Today, Kevin gives you an inside look into what is really wrong with America and what you can do to fix it!
The FDA Is Not Protecting You!
Sunscreen May Actually Accelerate Cancer
Birth Defects Caused By World’s Top-Selling Weedkiller
Become An Insider!
Stand with KT!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, Kevin gives you more proof that the FDA is only protecting the profits of big corporations and that the government is hiding documentation revealing the link between sunscreens and skin cancer!
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
March 21, 2012
The Raw Story
By Stephen C. Webster
“Watch the video at the link below. You will be outraged. The US is a police state with many cops who are out of control – like this guy.” –KTRN
If one Chicago police officer is to be believed, American citizens can lose their most fundamental rights simply by standing near an irritable cop.
That’s what two members of the press found out on Sunday, when an angry police officer told them they would be arrested if they did not stop filming in front of the Mt. Sinai Hospital. They were attempting to cover a tragic story of a little girl who was shot and killed over the weekend.
Security guards at the hospital reportedly called police and claimed that a reporter had tried to push past them and get into the hospital. When police showed up, reporters with NBC Chicago claim they respected their request to move across the street and into a median, away from the public sidewalk in front of the facility.
But that was not good enough for one officer, who argued with reporters in the road’s median, telling them that they must move. When they refused, he insisted: “Your First Amendment right can be terminated if you’re creating a scene or whatever.”
Challenged by reporters that they had not created a scene, the officer replied: “Your presence is creating a scene.”
One of the reporters’ responds: “But this is what we do for a living! What we do for a living is creating a scene?” Another reporter adds: “You’ve got a lawsuit coming.”
March 20, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
“Can someone please explain why the TSA has to search a 3-year old boy in a wheelchair?! This is now going too far.” –KTRN
The following video provides airports with yet another fantastic reason to evict TSA screeners and replace them with private security – the clip shows a 3-year-old boy with a broken leg in a wheelchair being harassed by a TSA worker.
The incident occurred at O’Hare Airport in Chicago and was recorded by the father of the 3-year-old boy.
A TSA agent begins conducting a pat down of the boy who is sitting in a wheelchair with a broken leg. The boy is confused at being fondled by a stranger and reaches out to his parents for support but they cannot touch him because they have been ordered to stay clear by the TSA agent.
The boy begins trembling and is clearly upset as the creepy TSA moron begins swabbing his cast, his hands and his wheelchair for explosives.
The TSA goon then asks the father to lift up the boy’s shirt so he can swab his body too, offering to conduct this part of the harassment in a private room.
While the boy is being harassed, an old woman with a cane is also told to stand back and wait for an advanced pat down, with the TSA again proving themselves adept at being able to single out the most likely terrorists – nearly crippled senior citizens and toddlers with broken legs in wheelchairs.
Only after several minutes of this pointless, degrading and shameful treatment is the boy allowed to pass security.
March 6, 2012
By Agence France-Presse
US President Barack Obama will host leaders of the G8 club of rich nations on May 18-19 at his Camp David retreat instead of in his hometown of Chicago, the White House said Monday.
Obama still plans to host NATO leaders and partners in Chicago on May 20-21 for a summit that is shaping up as crucial to plans to transition international forces out of Afghanistan.
The White House said in a statement that it had been decided to move the G8 summit to Camp David, which features plush cabins nestling in the Catoctin Mountains “to facilitate a free-flowing discussion with our close G8 partners.”
March 6, 2012
By Madison Ruppert
“It’s obvious that the government is scared of the people. They don’t want you protesting and speaking your mind.” –KTRN
President Barack Obama has moved the upcoming Group of Eight (G8) summit from the city of Chicago to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, just 62 miles away from Washington, D.C.
An aide for the president said that he has decided that he would prefer a more “intimate setting” for the meeting, although I think it is obvious that what he really wants to avoid is a large-scale protest.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) summit in May is still going to be held in Chicago and I think it will likely draw some quite sizable demonstrations.
Even the Tribune has to take note of the fact that “Summits in large cities typically see clamorous protests,” and given the current situation around the world, it’s quite obvious that it would draw a crowd who isn’t all too happy about what these elites are doing.
“It’s not about Chicago being able to handle logistics, as evidenced by the fact that the NATO and ISAF meetings will be held there, which are far larger than the G8 meeting,” Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the Obama administration’s National Security Council, said. “There are a lot of political, economic and security issues that come together at the G8.”
“This was really about the president looking for a more informal setting with these close partners,” she claimed.
