The Hight Fat Diet

June 30, 2013

This is an interesting interview from Dr. Mercola.  Basically the message is that a diet low in carbs/sugar and protein and calories, but high in healthy fats (coconut oil, extra virgin olive oil, quality grass fed organic butter, etc.) is ideal for treating cancer, and general overall health.  This ketogenic diet relies on fats as a fuel source, instead of sugar.  This regularizes blood sugar, supplies constant energy, reduces cravings, reduces weight, makes people feel better and helps fight cancer.  The body has to be trained to switch over to fat as a fuel source, but once it is done people are healthier.  The interview is a bit technical at points but stick with it because the message is very interesting.

Here is a section of the article.

The ‘Meat’ of the Ketogenic Diet—FATS

Most people who follow a ketogenic diet inadvertently restrict their calories without actually reaping the metabolic benefits of a calorie deficit, which include reductions in blood glucose, insulin, and triglycerides. The reason for this is that they don’t replace the carbs (and protein) they’ve eliminated with high enough amounts of healthy fats.

“Paradoxically, when you’re eating more fat, your blood fats will go down, due to a calorie deficit, and HDL [so-called ‘good’ cholesterol] goes up. Almost everyone that I see on these high-fat ketogenic diets has improved HDL levels,” Dr. D’Agostino says.

Now, when we say increase the fat, we’re not talking about the most common fat that people eat, which are primarily highly processed vegetable oils that are full of omega-6 fats, or trans fats found in French fries and doughnuts. We’re talking about high-quality fats like avocados, butter, coconut oil, macadamia nuts, and olives. These types of fats, which Dr. Rosedale believes are metabolically neutral because they don’t tend to trigger hormonal signaling events like leptin, insulin, and the mTOR pathway.

“I think a lot of the fats can be used in place of protein. And fats are very protein sparing, decreasing your need for protein,” Dr. D’Agostino says.

Bear in mind that while a traditional ketogenic diet calls for quite a bit of dairy products, dairy can actually be problematic and may prevent many of the health benefits that you can get from the ketogenic diet described by D’Agostino and Seyfried. Lactose is a sugar made from galactose and glucose that is found in milk, making up anywhere from two to eight percent of milk by weight. These extra sugars can be problematic when seeking to lose weight or treat cancer, even if from raw organic sources. Dairy fat is acceptable (e.g. sour cream, butter, etc.), but foods high in dairy protein or lactose should be minimized or avoided.

Why You’d Want to Become a Fat-Burner

Your body can burn two types of fuel: fat and carbs. In my estimation, I suspect about 99 percent of Americans are adapted to burning carbs as their primary fuel. It’s important to realize that when your body is adapted to burning carbs, you’re quite inflexible, metabolically speaking. Without fail, your body will be screaming for food about every two to three hours. These kinds of hunger pangs vanish once you become fat adapted, however. Then you can go all day and not be hungry, because you have far more fat in your body to burn than glucose.

So how do you achieve this metabolic switch-over?

In my experience, intermittent fasting, where you gradually restrict the window of time during which you eat food down to about six to eight hours, is one of the most effective ways to make this transition.

“I think from a practical standpoint, the important question is what’s a person going to follow? From my perspective, the biggest hurdle here is compliance; compliance to a dietary strategy that makes calorie restriction feasible and possible. And you know, carbohydrate restriction, high-fat diet, and intermittent fasting is one way to achieve that,” Dr. D’Agostino says.

“There are a lot of advantages to this pattern of intermittent fasting. I think that it is a good strategy to promote metabolic health and to maintain nutritional ketosis, if you can adapt to it. In some lifestyles, people cannot readily adapt to it. But I’ve found that most people can if they give it a try for at least several weeks. Most people are resistant. Even with people that are resistant- once they try it, they’re amazed at how much better they feel.”

It’s not an ideal course for everyone, however. As a general rule, intermittent fasting is contraindicated if you’re:

  • An elite athlete
  • Pregnant
  • Suffer with adrenal stress
  • Already at a low BMI (< 19)

The Mentality of the Elites

June 29, 2013

I was watching a major news channel yesterday, and they had a live 20 minute correspondence with a reporter in front of the Nelson Mandela´s hospital.  We never saw the good man, nor was there any change in his condition.  The only “news” was that supporters were outside of the hospital, as if that were anything new or surprising.  In other words 20 minutes was spent to “cover” Mandela when nothing new was happening.  If the man gets sick or worse or better or dies, these all merit a mention, but not 20 minutes outside the hospital to hear that nothing has changed.

