Iran Nuclear Deal Surrogate Gave NPR Thousands Of Dollars To Provide Coverage

The Trade Centers in NYC on 9/11 weren't multicultural enough for them.

townhall

Cortney O'Brien
Posted: May 21, 2016 11:30 AM

Earlier this month we found out how the Obama White House knowingly misled the American public to gain support for the nuclear Iran deal. Indeed, the Iranians were not as moderate as Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes suggested.

That's not all. Now, reports have surfaced indicating that some Iran Deal surrogates were funding the media to provide coverage for the nuclear agreement. The Ploughshares Fund, for instance, shelled out $100,000 to NPR.

The Ploughshares grant to NPR supported "national security reporting that emphasizes the themes of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and budgets, Iran's nuclear program, international nuclear security topics and U.S. policy toward nuclear security," according to Ploughshares' 2015 annual report, recently published online.

Ploughshares spokeswoman Jennifer Abrahamson argued it is not unusual for foundations to fund media for "underreported stories."

Underreported? Really?

The more we hear about the shady behind-the-scenes dealings of the White House's nuclear agreement with Iran, the more outraged we should become. Even before these media funding reports came out, Americans were wary of the deal. In August, a Quinnipiac poll found that the public opposed it by almost 30 points. The White House even had a hard time finding support for the agreement in the liberal hotbed of New York City.

Middle East experts issued several warnings against the ill-fated nuclear negotiations. A political analyst I met in Israel in March said the deal exposed an incompetencewithin the administration and has injured America's image as a superpower.

Well, now we know we also have the media to thank for helping push through a disastrous and dangerous deal.

Thank You Ms Obrien and Townhall.

NPR funding

In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[20] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[20] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[20][34] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.[20]

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB;[35] in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.[36]

Govt. is funding, in bed with and covering for, drug cartels, gun runners and nuclear terrorists. Is it any wonder the same Govt. wants to clamp down on internet coverage/opinions/despite of their shennanigans?

Is it any wonder Govt. wants to profitably lobotomize you and your kids because you have an incurable mental disorder according to yet another klatch of Fraudsters they spend your money to fund? 

FCC (7)
Hamburg (5)
Fast And Furious (16)

NPR. Another Government pet we could all Well do without.

If you went through, line by line, all of these Govt. spending orgies and cataloged what's actually being done with all that money, a 3 year old could solve a good 90% of the problems besetting America just with his red crayon.

usdebtclock.org

The Constitution Is My Speech Permit

townhall



Mike Adams
Posted: May 20, 2016 12:01 AM

My former attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recently filed a lawsuit they never should have had to file. In the suit, they are representing a Christian student group at North Carolina State University (NCSU). At issue is an NCSU policy requiring a permit for any kind of student speech or communication anywhere on campus. This policy is a direct affront to the First Amendment, which is the only permit needed to speak on a public university campus.

The policy itself is outrageous. To make matters worse, NCSU only selectively enforces the policy as they did against the plaintiffs, Grace Christian Life, which is a registered student organization. Elevating audacity to a Zen art form, petty university officials told these Christians that they needed a permit to speak with other students in, of all places, the student union.

The controversy began in September of 2015 when NCSU officials demanded members of Grace Christian Life stop approaching other students in the Talley Student Union to engage in religious discussions or even to simply invite them to attend Grace Christian Life events. So the group cooperated and obtained a permit to set up a table in the student union in January.

When Grace Christian Life set up its “approved” table they were told that they could speak with other students either from a) behind the table or b) anywhere in the room. However, when the students left the table on the permitted date, a member of the Student Involvement Office approached them and told them they must stick with option “a” and remain behind the table.

The legally insurmountable problem for NCSU is that the university has not placed the same restriction on any other group. Grace Christian Life members observed and wisely documented other groups freely speaking with other students and handing out literature. These groups have done so either without a permit or outside of the area reserved by their permit. The suit alleges that the groups have done so in full view of the very same officials that stopped Grace Christian Life from engaging in their First Amendment protected activity.

NCSU claims authority to do this under University Regulation 07.25.12, which requires a permit for speech the policy defines as “any distribution of leaflets, brochures, or other written material, or oral speech to a passersby (sic)….” Furthermore, the policy specifies that any person “wishing to conduct any form of solicitation on University premises must have the written permission of Student Involvement in advance.”

The NCSU policy is so broad that it makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech such as the religious speech at issue in the case at hand. To borrow a phrase from the late Justice Scalia, if this policy is narrowly tailored it is by the standards of Omar the Tentmaker rather than Versace.

The NCSU speech permit controversy is just the latest in a seemingly endless string of embarrassing episodes on our nation’s campuses. Each episode is just another pathetic re-run with precisely the same plot:

A university policy says ones thing. The Constitution says another. The university maintains that their handbook trumps the Constitution. The court rules that the Constitution trumps the handbook. In the wake of an embarrassing defeat brought on by willfully uneducable educators the public is left footing the bill for attorney fees and damages.

To make matters worse, this incident never could have taken place at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH). After years of trampling the First Amendment, UNC-CH got rid of all of its unconstitutional policies – thus earning a “green light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The people at FIRE only give these ratings to schools without any policies that threaten free speech. Sadly, only 22 of our nation’s universities have earned that “green light” distinction.

It is a sad irony that a progressive campus like UNC-CH now shows greater tolerance for Christian speech than a more conservative university like NCSU. For that reason alone, alumni should demand that NCSU administrators stop defending the indefensible and tarnishing the school’s reputation.

After years of reporting on campus free speech cases I have come to realize that most college administrators need to be sent back to high school to take basic civics. Those who still don’t get it need to be schooled in a court of law.

Thank You Mr Adams and Townhall.


The 1st Amendment being canceled on college campuses is getting conservative media/political attention. Good.

Now how about coming to grips with Citizens exercising their 1st Amendment Rights being a Chargeable/Punishable offense in tax funded Medicine?

Considering the hellish consequences of speaking with Mental Health professionals, many of which they will NOT disclose to the consumer under the fiction that it's not only compassionate but actually Legal to lie, either outright, or by omission, Psychiatric Consultations should be required to be prefaced with a Miranda warning.

Anything you say can and will be used against you without a Court of Law. 

Why?

Because I'm a Doctor.

Therapeutic Privilege

But Miranda Rights don't have much clout even With people who do have the Legal authority to detain you.

Miranda Warning Rights Trimmed Bit By Bit By High Court

Review Links Antipsychotics With Risk For Heart Attacks

madinamerica
A systematic review published this week in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology found that patients taking antipsychotic drugs were at nearly twice the risk of a heart attack compared to non-users. "Our findings provide important information about the safety of antipsychotic drugs," Bing Ruan, a lead author of the study, wrote. "Clinicians should prescribe them only for patients with a clear need."

A new review links a two-fold risk for heart attacks with the use of antipsychotic drugs.

Zheng-he Yu, Hai-yin Jiang, Li Shao, Yuan-yue Zhou, Hai-yan Shi and Bing Ruan, Use of Antipsychotics and Risk of Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, doi: 10.1111/bcp.12985, published online 16 May 2016. (Abstract)

--Justin Karter , News Editor

This entry was posted in Adverse Effects, Antipsychotics, Drug Page, Featured News, In the News, In the News, Informed Consent, Legislation & Regulation, Obesity/Metabolic Syndrome, Psychiatric Drugs, Researchand tagged antipsychotic risks, antipsychotic side effects, Antipsychotics and Heart Attacks, antipsychotics safety, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, long term use of antipsychotics, safety of antipsychotic drugs. Bookmark the permalink

Thank You Mr Karter and MIA.

We read this and were tempted to snark it with a "Ho Hum, throw another log/study on the fire."

But at this point, with the ever growing Matterhorn of studies condemning them, it's become a matter of Toss another grain of sand onto the beach."

Tylenol Can Dull Your Empathy For Others

Another fine JNJ product.
naturalnews

Monday, May 16, 2016 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Tags: Tylenol, empathy, brain chemistry

(NaturalNews) Tylenol doesn't just dull your perception of physical pain, it also dulls your ability to relate to the physical and emotional pain of others. In other words, Tylenol affects your ability to show empathy, according to a pair of studies conducted by researchers from Ohio State University and published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

The studies were conducted using the active ingredient in Tylenol, a chemical known as acetaminophen or paracetamol.

"These findings suggest other people's pain doesn't seem as big of a deal to you when you've taken acetaminophen," researcher Dominik Mischkowski said.

"Acetaminophen can reduce empathy as well as serve as a painkiller."

Less aware of EVERYONE'S pain

Acetaminophen is the most commonly taken drug in the United States, according to the industry group Consumer Healthcare Products Association. In any given week, about 52 million adults – 23 percent of the adult population – take one or more of the 600 products containing the drug.

Yet the mechanisms by which Tylenol dulls pain remain poorly understood.

In the first new study, researchers assigned 80 college students to drink a liquid that either did or did not contain 1,000 mg of acetaminophen. They were not told which group they were in. An hour later, the participants read eight short vignettes involving someone suffering emotional or physical pain, such as the death of a father or a knife cut down to the bone. The participants then rated the pain of participants, along with their emotional feelings of being pained, hurt or wounded, on a scale of 1 to 5.

Participants who had taken acetaminophen rated both the emotional and physical pain in the stories as significantly lower than those in the placebo group.

Prior research has shown that the same regions of the brain light up when experiencing pain and when imagining that of others.

Tylenol blunts emotions, moral reasoning

The followup study had a similar setup, involving 114 college students. First, the participants were exposed to two seconds of a white noise blast ranging from 75 to 105 decibels (100 decibels is about as loud as a motorcycle engine, and loud enough to cause hearing damage with long exposure). They rated the unpleasantness of the sound on a scale of 1 to 10. They were then asked to rate how unpleasant another person would likely find the noise.

Participants in the acetaminophen group answered both questions with lower ratings than people in the placebo group.

"Acetaminophen reduced the pain they felt, but it also reduced their empathy for others who were experiencing the same noise blasts," Mischkowski said.

The participants were then brought into the same room to socialize briefly with each other, so that they were no longer total strangers. They were then separated again and, individually, watched an online game supposedly involving three of the people they had just met (this was not true). In the faked game, two people ganged up on and excluded the third player.

The participants were asked to rate how much pain and hurt feelings each player in the game had experienced. Again, the participants in the acetaminophen group rated the pain of the excluded player as significantly lower than those in the placebo group did.

"We don't know why acetaminophen is having these effects, but it is concerning," senior author Baldwin Way said.

"Empathy is important. If you are having an argument with your spouse and you just took acetaminophen, this research suggests you might be less understanding of what you did to hurt your spouse's feelings."

The study is only the latest to show that Tylenol has disturbing effects on emotion and information processing. Prior research by the same team showed that acetaminophen also reduced people's ability to feel positive emotions. Other studies have shown that acetaminophen makes people's emotional reactions more neutral in general, that it blunts the sense of indignation that underlies moral judgment, and that it reduces people's ability to detect their own cognitive errors.

Sources for this article include: 

ScienceDaily.com

NaturalNews.com

GCAudio.com

Thank You Mr Guiterrez and Natural News.

No civil rights for you. You're temporarily intoxicated on Tylenol. Your empathy for others is downgraded.

You might have a relapse and ingest tylenol again.

Mental Health: Now with FREE Alcoholism

2 drinks, Incurably sick in the head, based on the ideation that you might take 2 more drinks somewhere down the road again.

Which leads back to the Scam of 12 step programs.

The Fall Of Sweden: Ingrid Carlqvist, Multiculturalism, The Muslim Invasion and Sacking of Sweden

Obama's Agenda for America.

More from Ingrid Carlqvist.

Gatestone Institute

FierceHealthPayer Anti Fraud: This Week's Headlines

fiercehealthpayerantifraud

HHS misses key opportunities for improper payment recovery

May 16, 2016

While it generally complied with federal improper payment reporting requirements, the Department of Health and Human Services fell short in several key areas, according to an independent audit conducted by Ernst & Young LLP.

OIG to physicians: Be careful whom you do business with

May 16, 2016

In a new "Eye on Enforcement" video, the Office of Inspector General warns physicians to be wary of taking payments from other providers, highlighting a kickback concern the government has targeted over the last several years.

Feds probe relationship between drugmakers, pharmacy benefit managers

May 12, 2016

Federal prosecutors are investigating contracts between three pharmaceutical companies and unnamed pharmacy-benefit managers, an indication the federal government is increasing its scrutiny of potential False Claims Act violations within the agreements, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Medicare contractors relying more on data analytics to investigate fraud

May 10, 2016

Although the number of fraud and abuse investigations initiated by Medicare benefit integrity contractors declined between 2012 and 2013, contractors leaned heavily on predictive analytics to identify fraudulent billing, according to a report released by the Office of Inspector General.

Senate report reignites concerns about physician-owned distributorships

May 10, 2016

Surgeons who have a financial interest in medical device companies are far more likely to perform certain surgeries, according to an updated report that calls for increased scrutiny of the financial arrangements on physician-owned distributorships by the Senate Finance Committee.

MORE NEWS

Planned Parenthood To Spend $30 Million To Help Defeat "A##hole" "Racist" Donald Trump

weaselzippers

Thought all those tax dollars they keep slurping up were for 'Women's Health'?

Says the group who receives more than $500 million annually in taxpayer funds.

PITTSBURGH, Pa. — Donald Trump may think Planned Parenthood does “good work,” but its members have few nice things to say about the presumptive GOP frontrunner in return.

“Asshole,” “racist,” “chauvinist,” “dangerous,” “unqualified” and “pendejo“ were all words Planned Parenthood volunteers used when asked to share their thoughts about Trump. One woman said she thought a fart noise would be more appropriate than an actual word.

Nearly 1,000 of Planned Parenthood’s most active volunteers gathered in Pittsburgh this past weekend for an intensive Power of Pink grassroots training, the kickoff for the organization’s 2016 work. The group has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton, so mobilizing against Trump will be a major focus.

“He says in the same breath that he loves Planned Parenthood, we do great work and at the same time vows to defund us because we provide abortion access. That’s no friend of ours,” said Deirdre Schifeling, who leads the group’s national organizing and electoral work.

Trump recently promised that if elected president, he would also name anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood aims to spend close to $30 million in the 2016 election cycle to make sure he doesn’t get that chance. That amount would be the most money it ever spent in an election and double what it spent in the last cycle, according to Schifeling. The focus will be on reaching 5 million voters known as “swing women” — women who view access to reproductive health care as a core issue but are independents and flip between the parties.

On Saturday morning, the Power of Pink attendees gathered for a final rally that, at times, felt like a Purim carnival. Whenever, someone mentioned Trump, inevitably, the entire room would erupt in boos.

“Every election has stakes. This one has some serious stakes, ya’ll. Serious stakes. I’m just going to say it again: Donald Trump. If those are not stakes, I don’t know what else is,” said Marlon Marshall, the Clinton campaign’s director of state campaigns and political engagement.

heh, . . . heh heh.

Thanks Zip. 

Worst Charity For Vets Is Run By VA Employee, Less Than 2% of Donations Went To Vets

weaselzippers
(use the link in red)

Worst Charity For Vets Is Run By VA Employee, Less Than 2% of Donations Went To Vets

Being 'Suspicious of Government' is a sign of  paranoia.

And not just any VA employee, but a Govt Lawyer.


see that button at the top right that says Donate?

hint.