February 8th, 2012
By: Lindsey Tanner
Junk food remains plentiful at the nation’s elementary schools despite widespread efforts to curb childhood obesity, a new study suggests. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly half of public and private schools surveyed sold sweet or salty snack foods in vending machines or other places, the study found. There was little change over the four years, a surprising finding given vocal advocacy campaigns to improve kids’ diets, said researcher Lindsey Turner, a health psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the study’s lead author. The study focused on snacks not sold during mealtimes, which until recently weren’t subject to government nutrition standards.
Schools most likely to sell chips, cookies or similar foods were in the South, where obesity rates are the highest; these foods were scarcest at schools in the West. The results are concerning, Turner said, because they show that many schools have not heeded messages from health advocates including the Institute of Medicine, which in a 2007 report urged limiting availability of food in schools outside of mealtimes, and said these items should not be sugary, salty or fatty snack foods. Many schools in the study also offered more healthy foods outside of mealtimes, including fruit and vegetables. But selling them along with junk food may tempt kids to skip the healthy options, and sends “mixed messages about healthful nutrition,” Dr. Thomas Robinson, a Stanford University pediatrician and obesity prevention researcher.
Robinson called the study results “sobering” and said a key strategy for reversing childhood obesity includes improving nutrition in schools. Recent data suggest that almost 20 percent of elementary school children nationwide are obese. Policies that limit junk food sold in schools have been linked with less obesity among students, said C. Tracy Orleans, a senior scientist at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which paid for the study.
The study appears in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, released Monday. Robinson wrote an accompanying editorial. Anti-obesity advocates also have pushed to remove sugary sodas from schools, and some states and schools have enacted bans. Also, a 2010 report found a big decline in sales of these drinks to schools during some of the years studied. The new study, which focused only on foods, is based on surveys mailed to principals at public and private elementary schools. Nearly 4,000 responded, or more than half of those contacted. The participating schools were nationally representative and there were no geographic or economic differences in schools that didn’t respond that would affect the results, Turner said.
Overall, about 45 percent of schools sold sugary and salty snacks. Some schools sold low-fat salty snacks and baked goods, including pretzels and low-fat ice cream, but their high sugar or salt content makes them a poor choice, Turner said. Candy, salty snacks and regular-fat baked goods were more common at private schools than public schools; and low-fat ice cream was more common at both types of schools than full-fat ice cream snacks. The study authors say their results should encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to crack down on junk food in schools. A law enacted in December 2010, after the study ended, gives the agency authority to do so, and it is developing changes.
Before that measure, USDA policy restricted schools from selling foods “of minimal nutritional value” during mealtimes. Under the new law, the agency can set nutrition standards for all foods sold in U.S. schools.
Another USDA change announced last month focuses on making school lunches healthier, with changes including less sodium and more whole grains. The changes affecting snack foods “need to be comprehensive, they need to be strong, they need to be specific,” and they could be “a game-changer,” said Orleans. A website for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service says restricting these foods can pose challenges for schools, because many rely on sales of snack foods to boost revenue. But it also explains why changes are needed.
“The constant availability of foods and beverages may increase the likelihood of impulse buying and contribute to overeating by some students,” the USDA website says. It lists states and school districts that have imposed some restrictions on these foods.
January 25, 2012
By Christopher Bollyn
Ron Paul, a popular Southern conservative who supports states’ rights, supposedly came in fourth place in the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday, January 21. The winner, according to the tally produced by the privately-owned voting machine company ES&S, was Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is supported by Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist casino billionaire who supports the most extreme hard-liners in the right-wing Likud in Israel. The Gingrich campaign received a $5 million donation from Sheldon Adelson the week before he “won” the South Carolina primary. Gingrich calls the indigenous Palestinian population an “invented” people and supports Israel’s right to attack Iran as “self defense”. Gingrich told CNN he would help Israel attack Iran and would move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem on his first day in office by executive order. These are the hard-line positions Adelson is paying Gingrich to espouse.
Mitt Romney is supported by the Crown family of Chicago, a Zionist family that is closely connected to Israeli military intelligence. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is supported by Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist billionaire who works closely with the same people. Are these different factions or is this a Zionist plot that has the same goal?
The Zionist strategy is to stop the very popular conservative Ron Paul. Because there is obviously no candidate that can beat Paul in popularity or on the issues, the Zionists are supporting a slew of venal candidates in order to steal as many votes as possible from Paul. These candidates are essentially a gang of Zionist-funded candidates who form the anti-Paul coalition. Using privately-owned and controlled electronic voting systems like ES&S, the South Carolina primary shows how the Zionists plan to block Ron Paul from being the Republican nominee …
From this event, one can state as fact – not theory, that Israel and its supporters in the US are actively working to derail Ron Paul’s race towards the GOP nomination, and the Presidency. This fact alone, should be cause for alarm from even the most moderate of public corridors. Should a foreign country, in this case Israel, be allowed to buy a significant influence through the media in American democratic elections? Should candidates be allowed to accept donations – even indirectly, from foreign interest PACs or agents thereof, thus creating a serious conflict of interest, and threat to national security?