This represents the mentality of the politically correct elite.  To them Nelson Mandela is such a God like figure that even non news about the man is news.  They probably all have shrines in their houses to Mandela, and worship periodically.  I am not saying that the man is not important or worth attention, but when I see coverage like this is begins to resemble celebrity gossip news, which often breathlessly reports on utterly non important events, such as someone going to pick up her child at the daycare center.  Why should anyone care?  If Madonna has a baby, then that is news.  If she goes out for coffee, it is not.

John Stossel

June 26, 2013

The left makes Fox News out to be so evil that they do not touch it with a 100 foot pole.  While Fox is biased towards the Republicans, they also have interesting and useful shows, and those who boycott Fox reflexively are denied hearing contrarian viewpoints, and thus can continue to stay  in their mainstream, establishment, PC bubble.   Those in establishment positions especially need to get out of their bubble and hear other viewpoints, but most of them do not.  They flit among the NY Times, MSNBC, Obama, their friends and work colleagues, who all basically agree.  Assumptions which do not square are rarely confronted.

One of the best shows on FOX is John Stossel.  While I do not agree with everything that he says, and  I find his libertarian position more absolute than I would often want (a little to idealistic or binary at times), the man makes many excellent points.  We should all watch his shows, if only for the fact that his message is so unheard: in the press, our education system, among our leaders, etc.  John Stossel´s main argument is that an ever growing behemoth of rules, regulations and laws is strangling business in this country, adding extra costs, and by consequence the economy and employment are languishing.  It is a very legitimate argument, but outside of John Stossel I hardly ever hear it.  No one is even thinking about it.  Every problem is dealt with by adding more rules and laws.  Maybe the problem is that there are too many rules and laws.  When was the last time anyone ever took the initiative to reduce laws and regulations?  Instead they only grow and grow and grow, steadily imposing a growing cost on business, which comes out of the hides of expansion and employment.  Maybe the government is not the solution, but the problem.  Governments love to impose demands on businesses, because they think that such measures will be cost free.  This is a classic example of politicians thinking that they can get something for nothing.  But everything costs,  including government mandated rules.  And it is not just in the US.  Europe is swimming in employment and economy destroying mandates to businesses.  That is why the west cannot get out of its 5 year old and counting recession.

And the worse hit are small businesses, which cannot afford to hire armies of compliance experts.  Some big businesses even like and help write regulations to erect barriers to entry for smaller firms, thus reducing competition.   There are also entire industries which parasitically live off of these mandates: lawyers, financial experts, feminists, race baiters, and on and on.  They basically exist to suck on the blood of the economy, but they manage to make a nice living for themselves doing so.  I think that Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act not just to please the feminists, but also to give a juicy gift to the lawyers.   Unfortunately all of these rules hurts the economy and jobs.

At the moment everyone is running around trying to figure out how to get the economy going and create jobs.  Many recognize that getting small businesses to expand and hire is crucial to this.  Until now the favorite solution has been to further bloat the bureaucracy with make work jobs and programs, when in reality the obvious solution is to stop tying down and punishing businesses-especially small and medium-with endless expensive rules and mandates.   If they could just let business get on with doing business-and also prevent the FED from endlessly manipulating interest rates, and printing money out of thin air, we could I believe solve most of our economic problems.

One of John Stossel´s main messages is that government initiatives may be well intentioned, but so often come with very negative unintended consequences.  When those unintended consequences add up they can become a real problems.

The first video is of 10 stupid wasteful government programs.  Great video.  Some supposedly smart people predicted that the disasters in Haiti and Japan would “stimulate” their economies leading to economic booms.  Reality has shown otherwise.  The destruction of valuable productive assets is always a net loss.

This one talks about the assault on free speech

Here is a video on government waste.

Peter Schiff´s Predictions on what Bernanke is going to do

June 25, 2013

I enjoy listening to Peter Schiff.  He is not always right, and I do not always agree with him.  Still he makes excellent points, such as the fact that an economy is rich when it PRODUCES something, and therefore if we want to help the economy we have to actually produce something.  Make work projects and simply inflating asset bubbles is not the route to prosperity, despite what the entire establishment says, with their make work government jobs, and endless efforts artificially inflate the housing market.  Peter Schiff is at his best when he is pointing out economic fundamentals, which the establishment rarely teaches us, such as debt beyond a certain level actually is a problem, and cannot be endlessly put off, or that endless money printing out of thin air will also come back to haunt us.  Whether people like him or not, we should be exposed a lot more to his ideas.

Peter´s latest prediction is the Ben Bernanke will renounce his promises to wind down QE (money printing), and will return to full QE (money printing) as soon as the pain of getting off of QE becomes evident, and it is already becoming evident with a fall in the stock market.  It is like a person addicted to a drug, who promises to quit the habit, but then immediately goes back to the drug at the first unpleasant sign of withdraw.  We are addicted to easy money, low interest rates and debt.  The minute we are serious about confronting the addiction, the pain of going off the drug will drive us back.

This from Peter Schiff:

Tapering the Taper Talk

Peter Schiff

Friday, June 21, 2013

As usual the Federal Reserve media reaction machine has fallen for a poorly executed head fake. It has fallen for this move many times in the past, and for its efforts, it has tackled nothing but air. Yet right on cue, it took the bait once more. Somehow the takeaway from Wednesday’s release of the June Fed statement and Chairman Ben Bernanke’s press conference was that the central bank is likely to begin scaling back, or “tapering,” its $85 billion per month quantitative easing program sometime later this year, and that the program may be completely wound down by the middle of next year.

Although this scenario is about as likely as an NSA-sponsored ticker tape parade for whistle blower Edward Snowden, all of the market segments reacted as if it were a fait accompli. The stock market – convinced that it will lose the support of ultra-low, long-term interest rates and the added consumer spending that results from a nascent housing bubble – sold off in triple digits. The bond market, sensing that its biggest and busiest customer will be exiting the market, followed a similarly negative trajectory. The sell-off in government and corporate debt pushed yields up to 21 month highs. In foreign exchange markets, the dollar rallied off its four-month lows based on the belief that Fed tightening will support the currency. And lastly, the gold market, sensing that an end of quantitative easing would eliminate the inflationary fears that have partially fueled gold’s spectacular rise, sold off nearly five percent to a new two-and-a-half year low.
All of this came as a result of Bernanke’s mild commitments to begin easing back on permanent QE sometime later this year if the economy continued to improve the way he expected. The chairman did not really elaborate on what types of improvements he had seen, or how much farther those unidentified trends would need to go before he would finally pull the trigger. He was however careful to point out that any policy shift, be it for less or more quantitative easing, would not be dependent on incoming data, but on the Fed’s interpretation of that data. By stressing repeatedly that its data goalposts were “thresholds rather than triggers,” the chairman gained further latitude to pursue any stance the Fed chooses regardless of the data.
Yet the mere and obvious mention that tapering was even possible, combined with the chairman’s fairly sunny disposition (perhaps caused by the realization that the real mess will likely be his successor’s problem to clean up), was enough to convince the market that the post-QE world was at hand. This conclusion is wrong.
Although many haven’t yet realized it, the financial markets are stuck in a “Waiting for Godot” era in which the change in policy that all are straining to see will never in fact arrive. Most fail to grasp the degree to which the “recovery” will stall without the $85 billion per month that the Fed is currently pumping into the economy.
What exactly has convinced the Fed that the economy is improving? From what I can tell, the evidence centered on the rise in stock and real estate prices, and the confidence and spending that follow as a result of the wealth effect. But inflated asset prices are completely dependent on QE and are likely to reverse course even before it is removed. And while it is painfully clear that expectations about QE continuance have made a far bigger impact on the stock, bond, and real estate markets than any other economic data points, many must be assuming that this dependency will soon end.
Those who hold this belief have naively described QE as the economy’s “training wheels.” (In reality the program is currently our only wheels.) They are convinced that the kindling of QE will inevitably ignite a fire in the larger economy. But the big lumber is still too dampened by debt, government spending, regulation, and high asset prices to catch fire – all we have gotten is smoke instead. A few mirrors supplied by the Fed merely completed the illusion. The larger problem of course is that even though the stimulus is the only wheels, the Fed must remove them anyways as we are cycling toward the edge of a cliff.
Although Bernanke dodged the question in his press conference, the Fed has broken the normal market for mortgage backed securities. While it’s true that the Fed only owns 14% of all outstanding MBS (the “small fraction” he referred to in the press conference), it is by far the largest purchaser of newly issued mortgage debt. What would happen to the market if the Fed were no longer buying? There are no longer enough private buyers to soak up the issuance. Those who do remain would certainly expect higher yields if the option of selling to the Fed was no longer on the table. Put bluntly, the Fed is the market right now and has been for years.
A clear-eyed look at the likely consequences of a pull-back in QE should cause an abandonment of the optimistic assumptions behind the Fed’s forecast. Interest rates are already rising rapidly based simply on the expectation of tapering. Imagine how high rates would go if the Fed actually tried to sell some of the mortgages it already owns. But the fact is the mere anticipation of such an event has already sent mortgage rates north of 4%, and without a lifeline from the Fed in the form of more QE, those rates will soon exceed 5%. This increase will greatly impact the housing market. Speculative buyers who have lifted the market will become sellers. More foreclosure will hit the market, just as higher home prices and mortgage rates price any remaining legitimate buyers out of the market. Housing prices will fall to new post bubble lows, sinking the phony recovery in the process. The wealth effect will work in reverse: spending and confidence will fall, unemployment will rise, and we will be back in recession even before the Fed begins to taper.
In fact, the rise in mortgage rates seen over the last month has already produced pain in the financial world, with banks reporting a rapid decline in refinancing applications. By the time rates hit 5%, the current rally in real estate will have screeched to a halt. With personal income and wage growth essentially stagnant, individual buyers are extremely dependent on the affordability allowed by ultra-low rates. A near 50% increase in mortgage rates, which would result from an increase in rates from 3.25% to 5.0%, would price a great many buyers out of the market. Higher rates would also cool much of the housing demand that has been coming from the private equity funds that have been a factor in pushing up real estate prices in recent years. Falling home prices would likely trigger a new wave of defaults and housing related bankruptcies that plunged the economy into recession five years ago.
A similar dynamic would occur in the market for U.S. Treasury debt. Despite Bernanke’s assurances that the Fed is not monetizing the government’s debt, the central bank has been buying nearly 70% of the new issuance in recent years. Already, rates on 10-year treasury debt have creeped up by more than 50% in less than two months to over 2.5%. Any actual decrease or cessation in buying – let alone the selling that would be needed to unwind the Fed’s multi-trillion dollar balance sheet – would place the Treasury market under extreme pressure. Since low rates are the life blood of our borrow and spend economy, it is highly likely that higher rates will lead directly to lower stock prices, lower GDP growth, and higher unemployment. Since rising asset prices and the confidence and spending they produce is the basis for Bernanke’s rosy forecast, new lows in house prices and a bear market in stocks will likely reverse those forecasts on a dime.
Lost on almost everyone is the effect higher interest rates and a slowing economy will have on federal budget deficits. As unemployment rises, tax revenues will fall and expenditures will rise. In addition, rising rates will not only make it more expensive for the Fed to finance larger deficits, it will also make it more expensive to refinance maturing debts. Furthermore, the profit checks Fannie and Freddie have been paying the Treasury will turn into bills for losses, as a new wave of foreclosures comes tumbling in.
It’s fascinating how the goal posts have moved quickly on the Fed’s playing field. Months ago the conversation focused on the “exit strategy” it would use to unwind the trillions in bonds and mortgages that it had accumulated over the last few years. Despite apparent improvements in the economy, those discussions have given way to the more modest expectations for the “tapering” of QE. I believe that we should really be expecting a “tapering” of the tapering conversations.
As a result, I expect that the Fed will continue to pantomime that an eventual Exit Strategy is preparing for a grand entrance, even as their timeline and decision criteria become ever more ambiguous. In truth, I believe that the Fed’s next big announcement will be to increase, not diminish QE. After all, Bernanke made clear in his press conference that if the economy does not perform up to his expectations, he will simply do more of what has already failed.
Of course, when the Fed is forced to make this concession, it should be obvious to a critical mass that the recovery is a sham. Investors will realize that years of QE have only exacerbated the problems it was meant to solve. When the grim reality of QE infinity sets in, the dollar will drop, gold will climb, and the real crash will finally be upon us. Buckle up.

If CO2 is such a pollutant when why are farmers installing CO2 generators in their green houses

June 25, 2013

The establishment has turned CO2 into a fetish, and waged war on it.  In reality plants depend on CO2 to flourish, and since feeding the world´s growing population is a challenge, and Global Warming predicts less food, isn´t greater CO2 better for us and the planet?  Something to think about.

This from NaturalNews:

If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) For only “pennies a day,” any greenhouse owner can produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. That’s the message on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada. “1,500 ppm [of carbon dioxide] can be achieved… these generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day,” the ad says.

View it yourself in this picture taken from a greenhouse supply magazine:

CO2 generators “improve plant quality” and “increase production.” They’re made in the USA and run on propane or natural gas, turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.

Why does this work to radically improve plant growth, health and yields? Because — are you ready for the truth? — CO2 is a plant NUTRIENT.

Nope, it’s not a pollutant that threatens human civilization as has been ridiculously claimed by global warming doomsday pushers. CO2 actually increases plant yields, accelerates “re-greening” and improves reforestation of the planet. And while today’s atmosphere contains only 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, CO2 generators can help raise that level to 1500 ppm inside greenhouses, thereby accelerating plant growth and food production.

Here’s the ad so you can see it for yourself:

Is CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses pay to produce it?

If CO2 was so terrible for the planet, then installing a CO2 generator in a greenhouse would kill the plants. But scientists and even governments actually recommend supplementing CO2 in greenhouses in order to boost plant growth and food production.

“The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years,” says the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

“CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient… increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.”

In fact, as recent scientific studies have shown, the slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts and arid areas, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs and grasses which produce the oxygen human needs to breathe.

Attacking carbon dioxide is hate speech against Mother Nature

The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon dioxide rather than the politically-charged “hate speech” against Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth’s environment and ecosystem. In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the ocean. Anyone who criticizes CO2 is attacking ocean life and condemning trillions of aquatic creatures who exhale carbon dioxide as part of their natural respiration. (Should they all be fined?)

As a society interested in reforestation, expanding the diversity of plant life, nourishing trees and re-greening deserts, we should no longer tolerate anyone engaged in hate speech against Mother Nature and CO2. Those who attempt to demonize this critical nutrient for the planet are engaged in a kind of hate-motivated racism against plants.

If it’s not okay to condemn someone for being black, why is it okay for people like Al Gore to engage in endless hate speech against all the living beings that are green?

Besides, all those people who keep sounding the alarm on CO2 are being too negative all the time. Nobody spews more doom and gloom than Al Gore and the global warming crowd who paint apocalyptic pictures of Earth’s future if we all don’t start paying carbon taxes to the super rich. Stop being so negative!

They need to practice more positivity and repeat to themselves affirmations like:

“CO2 is a nutrient for forests.”

“CO2 is produced by ocean life.”

“CO2 brings balance to the global ecosystem.”

“CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to humans.”

“CO2 can help transform barren deserts into sustainable forests.”

Perhaps by staying positive, the global warming fearmongers and doom-and-gloomers can calm down, take a few breaths (with extra CO2) and recognize that what’s good for plants is good for the planet.

In fact, I’m going to hyperventilate after writing this article just to generate a little extra CO2 for the world. It’s my gift to Al Gore.

For the record: NO, I don’t support burning fossil fuels

The No. 1 criticism of this story by the brainwashed hoards of Al Gore cult worshippers will be that I must have been paid big bucks by the coal industry to write this article.

