Doctors Observe Man Go Without Water & Food For 15 Days & It Has Huge Implications



Next Story

“We realized that, if this whole phenomenon really exists in a human being even for 15 days, it would have immense application in unraveling secrets of medical science and its application for human welfare.”

Those were the words that came from the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences in India along with several other scientists regarding a man they studied back in 2010 who has claimed to go without food and water for more than seventy years. The statement was given to ABC news, among several other media outlets. Those claims are obviously unable to be substantiated in a way the world needs them to be, but doctors nonetheless decided to see if 15 days was even possible, given that what we’ve been told about the human body, even 15 days without food and water should lead to a human in desperate and dire condition.

But this wasn’t the case here,

“Instead of ignoring this case, we selected to investigate further, in a rational and scientific way. We again make it clear that the purpose of this study was not to prove or disprove a person, but to explore a possibility in science and study a new phenomenon.”

We wrote about this story in the past, the mans name is Prahlad Jani, a local of Ahmedabad, India, who claims that at the age of 11, the Hindu goddess Amba appeared to him and told him that he would no longer have to eat food. He has apparently lived in a cave since the 1970s, and claims not to have eaten anything for most of his 81 years (as of 2012).

You can read more about his story in full, as well as the details of the scientific study of him for 15 days HERE.


Below is another related article you may be interested in:

Breatharianism: Science Examines People Who Claim Not To Eat: Here’s What They Found


Sure, there will be many out there who will reduce this story to psychotic episodes, delusion and fakery, but if you’re a student of philosophy and mythology, and the quest for knowledge and wisdom (the occult), you would probably not dismiss the idea that some people actually have had some unbelievable experiences, with ‘entities’ our world has not really accepted or placed into the realm of reality. That’s also another topic in itself!

If you are a student of health and science, then you’re probably aware that the human body is capable of going without food at least, for extended periods of times, and that it can have tremendous health benefits if practiced correctly.

If you’re interested in this type of thing, please do your research, read the articles linked below and take information in for a variety of sources. Perhaps try to reach out and consult some experts in the field as well.

The point is, it’s imperative to recognize that many people have now been observed going without food, at least, for prolonged periods of time, in both the setting mentioned above and in a clinical setting. In the ‘mainstream’ world, there has been so much fear propaganda dished out about fasting and going periods of time without food, but thankfully that’s all changing with the science that’s now emerging, and more people incorporating intermitted fasting into their lifestyles a little bit.

Since the time we are born, we’re taught to eat three square meals a day plus snacks, and what those meals and snacks should consist of. As a result, the world continues to become ill, and people were becoming addicted, and still are.

But things have changed a lot, the amount of awareness that’s been created about our food industry, as well as our health industry and the products we use which surround all aspects of human life, is great. It’s truly amazing how far we’ve come, and how many people are choosing to make lifestyle changes, which ultimately, will save the human race from corporate dominance, and render them useless. Why? Because without us, there is no them.

Just look at the GMO movement, the organic movement, the holistic and naturopathic movements that are starting to emerge. We are living in the birth of a new era, where our old ways are clearly not serving us so we are breaking out into new ways of doing things. A positive transition is indeed occurring.

Anyways, the point is, fasting, and going without food, but still consuming pure water when you desire, has tremendous benefits if practiced correctly. Even dry fating (without water) or short periods of time can be beneficial. It turns out, depriving your body of food triggers a number of responses in the body that have a tremendous healing power and the ability to combat multiple diseases. It makes sense, most animals have bodies that are designed to go long periods of time without food. When we do feed, from a fasted state, our body also has an easier time absorbing the nutrients, so it’s a great way to help the absorption of nutrients into your body when you do feed, which is also very important.

Fasting is much easier when you use healthy plant based foods for your meals instead of junk food with no nutrients.

I could go on and on, but we’ve written so many articles about fasting which is what I really wanted to bring attention to here, so if you’re interested and want to learn more, you can skim through the selected articles below with links to the science, or you could browse thronugh our site using the search bar as a resource.

Also, please keep in mind that there is a big difference between healthy fasting and starvation, something millions of people on the planet are experiencing.


Articles on Fasting: 

What Fasting Can Do For People With Type 2 Diabetes, Cancer & Alzheimer’s Disease

The Complete Guide To Fasting & Revering Type 2 Diabetes: A Special interview With Dr Jason Fung

Doctor Explains What Happens To The Human Body When It Goes Into Ketosis (Ketogenic Diet)

Scientists Discover That Fasting Triggers Stem Cell Regeneration

What Working Out In A Fasted State (Not Eating) Does To Your Muscle



Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/BSAdKV4Skfg/

How To Respond To Negative People Without Being Negative Yourself



Next Story

Have you ever had a friend, co-worker, teammate or even someone in your family that just seems to put a damper on things all the time? Whether it be with their habits, character traits or the need to be negative, sometimes people in our lives can provide some interesting challenges.

But that in and of itself is already a huge thing to realize: although some people may feel “toxic” or “negative” to us at times, they can actually be playing a great role for us. When you look at it, no one is actually “negative,” “toxic” or “bad,” they are simply having an experience and in our eyes, we are perceiving them in a certain way.

The truth is, there is much we can learn from these situations and we are going to share some great tips to help deal with these situations easily. All we have to do is remember to take a perspective on how we look at these things. Instead of simply booting them and running away, we can really learn a lot about ourselves.

1. See What You Can Learn From Them

One of the very first things, and probably the most important, I like to use in my own life when surrounded by these people is to ask myself what bothers me about them. What is it that is making me feel off or down when these people are around? Are they making me feel an emotion? Bringing up old frustrations? Are they holding me back?

Once we figure out what is setting us off about the person in the first place, we can find out if there is something we can adjust within ourselves first. The reason we look inside first is because we are trying to determine what role this person can be playing for us in our own learning. Often times these people disappear from our lives or transform the minute we do the work inside ourselves that they are shining a light on.

Once you identify what it is that gets you, work to move past that within yourself. It might be that you are judging their actions. It might be that you are getting upset because they do things you don’t like. Maybe they are unreliable all the time and it’s interfering with your life. Either way, the whole point isn’t to simply identify it and remain upset with it but instead to find a level of peace and acceptance with what is happening so you can remove the trigger.

Once you let that go, you can make choices to move on if you need to. The trick here isn’t to simply move on because we don’t want to face what bothers us within ourselves. You will notice that if you take this path you will continue running into people who will bring these things out in you until you let them go. After all, wouldn’t you rather not have those triggers in yourself?

2. Take Time For Yourself

This will partially link to number 1 as when you are trying to pay attention to what is bothering you about someone, it can be helpful to take time for yourself to do so. To go a bit deeper on this step, taking time away from the person or people that can feel toxic or “negative” at times is a great way to compare how you feel in each setting. There are going to be times in life where we have to have these people in our lives for whatever reason, (potentially work related) learning to take time away to recharge a bit is a great way to keep the peace within yourself and avoid getting caught up in the incessant judgment our minds can sometimes get stuck on. It isn’t about having to “put up” with these people forever, but more so to learn what we need and ultimately learn how to stay within your own peace around them.

3. Don’t Judge Them – Practice Practical Compassion

One of the biggest things we can get caught up in and make a habit of is judging people. Sometimes we do it and we don’t even know it! Judgment of another can even be addictive as we can do it out of self-defense or simply because we have been in that mindset so long that we forget to see the great things in others. We judge because sometimes people don’t do things we’d do or they don’t do it how we’d do it. We judge because we can feel self-conscious, jealous or because we are afraid to simply love them for what they do. Whatever the reason, it’s important to get out of the egoic mindset of judging. It isn’t YOU who’s even judging, it’s the ego’s beliefs, ideas, thoughts and concepts creating illusionary ideas of what is right and wrong.

Adding the compassion part is all about realizing that some things people are doing that you don’t like could be a result of challenges in their own life. Maybe they are cranky, angry, snappy, mean, jealous, judgmental, prone to gossip or don’t do things in the “greatest ways.” Whatever the case, try talking to them. Offering your thoughts, observations or tidbits of advice can do a lot to shift someones perspective. You never know what people are going through and often time you might find out that they are very much like you are. if you do choose to speak to someone, remember to be calm and respectful about it.

4. Don’t Take Their Behavior Personally

This is very much a lead from number 3 but important enough to mention on its own. We are not always aware of why someone is acting the way that they do. Even if they appear to personally “attack” you, it may not be about you at all. Remembering this will not only create more peace within yourself, but will also help to avoid any flare ups between you and the other person as taking things personally can get ugly at times.

5. Realize Their Behavior Shouldn’t Simply Be Ignored

This one is all about realizing that you don’t have to see their behavior as something you need to learn to deal with and/or simply ignore when they do it. You have the ability to make an impact on other people’s lives by simply recognizing things playing out and choosing to nicely do something about it. Sometimes we can say “oh they are just young” or “oh they are just always like that” and in that we approve of the behavior. Now the key here isn’t to bring judgment into the picture but to simply realize that sometimes people act in ways that aren’t in line with creating a good situation for everyone. Working on transforming that experience is great for not only the person but also everyone around the situation.

By taking action to mention possible changes people could choose to make, you put the ball in their court. Of course you can’t do the work for them but saying something can make a difference.

6. Feel Free To Move On Without Them

After we’ve gone through what has been mentioned above, it’s time to look at the final step that I feel takes a bit of honesty and learning to fully grasp. Moving on from people is always an option. Remember, it’s not about learning to “put up” with people who might be creating an experience you don’t wish to have in your life. But, its important to go through the steps above so that we are not simply running away. Growing and learning ourselves is a big part of this process and appreciating that others can offer that for you is huge.

There does come a time, and I’ve experienced it myself, when people just don’t change. They constantly bring around a “low vibe” and their habits and traits can make situations quite colorful in ways we are ready to move on from. They can be selfish and are always taking but never returning the balance of friendship. In these particular cases we make a choice as to whether or not we wish to move on. There’s nothing wrong with choosing to take this route if you feel you’ve moved beyond what they bring out in you.


Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/PqoIImc3zfA/

Teacher of the year sends Trump message without speaking

The nation’s teacher of the year let her buttons do the talking Wednesday after she was presented the distinguished honor by President Trump at a White House ceremony.

Mandy Manning, a teacher at Joel E. Ferris High School in Spokane, Wash., wore several buttons that seemed to rebuke the president’s priorities as she accepted a crystal apple trophy. One was for the Peace Corps and one for the National Endowment for the Arts, one commemorated the Women’s March, and one read “Trans Equality Now.”

Trump’s 2019 budget called for gutting NEA funding and drastically slashing money for the Peace Corps. In March, the president signed an executive order banning the vast majority of transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military.

“Her incredible devotion has earned her the adoration — total adoration, actually — and respect of students and colleagues throughout her school district, community and the entire state,” Trump said of Manning during the ceremony. 

For the last six years, Manning has taught English and math to immigrant students from places like Sudan, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Of that list, only Syria remains targeted by Trump’s latest travel ban. 

“They’re forced to leave wherever they’re from, whether they’re immigrants or refugees,” Manning said in an April interview with “CBS This Morning.” “And so they come to the United States with this hope that it’s going to be somehow different, and I continue to hear that from the students. They’re like, ‘Well, this is my chance. This is where I have an opportunity to have dreams and actually achieve those dreams.’”

It’s unclear whether Trump read or was made aware of Manning’s buttons, and the Washington teacher did not speak following the presentation of the award. She was, however, able to hand Trump a stack of letters written by her students, as well as by members of her community, the Associated Press reported.

“I just had a very, very brief moment so I made it clear that the students that I teach … are dedicated and focused,” Manning told the Associated Press. “They make the United States the beautiful place that it is.”

Read more from Yahoo News:

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/teacher-year-sends-tump-message-without-speaking-224904855.html

Innocent Driver Blamed After NY Cop Drives 74 in 40 MPH Zone Without Lights, Sirens, or Seatbelt, and Dies

New details have been released by New York State Police in the case of the Whitesboro police officer who crashed and died while speeding with his lights and sirens off in an April 11 incident.

Whitesboro Police Officer Kevin Crossley, 34, was traveling at 74 mph in a 40 mph zone without wearing a seatbelt, and without lights and sirens to warn others of his dangerous driving, reported WKTV.

The driver of the vehicle that was struck by the speeding officer, Nicole Moshier-Harris, was ticket for failure to yield the right of way.

NY troopers say that a witness statement and video from a nearby business show Crossley was going eastbound on Oriskany Boulevard when he collided with a Chevy Avalanche near the intersection of Westmoreland Street.

Crossley was taken to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Utica, where he was pronounced dead. The Onondaga County Medical Examiner’s Office said he died from multiple traumatic injuries.

Moshier-Harris was also taken to the hospital and treated for a leg injury before being released.

New York State exempts police from the seatbelt law, but the Whitesoboro Police Department policy and procedure manual states anyone operating a village vehicle is required to wear a seatbelt.

Source: http://truthfight.com/innocent-driver-blamed-ny-cop-drives-74-40-mph-zone-without-lights-sirens-seatbelt-dies/

If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY

<!–

(function(d) {
var params =
{
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()
};

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://api.content-ad.net/Scripts/widget2.aspx?” + qs.join(‘&’);
d.getElementById(“contentad365543”).appendChild(s);
})(document);
–>

Filming Cops

Source Article from http://filmingcops.com/innocent-driver-blamed-after-ny-cop-drives-74-in-40-mph-zone-without-lights-sirens-or-seatbelt-and-dies/

Vance: Mueller Subpoena Talk Unlikely Without Rosenstein Blessing

Joyce Vance, talks about news that Robert Mueller suggested possibly issuing a subpoena for Donald Trump to appear before a grand jury, and points out that Mueller wouldn’t have presented that option without first having cleared with Rod Rosenstein.

Watch TV shows, movies and more on Yahoo View.

About The Rachel Maddow Show

Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life – as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise. See More

Check out more stuff on Yahoo View

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/vance-mueller-subpoena-talk-unlikely-201858609.html

Your house dust is full of chemicals – here’s how to eliminate the threat without resorting to more chemicals

 –Modern-day pollution is making dust a part of our lives. It’s in the air we breathe, and in the place where we spend the biggest part of our lives in — at home. That’s why it’s alarming to learn that indoor dust found in the typical U.S. household has around 45 harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including flame retardants and phthalates, which are related to weight gain, obesity, thyroid issues, cognitive impairment, and even cancer.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), items inside your house ‘shed’ chemicals over time. These include shoes, food and chemicals released from cooking, plastics, stain-resistant furniture, electronics, and flooring materials. Also in the list are fragrances, cosmetics, cleaning products and any other household items that have chemicals.

Here’s why household dust and chemicals form a lethal combination.

  • They may cause thyroid dysfunction – The common household chemicalperfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) can enter our organs and tissues. Studies point to household dust as one of the main sources of PFOA. They also show that high PFOA levels in the blood may create thyroid problems and other hormonal imbalances. Worst, PFOA in the bloodstream may stay in the body for several years. PFOA is found in the carpet, flooring treated with wax, sealants, carpet stain remover, and non-stick cookware.
  • They’re linked to fertility issues  – Phthalates and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl) are two harmful chemicals that lodge themselves in dust. These substances can reduce sperm count and create reproductive problems in women. Phthalates are present in car interiors, vinyl shower curtains, vinyl wallpaper, and cosmetics. PCBs are found in oil-based paint, electrical equipment, plastic, and floor finish. Older homes usually house PCBs, which was banned in late 1979. Like PFOA, phthalates and PCBs take a long time to break down, and can stay in your organs and tissues for years.
  • They can trigger skin flare-ups  – Bacteria and fungi in household dust can make their own type of chemicals. These chemicals cause allergies and have been been associated with skin problems like dermatitis and eczema.
  • They can prevent cognitive development – Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a flame retardant present in mattresses, computers, car stereos, and couch cushions, are associated with cognitive impairment and neurobehavioral issues in children. According to studies, a whopping 80 percent of our exposure to PBDE comes from household dust.

Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at HealthRangerStore.com.

Babies and toddlers are at greatest risk when it comes to household dust because they crawl on the floor, play with toys stored in bins and put their hands in their mouths. These make it easier for PBDEs in dust to enter their underdeveloped bodies.

Here’s how you can conquer perils of household dust:

  • Use organic and natural products at home –  Go organic when choosing cosmetics, personal care products, flammable materials, and household cleaning items. Try using coconut oil as moisturizer; essential oils instead of fragrances; and water, lemon juice, white vinegar, and antibacterial essential oils as household cleansers.
  •  Use HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filter to vacuum – You can attach this filter to your vacuum cleaner to trap dust and other pollutants like mold, tobacco smoke, and pollen. HEPA filters are better than the regular vacuum variety because the former traps microscopic particles that the latter can’t get rid of.
  • Clean surfaces with damp cloth –  Feather dusters can spread the dust even more. So use damp cloth or a microfiber duster or electrostatic cloth instead.
  •  Wash hands with chemical-free soap and water before eating – This is one of the easiest ways to fight toxins you and your family are exposed to every day.

Household dust and chemicals are enemies to health that live with us every day. Beating these harmful substances a sign that we care for the loved ones who live with us at home. Read Toxins.news for more coverage of environmental toxins that directly impact your health.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/2018/05/your-house-dust-is-full-of-chemicals-heres-how-to-eliminate-the-threat-without-resorting-to-more-chemicals/

‘Hardball’ Guest Whacks Hannity for Advising Trump Without a College Degree, Matthews Defends

MSNBC’s Hardball
April 18, 2018
7:22 p.m. Eastern

SEAN HANNITY: Let’s look at the Mueller crime family. Of course, we are now on day 329 of the Mueller witch hunt and there’s still zero evidence of collusion. Imagine that. [SCREEN WIPE] Remember this whole witch hunt started when Mueller’s best friend, James Comey, leaked his personal, potentially classified notes. [SCREEN WIPE] During his tenure at the FBI, We all know about the special treatment that Hillary Clinton received from the Bureau. [SCREEN WIPE] Knowing what we now know about what is obvious deep state crime families trying to take down the President. [SCREEN WIPE] Aren’t you now glad that Trump fired Comey. 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. That was Fox News host Sean Hannity spinning conspiracy theories on his show last week, arguing that Clinton, Mueller and Comey crime families — that’s what he calls them — are out to get President Trump. Well, before this segment aired — that did — the President tweeted: “Big show tonight on [Hannity].” He was promoting what Sean was about to say. On Monday, it was revealed that both Trump and Hannity had — were clients of lawyer Michael Cohen. They share a lawyer. Well, at least in case of Trump, a fixer. The Washington Post’s Robert Costa reports that: “The revelation this week that the two men share an attorney is just the latest sign of how Hannity is intertwined with Trump’s world — an increasingly powerful confidant who offers the media-driven president a sympathetic ear and shared grievances. The conservative commentator is so close to Trump that some white house aides have dubbed him the unofficial chief of staff.” The author of that article, of course, Robert Costa, who’s a national political reporter from The Washington Post and MSNBC political analyst and David Jolly, former Republican congressman from Florida. I don’t want to be a media critic. I try to avoid that because I am in the media and I think it’s like a baseball player complaining about another baseball player. What I do focus here is on is the possible extraordinary influence that Sean Hannity might have on this President. How would you describe it when he gives that deep state conspiracy stuff about how it’s all a plot by bureaucrats and the federal agencies to get this particular President and he’s not just echoing the president, He may be forcing the President to echo him which is a thought I want you to dwell on for a second. Robert? 

ROBERT COSTA: It’s an understandable story for a long time watchers of President Trump, Sean Hannity, a New Yorker, brash, conservative, relishes his anti-establishment persona. As the president returns to his roots in a sense during this presidency, ignoring at times the advice of his traditional advisers, he’s turning to people like Sean Hannity and often Sean Hannity to give him counsel informally, phone calls late at night, sometimes early in the morning as they think through their own lives and the President’s agenda. 

MATTHEWS: Well, let me give some logic to this, first of all, to David Jolly. You know, I’ll check this on you. If you’re on the air three hours a day, I think three hours a day that Sean is, it takes a particular talent to be on the air in talk radio. I don’t know if I’d be any good at it or not because you really have to have a good ear for the audience and you begin to develop a conversation with your regular audience, the ones who’s tune in every day that give you the big bucks and the big audience, obviously. Is that what he’s checking on? Is it like a polling operation, calling up Sean, is the President saying, is this working? Is that working? What should I be pushing? What should I be playing down? Where is the action? How are the people reacting to this? Is that what he’s using it for? And so, what’s so wrong with that if he’s using him as his guy with an ear to the ground. 

DAVID JOLLY: Sure. If it’s measuring the pulse of the body politic, perhaps there’s nothing wrong with that. But I think this feeds into a bigger suspicion and it’s this. There’s a difference between lack of experience and lack of credibility. Frankly, most presidents come to the job without the experience necessary to be commander in chief on day one. But this feeds into the lack of credibility that I think a lot of Americans have when it comes to Donald Trump and the fact is Sean Hannity is not a subject matter expert. 

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

JOLLY: If you look at Bush 43 came in, he was young. The legitimacy of the election was questioned, but he surrounded had himself by seasoned advisers, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld. Whether you agreed with their ideology or not, you knew he was in trusted hands. In this case, Sean Hannity is not seen as a trusted hand, a subject matter expert, a man who never graduated from college is giving policy advice to the President of the United States and I think that’s the concern and anxiety this story that Robert so ably reported on creates within the American people. 

MATTHEWS: Is that the overlay, the dangerous red line here, Robert, as you report it is not that he’s giving him political advice which Sean would be good at because he does have his ear to the ground. He’s on the air all day long — four hours a day, including radio. He knows what’s working with the conservative base. The poll, the right-wing poll, if you will, but he’s not an expert on regional studies with China or regional studies with the Middle East. Is he getting policy advice or political advice from Sean Hannity? 

COSTA: The way it’s described to me by White House officials and friends of the President is that it’s feedback. That Hannity to the President represents that base, that base conservative voter who listens to talk radio who may have voted for President Trump. He’s not looking to Hannity for policy advice. But he trusts his own instincts but he also trusts as someone who has a mass audience, has to cater to a mass audience and he sees Hannity as someone in a similar position in that respect, trying to play to that base and keep that audience. 

Source Article from https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2018/04/18/hardball-guest-whacks-hannity-advising-trump-without-college-degree

Theresa May let off lightly after launching air strike without Parliament’s permission

So will the UK government make a habit of by-passing MPs when contemplating future military action?

By Stuart Littlewood

On 16 April Theresa May came to the House of Commons to answer questions about the air-strikes she and her Cabinet authorised against Syrian targets on the 14th.

It’s a wonder she didn’t arrive by abseiling onto the roof of Parliament from a helicopter. Or, in the style of the Iron Lady, driving through the gates at the helm of a Challenger tank, chiffon scarf fluttering in the Westminster breeze.

Her party whips had been busy. An army of Conservative puppets danced to a rehearsed tune with plenty of carefully scripted questions. The situation was a minefield but nobody planted a truly high explosive charge in Mrs May’s path. Just a handful of harmless thunder flashes were lobbed. She was not held to account. And she came through it looking much more confident than when she faced the press on 14 April.

She started proceedings with this statement:

Let me set this out in detail: we support strongly the work of the OPCW [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] fact-finding mission that is currently in Damascus, but that mission is only able to make an assessment of whether chemical weapons were used. Even if the OPCW team is able to visit Douma to gather information to make that assessment – and it is currently being prevented from doing so by the regime and the Russians – it cannot attribute responsibility. This is because Russia vetoed, in November 2017, an extension of the joint investigatory mechanism set up to do this, and last week, in the wake of the Douma attack, it again vetoed a new UNSC [United Nations Security Council] resolution to re-establish such a mechanism… For as long as Russia continued to veto the UN Security Council would still not be able to act. So we cannot wait to alleviate further humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons attacks.

Secondly, were we not just following orders from America? Let me be absolutely clear: we have acted because it is in our national interest to do so. It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should not be used, for we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere.

So we have not done this because President Trump asked us to; we have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do. And we are not alone. Over the weekend I have spoken to a range of world leaders… All have expressed their support for the actions that Britain, France and America have taken.

Thirdly, why did we not recall Parliament? The speed with which we acted was essential in co-operating with our partners to alleviate further humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations. This was a limited, targeted strike on a legal basis that has been used before. And it was a decision that required the evaluation of intelligence and information, much of which was of a nature that could not be shared with Parliament. We have always been clear that the Government have the right to act quickly in the national interest. I am absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, that it is Parliament’s responsibility to hold me to account for such decisions, and Parliament will do so. But it is my responsibility as prime minster to make these decisions – and I will make them.

She went on to assure MPs that the military action “was not about intervening in the civil war in Syria or about regime change”.

Legality questioned

In reply, Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said:

I believe that the action was legally questionable, and on Saturday [14 April] the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, said as much, reiterating that all countries must act in line with the United Nations charter, which states that action must be in self-defence or be authorised by the United Nations Security Council. The prime minister has assured us that the attorney-general had given clear legal advice approving the action. I hope the prime minister will now publish this advice in full today.

As regards the disputed humanitarian intervention doctrine he remarked:

The foreign secretary said yesterday that these strikes would have no bearing on the civil war. The prime minister has reiterated that today by saying that this is not what these military strikes were about. Does, for example, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen entitle other countries to arrogate to themselves the right to bomb Saudi airfields or its positions in Yemen, especially given its use of banned cluster bombs and white phosphorus? Three United Nations agencies said in January that Yemen was the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, so will the prime minister today commit to ending support to the Saudi bombing campaign and arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

Given that neither the UN nor the OPCW has yet investigated the Douma attack, it is clear that diplomatic and non-military means have not been fully exhausted.

May responded:

The problem [regarding Douma] is that the investigation is being stopped. The regime and the Russians are preventing the OPCW from investigating. Moreover, again, the regime has reportedly been attempting to conceal the evidence by searching evacuees from Douma to ensure that they are not taking out of the region samples that could be tested elsewhere, and a wider operation to conceal the facts of the attack is under way, supported by the Russians…

I think it important that this was a joint international effort. The strikes were carefully targeted, and proper analysis was carried out to ensure that they were targeted at sites that were relevant to the chemical weapons capability of the regime. We did this to alleviate further human suffering…

MPs from all sides then piled in, as called by the Speaker.

Parliament “emasculated”?

Hostile questioning was generally too polite, causing May little discomfort. I missed many of the contributions while yawning, but there were some that I thought worth passing on.

Sir Nicholas Soames, Churchill’s grandson, asked:

My Right Hon. Friend will agree that the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, is illegal, contrary to all the laws of war and utterly reprehensible. Will she therefore confirm that the government will at a later date seek the arraignment at an international court of those who instigate these vile acts, whoever they may be?

Soames is pro-Palestinian and a sharp critic of Israel, so the thrust was obvious. But she sidestepped it, replying:

My Right Hon. Friend is absolutely right about the illegality of the use of chemical weapons and the impact of their use. We believe that those who are responsible should be held to account.

But, clearly, her government would be doing no such thing.

There are many Conservatives and Labourites in the House who voted for the Iraq war and are still too dim to repent or learn the simple lesson. They and many newcomers queued up to express support for the bombing. Among them was glamorous Priti Patel (Witham, Conservative) who, only six months ago as former international development secretary, had numerous meetings with Israeli politicians (including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his security minister) during a family holiday in Israel without telling the Foreign Office, her civil servants or her boss Theresa May, and without government officials present – a gross breach of security.

There are many Conservatives and Labourites in the House who voted for the Iraq war and are still too dim to repent or learn the simple lesson.

She now seems anxious to rehabilitate herself in the corridors of power. “There are no words to describe the appalling nature of the humanitarian disaster that confronts Syria,” she told May, “which is why I commend my Right Hon. Friend for the strong action that she has taken and the support she is giving to the Syrian people. Will she assure the House that in the face of the abhorrent abuses perpetrated by the Assad regime, hers will continue to be a strong voice in favour of the international rules-based system, and will she show that Britain will not stand idly by when cruel weapons are used to murder innocent children and families?”

Patel had toured the Golan Heights (Syrian territory stolen in 1967 by the Israelis and illegally occupied ever since) with the thieving occupation army – another monumental diplomatic blunder. So this avid Israel stooge has little concern for international rules. Fellow stooge May managed to leave open the option to continue idly ignoring Israel’s crimes. “We will ensure that our voice is heard. It is absolutely right that it was the right thing to do and was in our national interest, but it is also important that we are standing up for that international rules-based order and continue to do so.” Words are cheap; we never see action.

Other MPs were suspicious of May’s I-did-it-my-way act. Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green) challenged her on the point that the legal basis relies on there having been no practicable alternative. She enquired whether the UK had asked the OPCW to inspect the Him Shinsar and Barzeh sites. The prime minister responded: “We have been very clear that we would like it to be possible for the OPCW to investigate sites in Syria, for there to be proper identification of the chemical weapons and for there to be proper accountability for the use of those chemical weapons.”

Caroline Lucas: “Did you ask?”

May: Last Tuesday at the United Nations Security Council, there was going to be a proposal and resolution that would have enabled a proper investigative mechanism to be re-introduced to look at the use of chemical weapons and at what chemical weapons were available in Syria and held by the regime and at their capabilities and to be able to ascertain accountability for those chemical weapons? That draft resolution was vetoed by Russia.

That’s not quite how I read the UN’s own account of the situation. However…

Laura Pidcock (North West Durham, Labour) wanted to know whether the prime minister was planning to use executive powers again with regard to military action in Syria – in breach of the commonly understood parliamentary protocol that would have given the House a say in a matter of war. She said:

There is clear opposition from British people to air strikes, and I think the public are right to be sceptical, so will the prime minister also explain how air strikes have improved the safety and security of Syrian people practically, when we are aware that the bombing and violence is continuing unabated throughout the region?

May replied:

The strikes that took place were about degrading the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian regime… the assessment we have made is that the strikes were successful… It is by degrading its chemical weapons capability that we can have an impact and ensure that we are reducing the likelihood of the humanitarian suffering in the future.

Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West, SNP):

The policy paper on the UK government’s legal position says the UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. It does not, however, cite any authority for that proposition: it does not quote the UN charter, and it does not refer to any Security Council resolution nor any international treaty of any kind. Will the prime minister tell us why that proposition is unvouched for in the policy paper?

May replied:

The basis on which we undertook this action is one that has been accepted by governments previously and one under which previous action has been taken. I believe that it continues to be the right basis for ensuring that we can act to alleviate humanitarian suffering, and I would have thought the alleviation of humanitarian suffering was something that should gain support from across the whole House.

Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough, Labour) quoted the prime minister from her statement that she was “confident in our own assessment that the Syrian regime was highly likely responsible”. Surely, she asked, “the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to being ‘highly likely’?” In addition, she said, “I would be interested to know who ‘we’ are, given that Parliament was not consulted.”

May replied: “The government made their assessments. Those were not just the view of the UK government; they were shared by our allies and on that basis we acted.”

Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun, SNP) was quite bold:

So far today the prime minister has ducked out of questions about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world – Yemen – and she has not answered why she did not wait until the outcome of the OPCW inspections. She has not explained why a parliamentary recall would jeopardise the action that President Trump had already tweeted about. She has not answered about providing further humanitarian assistance and additional support for refugees, and yet she talks about parliamentary scrutiny. How is a statement after the event parliamentary scrutiny when she will not answer any hard questions?

To which the Prime Minister replied: “The Hon. Gentleman talks about me not answering questions on refugees, but I have done so, or on the OPCW, but I have done so. I have answered many questions… ”

David Duguid (Banff and Buchan, Conservative) gave her a friendly lob: “Can my Right Hon. Friend reassure the House that, contrary to claims over the weekend, there is no evidence that any British defence export products have ended up in the wrong hands in Syria?”

The prime minister: “I can certainly give my Hon. Friend that assurance.”

But is it true?

Attempt to rein in wayward prime ministers

For the record, the policy paper published by May’s government setting out the case for military intervention states:

The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

Of course, this could just as easily apply to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where nearly 2 million starving people have been under the cosh of Israel’s vicious blockade and bombardments for more than 10 years. Or in Yemen. But UK parliamentarians and US Congressmen would wet themselves at any thought of air strikes against the despicable regimes they are in bed with.

May denied that she took orders from Trump yet had seemed desperate to fit in with Trump’s timetable and jump the gun on the OPCW inspectors’ reports. And she could easily have recalled Parliament during the week leading up to the strike had she wanted to.

The next day, 17 April, in an emergency debate secured by Corbyn, MPs discussed Parliament’s role in (and exclusion from) approving military action in Syria. Corbyn used the occasion to accuse the prime minister of by-passing Parliament, saying she had “tossed aside” the precedent set by the 2003 Iraq War vote because it was “inconvenient”, and it was now time for Parliament to “assert its authority” over UK military action and take back control. Otherwise, he said, authorising air strikes without Parliament’s approval, if it became the norm, could lead to more dangerous action in the future.

Corbyn called for  a new War Powers Act that would require Parliament to be consulted on military intervention. Mrs May reacted angrily to suggestions that Donald Trump had been given more say in Britain’s part in the air-strike than the UK Parliament.

At the end of the debate, MPs voted in favour of a woolly motion that they had “considered Parliament’s rights in relation to the approval of military action by British forces overseas”, which of course moves us no further forward.

May was buffeted by the Syrian bombing affair but escaped the severe mauling she deserved. Within the Westminster bubble she emerges unscathed. Only time and the truth about Douma and Salisbury (when it is eventually known) will tell whether she can get away with it in the outside world.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Source Article from http://www.redressonline.com/2018/04/theresa-may-let-off-lightly-after-launching-air-strike-without-parliaments-permission/

Gessen: Putin wants a rhetorical war without too many coffins

Masha Gessen, author of “The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia,” says a war of words between Russia and the West serves Vladimir Putin better than an actual war.

Watch TV shows, movies and more on Yahoo View.

About msnbc News

News clips that don’t belong to a specific MSNBC show, these clips may be from press conferences, breaking news events, etc. See More

Check out more stuff on Yahoo View

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/gessen-putin-wants-rhetorical-war-194037314.html

YouTube restores Health Ranger video channel without explanation as tech giants feel the heat from censorship backlash

Image: YouTube restores Health Ranger video channel without explanation as tech giants feel the heat from censorship backlash

(Natural News) YouTube, an authoritarian techno-cult run by deranged lunatic Leftists who despise free speech, has restored the Health Ranger video channel without explanation. Upon restoration, almost 100,000 subscribers were stripped from the channel as yet another “F##k You” from YouTube to content creators like me.

The message from YouTube is clear: We can ban you at any time, for any reason, without explanation, with no recourse, and even when we decide to turn your channel back on, we can just delete a third of all your followers, or do anything else we want to screw with your content and silence your voice. (Read YouTubeCensorship.com for more details on YouTube’s outrageous censorship of important voices.)

Like Facebook, Google and Twitter, YouTube has devolved into a left-wing echo chamber where rationality, logic and reason are no longer tolerated. In order to maintain a voice on any of these platforms, you must obediently kow-tow to whatever latest irrational delusion is being pushed by the Left Cult. Those who dare say rational, logical things — such as “there are only two genders” — risk having their accounts terminated and their followers scrubbed. Even the idea of pointing out that men and women have different neurology — a self-evident truth supported by exhaustive scientific study — is not allowed on these left-wing platforms run by the “Left Cult.”

Understand: Logic, science and biological reality are considered “offensive” by the deranged, lunatic Left. And they will ban you for uttering obvious truths such as “children are born as males or females, not ‘undecided’ genders to be ‘assigned’ by doctors at birth.”

TOO LATE: YouTube has already lost all credibility with nearly every intelligent person

If YouTube is trying to win back favor among the tens of millions of users who are being silenced and terminated, they’re too late: The video platform has already lost all credibility.

Even if YouTube reverses its outrageous banning of conservative and libertarian accounts, the world already knows that YouTube can never be trusted again. They can ban your channel at any time, without justification, without explanation and without recourse. YouTube represents true authoritarian evil on the ‘net, and people are fleeing the left-wing platform in droves.

That’s why I’ve announced REAL.video, an alternative to YouTube that protects the free speech of pro-liberty voices. This upcoming video community launches July 4th, and already more than 16,000 people have requested content channels on REAL.video. (Go there now to request yours.)

Almost every day, I’m hearing from people who are being banned by YouTube. They’re telling me, “PLEASE launch REAL.video sooner than July 4th.” Building a massive video community isn’t something that can be done overnight, unfortunately, so it’s going to take a few months to do this right. But the wait will be worth it! REAL.video is being built to:

  • Handle more than one billion video views per month, right out of the gate.
  • Host tens of millions of individual videos, with almost unlimited scalability.
  • Video playback for nearly all popular video formats, web browsers and mobile devices.
  • Robust, rapid video uploading and transcoding.
  • Video embedding into your own web pages.
  • Support for video views, “likes” and social media sharing.
  • Video contests such as the “Most offensive video of the month” contest to exercise the boundaries of free speech. (We will also hosts video contests on the best mockery of fake news CNN and other hilarious topics.)
  • Open support for guns and firearms videos, which are being systematically banned by YouTube.
  • Open support for videos critical of incompetent government, corrupt corporations and the fake news media.
  • A very wide spectrum of free speech (but no video piracy, nudity, porn, animal abuse, terrorism or other illegal content).
  • The BANNING of communists, fascists, Marxists, left-wing lunatics and other who are unsafe to the community. This way, you won’t encounter fascist libtards on REAL.video.

We cannot trust YouTube as a platform: It’s time to re-platform ourselves right now

This is sort of obvious at this point, but none of us can trust YouTube, Google, Facebook or Twitter as “neutral” platforms anymore. We must actively seek out alternatives such as GAB.ai, REAL.video and MeWe.

Even then, we have to be certain that the people who launch and operate these alternative platforms are committed to liberty and freedom, or else they will be easily bought out, compromised or overrun by the left-wing cult that has zero tolerance for actual free speech.

That’s why people are flocking to REAL.video to request content channels there. They know how I’ve been personally attacked, censored, smeared, vilified and death-threated by the Left Cult, and they know how deeply I’m committed to the First Amendment, Second Amendment and individual liberty.

No corporation can compete with the power of sheer passion and personal commitment. While YouTube devolves into a cesspool of left-wing lunacy run by unimaginably stupid libtards who despise real speech, REAL.video will be the new home for genuine free speech on the internet. (That’s also why it will be viciously attacked, DDoS-bombed, smeared and blocked in every way imaginable, just like GAB.ai.)

Request a content channel now at REAL.video. Most importantly, save all your video files so you can begin uploading as we start approving accounts in June.

Bottom line? F##k YouTube. They have no relevance whatsoever for the future of freedom. Every intelligent person should be “re-platforming” right now to get off YouTube, Google, Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter. New alternatives are being launched this year. Stop feeding evil with your participation. Make a choice to stand for online freedom.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/qNONUcz3MyU/