lopez
Who is he? A comedian
Where would he move? Mexico
“If he wins, he won’t have to worry about immigration, we’ll all go back,” he told TMZ.
11. Raven-Symoné
Who is she? An actress and co-host of “The View”
Where would she move? Altogether now: Canada
“My confession for this election is if any Republican gets nominated, I’m going to move to Canada with my entire family. I already have my ticket,” she said on The View.
Note: Her leaving was contingent on any Republican candidate winning the election–not just Trump.
12. Whoopi Goldberg
Who is she? An actress and co-host of “The View”
Where would she move? As yet undetermined
“I don’t want it to be America. Maybe it’s time for me to move, you know,” she said.
13. Miley Cyrus
Who is she? A pop star
Where would she move? As yet undetermined, but probably Australia if she’s still engaged to Liam Hemsworth by then. (Actually she is married to Liam)
“My heart is broken into a 100000 pieces…I am moving if this is my president! I don’t say things I don’t mean!” she wrote in an Instagram post.
14. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Who is she? Liberal-as-liberal-can-be Supreme Court Justice
Where would she move? New Zealand (Hey, Miley!)
“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president… Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,” she told The New York Times.
BONUS: British columnist Katie Hopkins said she would move to America if Trump becomes president"
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/stor ... -and-cake/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nowhere or nothing is safe anymore.
Nowhere or nothing is safe anymore.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: THAT's LIFE...
http://www.gopusa.com/?p=14767?omhide=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — The NCAA has pulled seven championship events from North Carolina, including opening-weekend men’s basketball tournament games, for the coming year due to a state law that some say can lead to discrimination against LGBT people. In a news release Monday, the NCAA says the decision by its board of governors came “because of the cumulative actions taken by the state concerning civil rights protections.”
“This decision is consistent with the NCAA’s long-standing core values of inclusion, student-athlete well-being and creating a culture of fairness,” said Georgia Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson, the chair of the board of governors.
The law — known as HB2 — requires transgender people to use restrooms at schools and government buildings corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates. It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from local and statewide antidiscrimination protections.
HB2 was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory earlier this year.
The NCAA’s release also noted that five states and several cities prohibit travel to the state for public employees and representatives of public institutions, which could include athletes and staffs. The only championship events that can be hosted in the state are ones determined when a team earns the right to play on their own campus.
The men’s basketball first- and second-round games were scheduled for March 17 and 19 in Greensboro. The NCAA will also relocate:
— the Division I women’s soccer championship scheduled for Dec. 2 and 4 in Cary, just outside the capital city of Raleigh;
— the Division III men’s and women’s soccer championships set for Dec. 2 and 3 in Greensboro;
— the Division I women’s golf regional championships set for May 8-10 in Greenville;
— the Division III men’s and women’s tennis championships set for May 22-27 in Cary;
_ the Division I women’s lacrosse championship set for May 26 and 28 in Cary;
— and the Division II baseball championship from May 27 to June 3 in Cary.
The law has created a public and business backlash, which includes the NBA moving the 2017 All-Star Game to New Orleans instead of hosting it in Charlotte as originally scheduled because of the law. Duke lost a men’s basketball game from its schedule when Albany backed out due to that state’s travel ban, while the Vermont women’s basketball team has canceled a December trip to play North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and Ringo Starr have canceled plans to play in North Carolina. And PayPal reversed plans to open a 400-employee operation center in Charlotte."
"INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — The NCAA has pulled seven championship events from North Carolina, including opening-weekend men’s basketball tournament games, for the coming year due to a state law that some say can lead to discrimination against LGBT people. In a news release Monday, the NCAA says the decision by its board of governors came “because of the cumulative actions taken by the state concerning civil rights protections.”
“This decision is consistent with the NCAA’s long-standing core values of inclusion, student-athlete well-being and creating a culture of fairness,” said Georgia Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson, the chair of the board of governors.
The law — known as HB2 — requires transgender people to use restrooms at schools and government buildings corresponding to the sex on their birth certificates. It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from local and statewide antidiscrimination protections.
HB2 was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory earlier this year.
The NCAA’s release also noted that five states and several cities prohibit travel to the state for public employees and representatives of public institutions, which could include athletes and staffs. The only championship events that can be hosted in the state are ones determined when a team earns the right to play on their own campus.
The men’s basketball first- and second-round games were scheduled for March 17 and 19 in Greensboro. The NCAA will also relocate:
— the Division I women’s soccer championship scheduled for Dec. 2 and 4 in Cary, just outside the capital city of Raleigh;
— the Division III men’s and women’s soccer championships set for Dec. 2 and 3 in Greensboro;
— the Division I women’s golf regional championships set for May 8-10 in Greenville;
— the Division III men’s and women’s tennis championships set for May 22-27 in Cary;
_ the Division I women’s lacrosse championship set for May 26 and 28 in Cary;
— and the Division II baseball championship from May 27 to June 3 in Cary.
The law has created a public and business backlash, which includes the NBA moving the 2017 All-Star Game to New Orleans instead of hosting it in Charlotte as originally scheduled because of the law. Duke lost a men’s basketball game from its schedule when Albany backed out due to that state’s travel ban, while the Vermont women’s basketball team has canceled a December trip to play North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and Ringo Starr have canceled plans to play in North Carolina. And PayPal reversed plans to open a 400-employee operation center in Charlotte."