Don’t be ridiculous. I’m the record — for at least a decade — having exhaustively condemned the burning of fossil fuels. Even though the CO2 they release into the atmosphere is actually a nutrient, they release many other pollutants such as sulfur and mercury (from coal). Scrubbers in the USA make U.S. coal plants the cleanest in the world, but China’s coal plants are truly sickening pollution factories.

I also believe it’s time to get humanity off the petrochemical habit and onto something cleaner and more renewable such as low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), formerly called “cold fusion.” Recent analysis has confirmed, yet again, that cold fusion is real and practical. Cold fusion could be harnessed and used in place of coal to heat large quantities of water that drive steam turbines which generate electricity.

In time, all of America’s coal power plants could be switched over to cold fusion. Similarly, if improved battery technology comes along, gasoline-powered vehicles could be switched over to electricity, and if that electricity is powered by cold fusion, then it’s clean all the way through the energy supply chain.

Fossil fuels are dirty business: they’re dirty to extract from the ground, dirty to transport and dirty to burn. But the CO2 they produce is not a pollutant; it’s a nutrient that’s desperately needed by trees, grasses and shrubs all around the world. So while there are lots of reasons to oppose the burning of fossil fuels around our planet, CO2 is not legitimately one of them.

If all this talk makes you hyperventilate, then feel free to experience a hefty dose of self-inflicted guilt that you can alleviate only by sending all your money to Al Gore for all the carbon dioxide you’re generating.

Illegal Aliens abusing the System

June 24, 2013

In an age when Obama claims that there is not even money to pay air traffic controllers, it is interesting that the IRS is giving billions of dollars to mothers who are illegally in the country for children who may not be in the country or even exist.  All this money is paid out automatically and with no questions asked.  I think that there is still A LOT of fat that can be cut from the government´s budget.

This really shocking and interesting story from Mish Shedlock and his blog.

IRS Refunds $4 Billion Child Tax Credits Per Year to Illegal Immigrants Whose Kids Do Not Live in US (and May Not Exist at All); Earned Income Fraud Another $13 Billion

Here’s an interesting video that came my way yesterday from a close friend. The video highlights a news investigation by Channel 13, WTHR in Indianapolis, regarding fraudulent refunds of taxpayer money to illegal immigrants living in the US. The refunds are based on child tax credits, when the kids live in Mexico or elsewhere.

Link if video does not play: Another Massive Tax Loophole!

Typically videos like this are not remotely true, but this one is according to FactCheck.

Q: Does the IRS pay billions in tax refunds to workers who are in the U.S. illegally?

A: Yes. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General determined that $4.2 billion was paid in 2010, up from less than $1 billion in 2005. Leading Democrats are resisting a bill that would stop future payments.


This is a rare case of an Internet rumor with some substance to it. In fact, it’s shaping up as a major dogfight in Congress. At issue here are the federal child tax credits that can be claimed by persons with dependent children under age 17. Some Democrats are already defending these child tax credit payments that have gone to those without a valid Social Security number, accusing Republicans who want to end them of a heartless attack on children.

Several different versions of this viral email all cite a recent investigative story by an Indianapolis television station, but WTHR-TV is far from the first to notice. The Washington Post and others reported on this last year when the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration issued a report on July 7, 2011.

The title of the report summed up the IG’s [Treasury Inspector General] finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”

Problem Still Not Addressed

The WTHR video appears to be from 2012. The treasury inspector general report came out in 2011.

So Congress, the treasury, the IRS, and presumably president Obama have known about this for at least two years.

Fraudulent Bonanza for Illegals

The question I had this morning is a simple one: has anything been done yet?

It does not appear to be the case.

On April 16, 2013, The Washington Times featured an article by Edwin S. Rubenstein Collecting billions in a loophole, subtitled “Fraudulent tax refunds yield a bonanza for illegal immigrants”.

As federal services from air-traffic control to White House tours are ratcheted down thanks to the budget sequestration, millions of illegal aliens are now eagerly await billions in illegitimate Treasury payments, courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Two programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) provide cash payments to low-income parents who pay no income tax and fail to have a valid Social Security number.

The IRS knowingly allows illegal aliens who claim children to get Earned Income Tax Credit cash payments of up to $5,891 per household. This is one reason why these cash payments are expected to exceed $52 billion in fiscal year 2012 alone. The General Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that roughly a quarter of all Earned Income Tax Credit payments are issued improperly.

Compounding the problem is the Additional Child Tax Credit, which was added to the older Child Tax Credit program that became law in 1997. The Child Tax Credit reduces the tax low-income families pay by $1,000 for each child under 17. If the tax filer claims five children for a credit of $5,000 but owes only $2,000 in taxes, under the Additional Child Tax Credit the IRS sends the filer a check for the difference, or $3,000.

The federal tax agency makes no effort to verify the existence of children or the eligibility of the tax-credit recipients to work in the United States. Indeed, IRS managers reportedly encourage their staff to ignore questionable applications and blatant fraud for the sake of fast-tracking Individual Taxpayer Identification Number approvals.

The scandal prompted at least one congressman to act. Last year, Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican, introduced the ITIN Reform Act. The legislation would require people claiming Additional Child Tax Credit refunds on tax returns filed without a Social Security number to verify their citizenship status in person at an IRS office. Currently, the IRS sends these refunds automatically, with no questions asked.

Total Illegal Immigrant Fraud Over $17 Billion Annually

General Accountability Office (GAO) estimates one-fourth of the annual $52 billion in earned income payments is fraudulent. The math here is pretty simple. One-fourth of $52 billion is $13 billion, so the total cost to taxpayers is $17 billion annually.

Democrats do not want to do a damn thing about this, nor does the IRS. Please play the video, it’s a real eye opener.

Oral Myofacial Therapy—A Breakthrough Technique to Treat Symptoms Relating to Breathing Problems, TMJ, Headaches and Other Common Ailments

June 24, 2013

Dr Mercola has a very intersting look at Oral Myofacial Therapy.  I do not know a lot about it but it looks like something interesting to take a look at.  Certainly it is new information for me.

Here is the intro to the article

By Dr. Mercola

Orofacial myofunctional therapy is a profoundly useful treatment that may help treat the symptoms of a a wide variety of health issues, from opening airways to headaches, temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJ), to poor digestion, just to name a few. It may be the most profound therapy available for the treatment of mild to moderate sleep apnea, which is a pervasive problem that affects many.

Myofunctional therapy is the “neuromuscular re-education or re-patterning of the oral and facial muscles1.”

The therapy includes facial and tongue exercises and behavior modification techniques to promote proper tongue position, improved breathing, chewing, and swallowing. Proper head and neck postures are also addressed. There are good studies to substantiate that it may resolve jaw problems and orthodontic relapse working in a multi-disciplinary team.

It may also be an alternative or adjunctive treatment to facial plastic surgery, to help get rid of lines and saggy facial muscles, which is exciting. In fact, in Brazil, some myofunctional therapists work with plastic surgeons.

Joy Moeller, whom I had the good fortune of meeting as a result of an earlier interview with Carol Vander-Stoep (author of the book Mouth Matters), is a leading expert in this form of therapy in the US.

At the end of that interview with Carol, we discussed the issue of being “tongue tied,” and she happened to look into my mouth. A large population of Americans are estimated to have health problems related to poor orofacial function, and the vast majority have no idea their problems stem from the dysfunction of their mouth (primarily the tongue), breathing habit, and forward head and neck muscle function. Turns out I was one of them.

As a result, I got on a treatment plan with Joy, who is the premier expert on myofunctional therapy in the US. We’ve been doing regular Skype sessions for about the last six months, and not only am I making great progress in resolving my tongue tie, it’s had a profoundly beneficial effect on my posture and amount of deep sleep as well.

Of course, adult problems associated with tongue-tie are best prevented in infancy beginning with ensuring the normal duration of breastfeeding. However, tongue-tie often goes undetected by OBGYNs and pediatricians who, having been educated in a bottle-feeding culture, fail to connect the related breastfeeding issues. When feeding issues are present, such as recurring maternal pain, thrush or mastitis, poor latch, inefficient emptying of the breast, poor infant growth, reflux, sensory issues, poor gut function and poor sleep, it is best to immediately contact an IBCLC (International Board Certified Lactation Consultant) who can do an assessment and direct you to resources for proper revision (using laser or scissors) and supportive structural therapy…

The rest can be read at: