Will #Trump stage a #MilitaryCoup to prevent #impeachment? #MaxineWaters #ReichstagFire #FalseFlag #AlexJones

Comment: If there is a chance that Trump is impeached and removed from office, I believe Trump will try to recruit people in the military to stage a military coup. Then we will see if the military will honor its oath – to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – or partake in treason.

Or will Trump stage a Reichstag Fire-type false-flag event and use that as a pretext to declare martial law?

If Trump succeeds in declaring martial law or overthrowing the democratically-elected government in a military coup, then his first act will be to have Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer arrested and thrown in secret military prisons.

And we will also see if Alex “The Constitution and Bill of Rights Are the Law of the Land” Jones upholds his support of the Constitution or sides with a traitor.

A Top Congresswoman Just Made The Trump Announcement We’ve All Been Waiting For

From the moment, Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States, his business holdings in D.C. and overseas put him in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. Since then, new evidence has surfaced (almost daily) tying the Trump campaign to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 Election, and yesterday, Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into the President and his allies.

Today, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, signaled that the House of Representatives had seen all it needed to see. She summed up her feelings in one simple tweet:

The tweet comes just four days after Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated that impeachment is not far off.

Never in the history of the United States has so much corruption flooded into the executive branch in such a short amount of time. Just 61 days into this presidency, this regime is already beyond the point of implosion. All that remains is to put a stop to the damage and begin cleaning up the mess.

If Congresswoman Waters is right, that process is about to begin.

U.S. Drone Strikes Have Gone Up 432% Since #Trump Took Office. #DroneStrikes

U.S. Drone Strikes Have Gone Up 432% Since Trump Took Office

Carey Wedler | 3/9/2017

When he was in office, former President Barack Obama earned the ire of anti-war activists for his expansion of Bush’s drone wars. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state ordered ten times more drone strikes than the previous president, and estimates late in Obama’s presidency showed 49 out of 50 victims were civilians. In 2015, it was reported that up to 90% of drone casualties were not the intended targets.

Current President Donald Trump campaigned on a less interventionist foreign policy, claiming to be opposed to nation-building and misguided invasions. But less than two months into his presidency, Trump has expanded the drone strikes that plagued Obama’s “peaceful” presidency.

According to an analysis from Micah Zenko, an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, Trump has markedly increased U.S. drone strikes since taking office. Zenko, who reported earlier this year on the over 26,000 bombs Obama dropped in 2016, summarized the increase:

During President Obama’s two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days.

That’s an increase of 432 percent.

He highlights some of the attacks:

These include three drone strikes in Yemen on January 20, 21, and 22; the January 28 Navy SEAL raid in Yemenone reported strike in Pakistan on March 1more than thirty strikes in Yemen on March 2 and 3; and at least one more on March 6.

The Trump administration has provided little acknowledgment of the human toll these strikes are taking. As journalist Glenn Greenwald noted in the Intercept, the Trump administration hastily brushed off recent civilian casualties in favor of honoring the life of a single U.S. soldier who died during one of the Yemen raids just days after Trump took office:

The raid in Yemen that cost Owens his life also killed 30 other people, including ‘many civilians,’ at least nine of whom were children. None of them were mentioned by Trump in last night’s speech, let alone honored with applause and the presence of grieving relatives. That’s because they were Yemenis, not Americans; therefore, their deaths, and lives, must be ignored (the only exception was some fleeting media mention of the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, but only because she was a U.S. citizen and because of the irony that Obama killed her 16-year-old American brother with a drone strike).

Greenwald notes this is typical of not just Trump, but the American war machine in general:

We fixate on the Americans killed, learning their names and life stories and the plight of their spouses and parents, but steadfastly ignore the innocent people the U.S. government kills, whose numbers are always far greater.”

Though some Trump supporters sang his praises as a peace candidate before he took office, the president’s militarism was apparent on many occasions. He openly advocated increasing the size and scope of the military, a promise he is now moving to keep. And as Zenko highlights, Trump was disingenuous with his rhetoric against interventionism:

He claimed to have opposed the 2003 Iraq War when he actually backed it, and to have opposed the 2011 Libya intervention when he actually strongly endorsed it, including with U.S. ground troops. Yet, Trump and his loyalists consistently implied that he would be less supportive of costly and bloody foreign wars, especially when compared to President Obama, and by extension, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As Trump continues to dig his heels into decades-old policies he has criticized himself — reportedly mulling over sending ground troops into Syria [Editors note: he already done it] — he is increasingly proving to be yet another establishment warmonger implementing policies that spawn the creation of more terrorists. As Zenko concludes:

We are now on our third post-9/11 administration pursuing many of the same policies that have failed to meaningfully reduce the number of jihadist extremist fighters, or their attractiveness among potential recruits or self-directed terrorists. The Global War on Terrorism remains broadly unquestioned within Washington, no matter who is in the White House.”

This article was originally published at The AntiMedia.

WWE bans hundreds of fans from live event for simply having cellphones.

Just got a report from a friend who was going to go to the WWE’s “Road to WrestleMania” SmackDown show in Charleston, WV that fans were being refused entry for simply having a camera phone.

The Charleston Civic Center Coliseum has a ban on fans bringing in professional recording equipment.

But WWE decided to extend the ban to ALL cameras, including digital pocket cameras and camera phones such as iPhones. Keep in mind that all cellphones sold these days – including flip phones – have cameras.

So according to WWE, if you had a medical emergency and had to get a hold of your family, or if one of your family members had a medical emergency and had to get a hold of you, well sorry about your damn luck.

I understand the need to protect your talent from crazy fans after the near-stabbing of Dean Ambrose back in 2015, but what’s an iPhone going to do to John Cena other than record him singing “Take Me Home Country Roads” at the end of the show? It’s not like somebody’s gonna sneak something inside their iPhone and try to stab Cena. After all, that’s why they have metal detectors at WWE events now, to prevent weapons from entering the arena.

The next time WWE comes to Charleston, WV, the hundreds of fans who were turned away by this police-state fascist bullshit should stage a silent sit-down protest right in front of the doors or in the Civic Center Coliseum lobby. After all, the First Amendment gives the people the right to peacefully assemble as a form of protest.

In addition,I think the fans who were turned away should reward the WWE for their police-state nonsense by cancelling their WWE Network memberships and boycott all WWE programming and internet content.

As a final message to the WWE, let me quote Benjamin Franklin: “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

#MSG shills imply it’s #racist to avoid #MSG. #MonosodiumGlutamate

How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia

As a college student in New York City, I marveled that the city let me eat poached eggs with halloumi cheese and Moroccan spiced pita for breakfast, a spicy-sweet minced meat salad from northern Thailand for lunch, and Singaporean nasi lemak for dinner. My requisites were pretty straightforward: delicious, cheap and served in bulk. But if I was eating Chinese, I added one more: no MSG.

Like many people, I thought MSG — monosodium glutamate, a chemical compound used to enhance the flavor of food — was bad for me, and I was sure I felt terrible every time I ate it. After all, I was sluggish and had headaches and achy limbs whenever I ate a big meal in Chinatown. Now I know that the recurring headaches that plague me have little to do with what I eat. But at the time, avoiding those three letters brought me comfort and let me think I’d be eating some sort of sacredly pure meal made with food, not chemicals. Oh, how young and foolish I was.

That MSG isn’t the poison we’ve made it out to be has been well-established. News stories are written regularly about the lack of evidence tying MSG to negative health effects. (Read here and here, for example. Or here, here, here, here and here.) Still, Yelp reviews of Chinese restaurants tell tales of racing hearts, sleepless nights and tingling limbs from dishes “laden with MSG.” Even when the science is clear, it takes a lot to overwrite a stigma, especially when that stigma is about more than just food.

Since its discovery in the early 1900s, MSG has been synonymous with delicious. When added to foods, it increases umami, which has been considered the fifth taste since the early 2000s (alongside sweet, sour, salty and bitter1) and varyingly translates from Japanese as “tasty,” “scrumptiousness,” “deliciousness” or “savory.” Umami is the full-bodied, savory taste found in a wide variety of foods, such as parmesan and mushrooms, as well as in most meat. MSG is its crystallized manifestation.

Kikunae Ikeda, a Japanese chemist, discovered the compound in 1907 while investigating a common quality he’d noticed in foods like asparagus, tomatoes and the soup broth his wife made with seaweed. He determined that glutamate, the ionic form of glutamic acid, was responsible for umami. He then figured out how to synthesize the molecule by extracting glutamate from seaweed and mixing it with water and table salt to stabilize the compound. Ikeda patented the finished product, and it became one of Japanese food science’s greatest commercial successes. Today, the crystallized seasoning, frequently made from beets and corn, is known as MSG in the U.S. but is often called by the name Ikeda first gave it — “Aji no Moto,” or Essence of Taste — in other parts of the world.2

The fine, white powder was first sold in slender bottles meant to attract bourgeois housewives who were embracing science in the kitchen because it suggested hygiene and modernity, according to research by Jordan Sand, a professor of Japanese history at Georgetown University. In China, it was touted to Buddhists, who periodically abstained from eating meat, as a vegetarian way to improve flavor.

By the 1950s, MSG was found in packaged food across the U.S., from snacks to baby food. (Sand said in his 2005 paper that his 1953 edition of “The Joy of Cooking” referred to monosodium glutamate as “the mysterious ‘white powder’ of the Orient … ‘m.s.g.,’ as it is nicknamed by its devotees.”) Soon, though, MSG’s chemical nature would turn against it. After the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and federal bans on sweeteners that the Food and Drug Administration deemed carcinogenic,3 consumers began to worry about chemical additives in their food. In 1968, the New England Journal of Medicine published a letter from a doctor complaining about radiating pain in his arms, weakness and heart palpitations after eating at Chinese restaurants. He mused that cooking wine, MSG or excessive salt might be to blame. Reader responses poured in with similar complaints, and scientists jumped to research the phenomenon. “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” was born.

Early on, researchers reported an association between consuming MSG and the symptoms cited in the New England Journal of Medicine. Inflammatory headlines and book titles followed: “Chinese food make you crazy? MSG is No. 1 Suspect,” wrote the Chicago Tribune, while books titled “Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills” and “In Bad Taste: The MSG Symptom Complex” prompted FDA reviews and “60 Minutes” investigations, as Alan Levinovitz, a professor of Chinese philosophy at James Madison University, chronicled in a 2015 book about food myths.

But those early studies had essential flaws, including that participants knew whether or not they were consuming MSG. Subsequent research has found that the vast majority of people, even those claiming a sensitivity to MSG, don’t have any reaction when they don’t know they are eating it.

That MSG causes health problems may have thrived on racially charged biases from the outset. Ian Mosby, a food historian, wrote in a 2009 paper titled “‘That Won-Ton Soup Headache’: The Chinese Restaurant Syndrome, MSG and the Making of American Food, 1968-1980” that fear of MSG in Chinese food is part of the U.S.’s long history of viewing the “exotic” cuisine of Asia as dangerous or dirty. As Sand put it: “It was the misfortune of Chinese cooks to be caught with the white powder by their stoves when the once-praised flavor enhancer suddenly became a chemical additive.”

The concern wasn’t just among the public, however. From the late 1960s to early 1980s, “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” was considered a legitimate ailment by many in the medical establishment, according to Mosby’s research. The same can’t be said today. While nearly all the U.S. research that has suggested MSG is safe has been funded by companies that have a stake in MSG’s success, researchers think the science that underlies them is sound.

Of course, a small subset of people do have negative reactions that are directly due to glutamate, but the science to date shows that is likely to be a rare phenomenon. MSG is still, and has always been, on the FDA’s “generally recognized as safe” food list. Several allergists I reached out to who were once go-to experts on the subject declined to comment, saying that they no longer keep up with the research.

Just because there isn’t a scientific association between a given food and negative health effects doesn’t mean the pain or discomfort experienced by diners is imaginary. People who suffer after eating MSG may be experiencing the nocebo effect, the lesser-known and poorly understood cousin of the placebo effect. The phenomenon is what happens when suggesting that something can cause a negative reaction induces precisely those physical symptoms. When a Chinese restaurant puts “no MSG” on its menu to reassure customers, it furthers the stigma, likely furthering the nocebo effect in the process. As with the placebo effect, the nocebo effect can have very real reactions.

With various chefs speaking publicly about the value of MSG, in addition to the medical establishment, the time may be ripe for the public to follow. But changing minds likely won’t be easy.

As Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth professor who has researched how to influence attitudes about vaccines, pointed out to me in an email, it’s hard for people to change their minds about personal health issues because it contradicts what they have perceived to experience in the past. “People who felt bad after eating Chinese food in the past may have blamed MSG … and thus resist information they encounter later about its actual effects,” he said. This may be the result of the availability heuristic, where people make judgments using the easiest information available, rather than looking for alternative explanations.

As my colleague Christie Aschwanden has explained, once we reach false conclusions, our brains prevent us from accepting new information that can correct those mistaken assumptions.

When it comes to MSG, the false connections are fairly innocuous for most people but may still cause unnecessary discomfort for some, either because they are experiencing the nocebo effect or depriving themselves of deliciousness. We all make choices about how we eat; for some people, those decisions are based on supporting local economies, avoiding meat for the humane treatment of animals, or simply wanting to know what goes into their bodies. There’s no right or wrong, but it’s worth understanding the origins of those choices. In the case of MSG, they appear to have been less about science and more about the culture and politics of the day.

I'm libertarian, anti-GMO, and vegan. Freelee The Banana Girl, VeganGMO Unnatural Vegan, PETA, and HSUS are pro-GMO fake vegans.