Safety Guidelines for Wireless Radiation

From: American Patriot Health

Modern civilization has flourished with the ready availability of water, gas and electricity. Today a fourth utility has become part of our daily lives: wireless. Computers, cell phones, watches, televisions, tablets, even coffee machines and refrigerators all run on wireless.

While wireless used to be available at a few specialized locations, such as cafes, it is now part of the environment in offices, schools, hospitals and businesses of all types. Wireless connectivity has become ubiquitous in just a few short years. Now scientists are beginning to assess the safety of wireless.

There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies that cite a link between the frequency radiation or microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices and adverse biological health effects. These include brain tumors, cancer and cardiovascular disease. Safety guidelines do exist, but because they are set by engineers rather than health professionals, there is concern they are insufficient.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) establishes the safety guidelines for wireless. FCC oversees all broadcast frequencies across the spectrum. It moderates competition among service providers, maintains emergency communications, and even enforces decency standards on radio and television. But the FCC is not qualified to address issues related to health.

Currently, all wireless communications devices sold in the U.S. must meet minimum guidelines for safe human exposure to radio frequency energy. The guidelines were established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, almost twenty years ago. Amy O’Hair of watchdog group StopSmartMeters.org, describes them as “established in the 1970s based on 1950s science, and firmed up in the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996, (just as cellular networks were going up), the guidelines have not been reviewed since then – even as usage patterns have changed drastically.”

The current guidelines set exposure limits for handheld wireless devices in terms of Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which measures the rate at which radio frequency (RF) radiation is absorbed by the human body. The FCC has set the allowable rate at 1.6 watts per kilogram, averaged over a gram of tissue. Experts estimate cumulative radiation exposure may actually be more than a hundred times higher than official exposure limits, because most of us are exposed to multiple devices.

Here are some of the ways you can safeguard your health:

1) Substitute wired devices for your wireless versions
2) When you use your cell phone, keep it away from your ear. Use headphones and your speaker.
3) Establish a low EMF sleep sanctuary in your bedroom. Get rid of electrical devices.
4) Invest in a simple-to-use EMF meter, and measure the EMF readings in your house.

Here are suggestions for updating the FCC guidelines:

1) Regulations should reflect current research regarding the biological effects of exposure.
2) The regulations should be based on the maximum power of devices as well as the number of devices to which a person is exposed.
3) Wireless devices in public places should have an automatic maximum power reduction based capability tied to the number of wireless devices in the area.

Wireless technology has developed and expanded so quickly that most people remain unaware of the potential dangers. It is critical that we all spread the word to increase awareness, and to insist on adequate safeguards for our personal and public health.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Ignorance and the Rise of Bernie

From: Concervative HQ

Dane Chapin, Guest Columnist | 02/25/2016

As Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain famously pointed out, "socialism works great until you run out of other people's money."

One has to look no further than the resonating presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, particularly with the youth of America, to validate the widely held belief that the state of education in the United States is abysmal--not only in the inner cities but at the esteemed ivy laden institutions as well. At least as it seemingly pertains to history, math and economics.

Last time I checked the history books, the largest, and while it lasted most successful(key word: lasted) experiment in the history of the world with socialist politics flamed out in utter and abject failure. I get that twenty somethings might not know of the American hockey win at the Lake Placid Olympics in 1980, but are things so placid in America's classrooms that the Soviet Union, the loser in that famous game as well as the game of ideas, doesn't ring a bell.

Kids born after 1990, please know that just because something didn't happen in your lifetime doesn't mean it didn't happen. Once upon a time there were just three TV channels to watch, starting at age eight the only rule in summer was to be home for dinner, you didn't get trophies for participating (you had to win and you were disappointed when you didn't which made you try harder), there was a Cold War instead of Coldplay, flights to the moon were calculated on a slide rule (something that looked like a ruler and moon walks were real too) and the Soviet Union wasn't in a galaxy far, far away.

I hate being the bearer of bad news but regardless of what Bernie tells you, and I know he is very lovable (heck, I'd love to have lunch with him and I'll even pay), there is no free lunch. Yes, it is true, there is no free lunch. The math is the math. Fortunately, it is simple addition and multiplication (just with lots of zeros), which I believe is still taught in America schools, in spite of the citizenry's desire to ignore the consequences of ignoring the math.

Believe it or not, things have to be paid for, regardless of whether you believe something is a privilege or a right. Furthermore, no matter how much you tax the rich, not even they have enough money to pay for all of Bernie's promises. Kids, I know you haven't been trained to deal with disappointment (see participation trophy) so I'll let you deal with this horror for a moment before I move on.

I know you might still be shaking but here is a thought experiment to consider. You could confiscate the entire wealth of America's richest 400 hundred people and it amounts to roughly $1.5 trillion. A lot of money until you want to redistribute it to millions of people. 

For instance, if all that wealth was invested in 30-year U.S treasury bonds the annual income (income is the way you pay for stuff) amounts to roughly $40 billion per year. This is roughly enough money to cover about half the current cost of paying for America's prisons or 2% of the total national healthcare bill or about 1% of the annual federal budget. This is really, really important so please absorb what this means.  1% of something, of anything, is on the margins and the cost of Bernie's promises are not on the margins.

Net, net, contrary to what Bernie promises, taking from the rich as he so proudly and enthusiastically advocates, it barely moves the needle when it comes for paying for stuff for the other 99%. While Bernie wants to demonize just about anyone with two nickels to rub together and mostly those who work on Wall Street, truth is what just about everyone could agree to--democrats, republicans and socialists alike--it is ok and achievable for the top 99% to pay for the bottom 1%.

Unfortunately, regardless of what may or may not to be fair (a very subjective concept), any objective and honest evaluation of the math will instruct you that it is absolutely impossible for even the richest 10% to pay for all of Bernie's promises and still afford to pay for their own lunch. Side note, taxing people to the point where they can't pay for their own lunch is not a good thing, period.

What may sound great in a speech and get people excited, particularly young people that don't  apparently have the benefit of a lesson that explores the historical outcomes for countries organized around the principles of socialism, what Bernie advocates simply doesn't work. As Margaret Thatcher, an important historical figure from the 20th century (you can look her up on Wikipedia), famously pointed out, "socialism works great until you run out of other people's money."

In thinking about the rise of Bernie, the word ignorance comes to mind which none other than the venerable Merriam Webster dictionary provides the following example for use in a sentence: "with such vast sums spent on education, the level of ignorance among graduating seniors is a national disgrace." Seems the dictionary was rather prescient in how the abysmal state of education in this country has given way to making proven failure fashionable. Time to get enlightened America.

God bless,

JohnnyD

This Meme Exposes The TRUTH About Socialism! MUST SEE

From: The Political Insider

By Kosar

Team Hillary is nervous about the popularity of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), as he is leading national polls for the first time.

This meme reminds us just how dangerous socialism is!

</div> <div id='passback-wb0321c2d18'></div>

Democrats campaign on a platform on free hand outs for everyone… but nothing in this world is free. The true cost of socialism is your liberty, which is why socialism should be defeated. It is an oppressive ideology of materialism and envy, promoted by a presidential candidate who didn’t have his first job until age 40.

Remember, Sanders it the same guy who planned a honeymoon in the Soviet Union!

What is it about worn-out socialist “worker paradises” like the old Soviet Union and Cuba that bring out the romantic in American radical politicians? After Vermont senator Bernie Sanders announced his run for president, Britain’s Guardian newspaper pawed through old archives in his home town of Burlington, Vermont where he served as mayor in the 1980s. They discovered that Sanders really did practice the socialist solidarity he preached about rhetorically.
During Bernie’s mayoral tenure, Burlington formed an alliance with the Soviet city of Yaroslavl, 160 miles northeast of Moscow. When in 1988 he married his wife, Jane, the mayor decided it would be a perfect place for his honeymoon. In a tape of his interview with Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders acknowledges that housing and health care appear to be “significantly better” in the U.S. than in the socialist paradise. “However,” he added, “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.”
Sanders made further globe-trotting expeditions to socialist countries. He visited Cuba, scoring a meeting with Havana’s mayor. In 1985 he attended the celebrations marking the sixth anniversary of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. “In a letter addressed to the people of Nicaragua, penned in conjunction with that trip, Sanders denounced the activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the influence of large corporations,” the Guardian notes. “In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” (The Sandinistas were ousted by Nicaragua’s voters in 1990).

God bless,

JohnnyD

The Delusional Self-Importance of the Liberal Media

From: TownHall

David Limbaugh | Jan 05, 2016


I have long marveled at liberals' air of superiority and lack of self-reflection, which have always been particularly evident among liberal media elites and journalists. They tend to view themselves as sacrosanct and above scrutiny.

Perhaps this attitude sprang from the British and, later, American tradition that the press is the Fourth Estate. It doesn't just serve to inform the people and make them better contributors to the democratic process. It is the virtual fourth branch of government, operating as a watchdog on the formal branches to further check their potential abuses of power.

It is a heady concept to believe you function to keep the powerful in check. It is even more so when no one has ever told you that you, too, need to be kept in check. As a result, some journalists seem to believe that what they do is so important that nothing will deter them from ambitiously exposing to the public every titillating morsel of information, even if that information might unnecessarily harm people or the national interest. To some of the most self-righteous among them, catering to the public's "right to know" is like an unbending religious ritual that transcends every other value in the universe and justifies the vomiting of all information, no matter its actual value to the public or its likelihood of gratuitously harming others.

If you've ever watched a panel interview of major-network talking heads, you have heard their professions that they have a crucial role in keeping our government honest. That's fine as far as it goes, but it is rarely tempered by humility and an awareness that they, too, are capable of corruption and vulnerable to the trappings of power. They are astonished that anyone would ever question their noble character and honorable intentions. It is as if they are saying, "As to the dissemination of news, we are gods, and gods do not need oversight."

You could especially see their indignation at the rise of the alternative media -- e.g., conservative talk radio, Fox News Channel, blogs, other Internet news sources and conservative speech on a variety of social media platforms. Surely, you've seen some of the major news media figures of yesteryear shaking their heads in consternation over the lack of proper journalistic processes in the alternative media, which, they contend, has resulted in sloppy and biased reporting.

It has amazed me to witness their delusional self-assessment. For all of their puffery, it was their own arrogance, bias, corruption, sloppiness and unfairness that led to the rise of the alternative media. Despite their nearly monolithic liberal views, the mainstream media figures truly believed their own work was above reproach.

They've neither been chastened nor learned from the rise of their competition, which could be clearly seen in a recent exchange between CNN's Brian Stelter and Donald Trump's national spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson. Stelter tried to shame Pierson into admitting that Trump's attack on the media's honesty was misguided and destructive.

Kudos to Pierson for adeptly dismantling her smug CNN interrogator. No matter what you think about Trump, she put on a clinic on how to turn the tables on liberal media bullies. One of the many reasons Trump is resonating is that he refuses to be bullied by political correctness, the political establishment and the media. He has provided a template for fighting back, and his spokeswoman put it into practice in that exchange. She refused to accept Stelter's false premises about Trump's alleged misbehavior and "factual inaccuracy" and instead redirected the discussion to media bias and dishonesty, putting Stelter on the defensive and often leaving him sputtering.

The clincher, however, was Stelter's last line of questions. He said it really worries him that by claiming the media are dishonest, Trump and others are "helping to erode trust in the press. The Fourth Estate, of course, is the press. So don't you think that might contribute to America being less great?"

I'm tempted to say that I couldn't believe my ears. But truthfully, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make here. Stelter might as well have just said outright that he believes the liberal media are special, indispensable and above scrutiny.

What he obviously doesn't grasp is that the media's role as government watchdog doesn't exempt it from accountability for its own excesses and abuses. After all, the three branches of government aren't beyond scrutiny just because they keep one another in check. And the media are no less vulnerable than the government to the trappings of power and to corruption and abuse. That's why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so vital to our system.

The First Amendment doesn't just apply to an elite group of print and broadcast media outlets, as much as those elitists seem to wish it did. It applies to every American citizen and every media institution, including conservative talk radio, Fox News and other alternative media sources.

The takeaway here is that in their heart of hearts, many in the liberal media champion free speech not across the board but selectively, to ensure the unbalanced dissemination of their own biased viewpoint. This is why they are so threatened by the advent of the alternative media, why they and their liberal colleagues in government are forever trying to invoke the Fairness Doctrine to suppress alternative viewpoints, and why almost all efforts to suppress speech in this country come from the political left.

Don't be fooled by the liberal media's phony protests about their essential role in preserving good and honest government, because it is not honest government they seek but one that advances their shared liberal agenda.

Whatever we do, let's make sure we fight vigorously and incessantly to guarantee the robust dissemination of freedom of speech and freedom of the press for every person and institution that chooses to exercise these rights. This is the best check against abuses by government officials and also those by the media.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Space cadet Hillary pledges Area 51 task force

DO WE REALLY WANT THIS NUTBAG IN THE WHITE HOUSE!?!?!?!?!?

 

Hillary Clinton told the Conway Daily Sun that aliens may have already visited the planet. 


God bless, and God help us,
JohnnyD