- “Israeli Lobby launch new Super PAC effort to bring down Ron Paul” , by Patrick Henningsen, Global Research, 21 January 2012
After two weeks, the Republican Party of Iowa released its certified tally of the January 3 caucus. The certified final tally released on January 18 indicates that Mitt Romney did not win the Iowa caucus and that the results had been manipulated to give Romney the important first victory. The scale of the fraud in the Iowa caucus is so large that it suggests that there was a hidden hand manipulating the data from across the state as it was sent to party headquarters to give the victory to Romney. This suggests that the people behind Romney are likely to be the people behind the vote fraud, i.e. Lester Crown, Israeli intelligence, and the Zionist Fifth Column in the United States.
December 5, 2011
By Joe Macare
After holding so-called ‘progressive’ Democrats accountable, Occupy Chicago gets a telling-off from media and aldermen.
“Acts of resistance are moral acts…. They should be carried out not because they are effective, but because they are right. Those who begin these acts are always few. They are dismissed by those in the liberal class, who hide their cowardice behind their cynicism.” – Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class
Death of the Liberal Class is not a perfect book – Chris Hedges’ love for the classical and puritan tendencies mar the discussions of art and the internet, and I’m not sure what place there is for, say, sex or atheism in his revolution – but it is something of a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the Occupy movement.
Not because Hedges is one of those elusive leaders who, pundits keep telling us, must surely exist somewhere, but because of how presciently the book examines both the circumstances that made Occupy Wall Street necessary, perhaps almost inevitable, and the moral, political and intellectual bankruptcy of the reaction to the movement from many members of the “liberal class,” defined by Hedges as including the media, the Democratic Party, the labor movement, the church, the arts and universities.
In Chicago, reaction from the first two groups has been brought into focus recently by a group of Occupy Chicago participants’ decision to “mic check” Alderman Joe Moore, after the Chicago City Council’s unaminous 50-0 vote approved Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s 2012 Budget. This prompted a scathing response from NBC Chicago’s Edward McClelland:
December 5, 2011
by JAMES WARREN
“If the powers that be weren’t afraid of the citizens, they wouldn’t be watching us this closely. We obviously have some kind of power they are scared of.” –KTRN
One legacy of Rahm Emanuel is digitally clear. Security cameras will follow us like a bad credit rating.
The Missile’s bravura early performance includes a drastic increase in cameras to protect us from bad guys and to keep us from breaking laws, notably speeding, even while surely accelerating a loss of individual privacy.
The city’s traditional lack of transparency on the extent of cameras, and a legacy of illegal surveillance dating to Mayor Richard J. Daley, are woeful. But the public is more interested in Jay Cutler’s thumb than in potential abuses of zoom technology, facial recognition, biometrics, the ability to track somebody from one camera to another and then combining or sharing databases.
Last week the mayor stood with Police Chief Garry McCarthy, and Forrest Claypool, the head of the Chicago Transit Authority, as they rightly praised rapid installation of another 1,700 C.T.A security cameras.
But now add several thousand more cameras planned near schools and parks — meant to catch speeders endangering children — and you’ve got a hefty increase in what was already the most “extensive and integrated” surveillance system in the United States, according to Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary.
A February report by the American Civil Liberties Union estimated that Chicago had 10,000 surveillance cameras. Let’s now figure on another 4,000 or so.
At a Green Line stop, the city leaders cited recent crime-fighting successes tied to cameras. The findings of academic studies on a link between cameras and reduced crime are debatable, but how can you not cheer Claypool’s assertion that they’ve helped nab killers and robbers?
Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor, said, “It is not to argue that Emanuel is wrong, especially in areas where crimes are likely. But limits are crucial, and the costs of knowing you’re being watched can outweigh the benefits.”
Limits sought by Adam Schwartz, senior lawyer for the A.C.L.U. of Illinois, include disclosing the number of cameras and promulgating rules on when a camera operator can use zoom, facial recognition or automatic tracking capabilities.
The Emanuel administration might talk to Lior Strahilevitz, a young star at the University of Chicago Law School. He is an expert on property law, privacy law and traffic safety, and recently lectured on his germane new book, “Information and Exclusion” (Yale University Press).
For sure, use technology to save lives and prevent traffic accidents, Strahilevitz said. But also do the following: