Friday, August 29, 2014

What...?

The Headline is:


Are they fucking kidding?

The FEDS, who have demanded a completely open border. The FEDS, who refuse to obey the laws of the United States to secure our national border. The FEDS, who ignore one of the few permitted duties specifically defined in the Constitution for the Federal Government: defense of the nation. The FEDS, who are giddily busy rolling out the red carpet to illegal aliens and other criminals to pour over the border in a tidal wave, unmolested, in order to partake of the largesse of the American Taxpayer...


...are now "warning" of a Terrorist Attack?


Well, fuck me. There's a surprise.

Who would have guessed?
Who could have known?
Who could have imagined?

Oh...I don't know...

EVERY. BODY. ELSE. ON. THE. PLANET?!

Illegal, lawless, criminal, out of control government.

What ever will we do about it?

Why, I have an idea...*

/*gun


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

From the Mailbag

The following items have NOT been stolen by the Missouri looters:

pen
pencils
books
resume kits
work boots
work gloves
work coveralls
Father's Day cards

_______________
/gun

The Science of Saturated Fat: A Big Fat Surprise About Nutrition?

Amid all the horrid news in the world...here is an oddly happy story. Turns out all the stuff you love to eat, probably isn't bad for you after all...

* * * *

The science linking saturated fats to heart disease and other health issues has never been sound. Nina Teicholz looks at how governments started advising incorrectly on diets.

by Nina Teicholz

LINK TO STORY





Tuesday 26 August 2014

When Ronald M Krauss decided, in 2000, to review all the evidence purporting to show that saturated fats cause heart disease, he knew that he was putting his professional career at risk. Krauss is one of the top nutrition experts in the United States, director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and adjunct professor of nutritional studies at the University of San Francisco at Berkley. But challenging one of his field’s most sacrosanct beliefs – that the fats in meat, cheese and butter are bad for health – was a near-heretical act.

A few years earlier, when a colleague of Krauss’s had merely tried to speak about his positive findings regarding the high-fat Atkins diet, he was met with jeers and derision. One member of the audience yelled “I am absolutely disgusted that the [government] would waste my money on a study on the Atkins diet” – to the applause of many.

Challenging any of the conventional  wisdom on dietary fat has long been a form of professional suicide for nutrition experts. And saturated fats, especially, are the third rail. But Krauss persevered and concluded in 2010, after reviewing all the scientific literature, that saturated fats could not be said to cause heart disease. In March, another group of  scientists, including faculty from Cambridge and Harvard, came to the same conclusion after conducting a similar “meta-analysis”. These were stunning results. It seemed that saturated fat, our principal dietary culprit for decades, had been unfairly convicted.

Yet the truth is there never has been solid evidence that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be true because nutrition policy was derailed over the past half-century by personal ambition, bad science, politics, and bias.


Our fear of saturated fats began in the 1950s when Ancel Keys, a pathologist at the University of Minnesota, first proposed that they raised cholesterol and therefore caused heart disease. Keys was an aggressive, outsized personality with a talent for persuasion. He found a receptive audience for his “diet-heart hypothesis” among public-health experts who faced a growing emergency: heart disease, a relative rarity three decades earlier, had skyrocketed to be a leading cause of death. Keys managed to implant his idea into the American Heart Association and, in 1961, the group published the first-ever guidelines calling for Americans to cut back on saturated fats, as the best way to fight heart disease.

The US government adopted this view in 1977 and the rest of the world followed. But the evidence backing these guidelines was weak. Mainly, it amounted to Keys’s own “Seven Countries Study”, which purported to show a link between the consumption of saturated fats and heart disease among 13,000 men surveyed in the US, Japan and Europe. Critics have pointed out that this study violated several basic scientific norms. For one, Keys did not choose his countries randomly but instead selected only those likely to prove his beliefs – including Yugoslavia, Finland and Italy – while excluding countries with low rates of heart disease despite diets with a lot of fat – such as France, Switzerland, Sweden and West Germany.

Moreover, due to difficulties in collecting accurate nutrition data, Keys ended up sampling the diets of fewer than 500 men, far from a statistically significant sample. And the study’s star subjects – men on the Greek island of Crete who tilled their fields well into old age and appeared to eat very little meat or cheese – turned out to have been partly sampled during Lent, when the study subjects were foregoing meat and cheese. This must have led Keys to undercount their saturated-fat consumption. These flaws weren’t revealed until much later. By then, the mis-impression left by the erroneous data had become international dogma.

There were subsequent trials, of course. In the 1970s, half a dozen important experiments pitted a diet high in vegetable oil – usually corn or soybean, but not olive oil – against one with more animal fats. But these trials had serious methodological problems: some didn’t control for smoking, for instance, or allowed men to wander in and out of the research group over the course of the experiment. The results were unreliable at best.

Citing this lack of solid science, British sceptics were feisty holdouts against Keys’s hypothesis for decades. Editors of the prestigious scientific journal The Lancet mocked the New World’s obsession: why would Americans put up with the sacrifices of a low-fat diet? They were appalled that “some believers long past their prime were to be seen in public parks in shorts and singlets, exercising in their free time, later returning home to a meal of indescribable caloric severity [when] there is no proof that such activity offsets coronary disease”.

British scientists also had long found the diet-heart hypothesis perplexing. “There was a very big emotional component into the interpretation in those days,” Michael Oliver, the influential British cardiologist, told me. “It was quite extraordinary to me. I could never understand this huge emotion towards lowering cholesterol.”


 Stefansson described the fat-laden Canadian Inuit as the healthiest people he had ever lived with (Getty)

Oliver and others pointed out that a great deal of evidence from around the world contradicted Keys’s ideas. For instance, the Masai warriors in Kenya were observed in the 1970s eating nothing but meat, milk and blood – not a vegetable in sight – yet they were not overweight, their cholesterol levels remained low even as they aged and scientists could find no evidence of heart disease, despite conducting electrocardiographs on 400 of them. In India researchers studied a million railway workers and found that those in the north ate 8 to 19 per cent more fat (mainly from dairy products) than their co-workers in the south, yet the northerners lived, on average, 12 years longer. This disparity led the study authors to conclude, in a 1967 paper, that to prevent heart disease people ought to “eat more fermented milk products, such as yoghurt, yoghurt sherbet and butter”.

Half a world away, scientists observed Inuit populations in the Arctic eating mainly  caribou, salmon, and seal – altogether some 70 to 80 per cent fat. “They should have been in a wretched state,” wrote Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the Harvard-trained Canadian anthropologist who lived with the Inuit for years. “But, to the contrary, they seemed to me the healthiest people I had ever lived with.”

Keys aggressively criticised these observations, which were like missiles aimed at the very heart of his theory. After all, as the British biologist Thomas Huxley remarked, a great hypothesis can be slain by an ugly fact, and these were no doubt some ugly facts. Of the Inuit, for instance, Keys wrote,  “their bizarre manner of life excites the imagination”, especially that “popular picture of the Eskimo... happily gorging on blubber”, but on “no grounds” was it possible to suggest that the case of the Inuit “contributes anything” to the scientific record. And in response to a prominent Texas A&M University professor who wrote a critique of Keys, he said that the paper “reminds one of the distorting mirrors in the hall of jokes at the county fair”.

Rolling over the opposition by sheer force of will was typical of Keys and his acolytes in defending their saturated-fat hypothesis. Keys was “tough and ruthless and would argue any point”, Oliver, a prominent opponent, said. Since Keys’s allies controlled so many top government health posts, critics were denied research grants and key posts on expert panels. As retribution for defending the healthiness of eggs, despite their cholesterol content, Oliver was publicly branded by two of Keys’s main allies as a “notorious type” and a “scoundrel” because “he opposed us on everything”.

In the end, Keys and his colleagues prevailed. Despite contrary observations from India to the Arctic, too much institutional energy and research money had already been spent trying to prove Keys’s hypothesis. The bias in its favour had grown so strong that the idea just started to seem like common sense.

Early on, however, The Lancet sounded a note of alarm that would soon be picked up by others. “The cure should not be worse than the disease,” wrote the editors in 1974, echoing the medical dictum, “first, do no harm”. Perhaps reducing fat in the diet might lead to an increase in carbohydrates, they suggested. In fact, this is precisely what happened. Grains, pasta, rice and potatoes replaced meat, cheese, and eggs on dinner plates. Breakfasts of eggs and fried kippers ceded to bowls of cereal and orange juice. The British now eat 46 per cent less saturated fat than they did in 1975. Meanwhile, UK authorities recommended that two-thirds of calories should come from carbohydrates.

The problem, as researchers have suggested since the 1950s, is that carbohydrates are uniquely fattening. Whenever they’re eaten, the body is stimulated to release insulin, which turns out to be fantastically efficient at storing away fat. Meanwhile, fructose, the main sugar in fruit, causes the liver to generate triglycerides and other lipids in the blood that are altogether bad news. Excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease.

The best possible science from the past decade now indicates that too many carbs overall – even of the supposedly healthy, whole-grain kind – increase the risk of these diseases compared with a diet low in carbohydrates. In other words, too much whole-grain cereal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and sausage, followed by fish.

And scientists are now exploring the idea that sugar might have a particularly toxic effect. Here again, a British scientist led the fight against Keys. In the early 1950s, John Yudkin, a professor of physiology at Queen Elizabeth College, first posited that sugar might cause obesity and other diseases. Keys, ever alert to any challenges to his own hypothesis, jumped on Yudkin and repeatedly attacked him in scientific journals. Yudkin’s idea is a “mountain of nonsense”, he wrote at the end of a nine-page critique in Atherosclerosis. “Yudkin and his commercial backers are not deterred by the facts; they continue to sing the same discredited tune,” he wrote later.

Remarkably, it turned out that a reanalysis of the Seven Countries Study data many years later found that sugar intake correlated better with heart-disease risk than any other nutrient. Keys, however, “was very opposed to the sugar idea”, recalls Daan Kromhout, a Dutch collaborator on the study. “He was so convinced that fatty acids were the thing in relation to atherosclerosis, he saw everything from that perspective.”

Our dietary guidance has followed Keys’s view for 50 years now. Despite half-a-billion pounds spent trying to prove his hypothesis, the evidence of its health benefits has never been produced. Meanwhile, rates of obesity and diabetes are rising and heart disease remains a leading cause of death. It’s worth wondering if our working hypothesis about diet and health is not working. And if alternative ideas are to be considered, nutrition science must, like any science, provide an open, civil and unbiased climate for genuine debate. For reasons of substance and style, it’s time to enter a post‑Keysian era.

The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet’, by Nina Teicholz (Scribe, £14.99) is out now

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Violence in the News

There are only two stories in the news.

  • Racist blacks rioting in Ferguson demanding the lynching of a white cop
  • ISIS cult members sawing off the head of an innocent American journalist...on video

Both symptoms of a world gone mad.

There is only one answer: Be more beastly, fearsome, dangerous than they...

I want the "caliphate" to be nuked into glass.That's a deterrent. When they are all dead, they can't kill any more Americans.

I want the Ferguson police to shoot-to-kill looters. That's a deterrent. Fewer scumbags to annoy the neighbors.

And I don't even LIKE cops! 

But given a choice between a white policeman and a black thug...I gotta go with the copper.

Call me a racist.

Like I care.

And while we're at it, can we line up most of the MSM against a wall and shoot them? Have you ever heard such idiocy in the face of the rank criminality of mob violence? Their brains are so soft they're leaking out of their ears.

Like black conservative, Lloyd Marcus said:
I get the feeling the MSM's unspoken opinion is as follows:  "Niggers have a right to act like niggers. America should understand and compassionately tolerate it." This is pure racism and bigotry of low expectations.
Amen, Brother.

If you won't hold a black person up to the same standards you demand of a white person, you're a racist.

If you think a punk-ass, black thug that strong-arms a guy half his size and rips off local merchants should be defined as an "unarmed teenager"....you're a racist.

If you think that showing a video of this black thug caught on tape while in the act of intimidating and threatening the shop owner...is "smearing his character", you're a racist.

If you think that black mob violence is understandable and excusable because a white cop and a black citizen had an altercation...even before any of the facts have been determined, you're a racist.

If you automatically conclude, with no supporting FACTS, that the white cop murdered the black citizen in cold blood because he's racist, because he's white, you're a racist.

If you think destroying and looting local businesses is an appropriate response to perceived police brutality, you are a thug and a criminal.

If you destroy and loot businesses in your home town, and in your community, you're just stupid, and I hope you enjoy living in your burned out ghetto where no respectable business will ever locate again.


* * *

Oh yeah...and can we all agree now that Islam is, in fact, a Satanic Death Cult?

/gun


Addendum: This is what commenter johnnyrock67 said about the situation. He is exactly right:

"The left lives in a fantasy world imagining every place is the Deep South in 1955, every black person is Emmett Till, and every white person is the KKK. Any time the facts present themselves in a way that contradicts their fantasy, the left throws a tantrum instead of adjusting their view according to reality."


Monday, August 18, 2014

The Boys Don't Hesitate...

On a USO tour, Robin Williams' performance is interrupted by the Bugle Call "Retreat" which is the official end of day and the lowering of the flag. This doesn't happen every day to a A-List celebrity!


Who Is Barack Ă˜bama... (Email of the Day)

This is the best description of Barky (and his idiot idolators) I have ever read. It is attributed to Jack Wheeler. Until I am corrected, I shall assume he did, in fact, write it. Here is the email in it's entirety:

________________________ 

 
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an elegantly tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is "African-American", the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to  America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

And yet he got elected, not once but twice. Thanks to those that did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those that were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.

Remember you don't have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different slave owner.

* * *

Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the  Soviet Union  with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Joke of the Day

A man boarded an airplane and took his seat. As he settled in, he glanced up and s aw the most beautiful woman boarding the plane. He soon realized she was heading straight towards his seat. As fate would have it, she took the seat right beside his.

Eager to strike up a conversation he blurted out, "Business trip or pleasure?" She turned, smiled and said, "Business. I'm going to the Annual Nymphomaniacs of America Convention in Boston ".

He swallowed hard. Here was the most gorgeous woman he had ever seen sitting next to him, and she was going to a meeting of nymphomaniacs. Struggling to maintain his composure, he calmly asked, "What's your business role at this convention?"

"Lecturer," she responded. "I use information that I have learned from my personal experiences to debunk some of the popular myths about sexuality."

"Really?" he said. "And what kind of myths are there?"

"Well," she explained, "one popular myth is that African-American men are the most well-endowed of all men, when in fact it is the Native American Indian who is most likely to possess that trait. Another popular myth is that Frenchmen are the best lovers, when actually it is men of Jewish descent who are the best. I have also discovered that the lover with absolutely the best stamina is the Southern Redneck."

Suddenly the woman became a little uncomfortable and blushed.

"I'm sorry," she said, "I shouldn't really be discussing all of this with you. I don't even know your name."

"Tonto," the man said, "Tonto Goldstein, but my friends call me Bubba."

The Other Side

This my friends, is NOT a Gimmedat...



This is a MAN, whose passion speaks to me. And I suspect, to all of you.

 /gun

Cop Control

Funny how the Gimmedats are all in a racist tizzy about the Ferguson police department.

Don't seem to be able connect their own dots.

Demand huge, controlling, big-brother government powerful, tyrannical and mean enough to steal money from some people and give it to other people, to pick winners and loser, to favor some over others, to spy and censor, to commit crimes and keep secrets...

...and what you get is a big, powerful, invasive, militarized, extra-Constitutional police force...

...heeeellllooooo...!

They are a logical conclusion; the enforcement arm of the government y'all wanted.

How's that Utopia workin' out for you, assholes?

/gun




P.S. Please note: I don't think there has been enough information yet about what really happened to determine whether or not the Ferguson cops acted "stupidly" in this particular incident. I am reacting here to the idiocy, violence, and screaming fits of the savage, uncivilized Gimmedats and their foul mouthpieces...jumping to conclusions before the facts are in—assuming racism—and ignorantly angry (at others, as always) for the logical conclusion to their own beastly ideology.

Quote of the Day

"Progressivism:  The Bliss of Ignorance"


Tuesday, August 12, 2014

R.I.P. Robin Williams

Wow. Bummer. I remember Mork and Mindy. Funny, funny guy.

Had the pleasure of running into him outside the Improv one night in San Francisco maybe 30 years ago. Just a moment of greeting and telling him how much I enjoyed his work. He was gracious and sweetly grateful for the compliment.

Nice guy. Funny bastard.

He will be missed.

/gun

Death on the Track

Heard a lot about how NASCAR driver Tony Stewart hit fellow driver Kevin Ward intentionally. From the first, the claim is idiotic. But since so many seem to cling to it, based on their own misinterpretation of an amateur video taken from the other side of the track...and with no understanding of dirt racing and the physics/dynamics of a sprint car...here is one of the clearest explanation of what happened I've read, by Scott:

_________________


After reading nearly every article out there and watching the video about a dozen times...

1) Engine Rev -- The claims that you can hear Stewart's engine rev right before impact are false. If you notice in the beginning of the video, the person shooting the footage is sitting just past the finish line in the straight away. The collision happened on the far side of the turn. Any engine noise you hear is from the cars passing through the straight away. If you don't believe me, watch the video again and see if you hear even the slightest noise of the initial impact with the wall. There is none. This amateur camera's mic is not sensitive enough to pick that up. The notion that you could hear a single engine revving from the far side of the track when other cars are much closer to the camera is just plain wrong. Keep in mind that the video is shot on maximum zoom from probably about 80+ yards away. Bottom line, that engine sound is very likely from a different car closer to the camera.

2) Acceleration -- Watch the video just before Stewart makes contact and gauge the speed of the two cars that pass Ward before Stewart. The first car (two cars before Stewart) passes much closer to Ward and at a higher rate of speed. The second car (just before Stewart) passes at approximately the same speed as Stewart. I've heard numerous reports that Stewart accelerated while the rest of the pack had slowed down, and that is just plain false from the video footage I've seen.

3) Fish tail -- Slow down the video and you'll see that the fish tail happened AFTER impact. And the nose of Stewart's car actually turned up the track away from the infield. This is exactly what would happen if the right rear tire of any vehicle ran over a large bump, and it's exactly opposite of what would happen in a sprint car if you juiced the throttle. If Stewart's car's nose had turned down and the rear fishtailed up, then it would support the theory that he gunned the throttle*. However, the video shows the opposite.

4) Point of impact -- Ward had to dodge two cars trying to get to Stewart. Contrary to reports, he did not "march" down the track toward Stewart. He actually had a do a little dance to stay out of the way of the other cars. It was obvious that he was making a beeline toward Stewart and was going to get as close as he could. If Stewart were trying to mow him down, he could have done so easily and likely would have struck him with the front of the car. The fact that it was either the right rear tire or wing that struck Ward indicates that it was Ward moving toward the car, not Stewart moving toward Ward that was the primary cause of the collision. My guess is that Ward was planning to smack the hood of the car or shout into the right window, but he got too close and misjudged the speed of the car.
5) Stewart's temper -- I've watched Tony race for years, and yes, he has a temper. (Not that it's an excuse, but so do about 75% of other NASCAR drivers). But here's what I don't get. In 99.9% of altercations over the years, Tony lost his temper after HE was wrecked. I have never seen Tony get angry or do anything reckless after he was the person who put someone into a wall. The idea that Tony was so angry that he drove all the way around the track and then came back and mowed the guy down just doesn't add up. I can see why Ward would be angry if he felt Tony had wrecked him. But it simply doesn't make sense (and is inconsistent with past examples) for Tony to be angry with Ward (and certainly not enough to run him down).

* * *

and...

"Stewart did not gun it to hit his guy on purpose much less 'scare' him as those like you seem to being saying, and it's ludicrous to imply or state otherwise. They are racers, not gang bangers."

______________________

So can the internet lynch mob shut the fuck up now?

Thank you.


/gun

Monday, August 11, 2014

The Israel Test

When are ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC Gonna Show These?


 Yeah...here are some of the pictures YOU DON'T SEE of those innocent, adorable little "Palestinian" children we've heard so much about.

Funny, they look exactly like members of the Satanic Death Cult known as Islam...



Awwww....aren't they cute??

/gun