Podcast: Download | Embed
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn |
Lowell Ponte, Happy Thinksgiving, Citizen Bloomberg, Media Oligarch Presidential Attacks on Trump NOT Demon-Rats, Can Bloomberg’s Billions Buy the Presidency? , Lowell Ponte says the Democrats need a rich, centrist candidate,Dr Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show, www.NutriMedical.com, www.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com,https://www.nutrimedical.com/product-category/epigenetic-song-of-dna-therapy/,
Lowell Ponte looks at science behind tendency to pack on extra fat this fall WND.com, November 21, 2019
A chill in the air signals that the seasons are changing to winter on the northern half of our planet.
Our bodies change and have their own seasons, too, to survive the cold we sense coming. For those of northern European ancestry, chances are that you have already begun putting on extra pounds of the fat that helped your ancestors survive long, frigid winters.
Those in Ice Age lands who failed to top off their bodies’ biological fuel tanks were at greater risk of dying before springtime warmth returned. We are the descendants of those who fattened in autumn and lost weight in spring.
Thanksgiving is therefore not merely a ritual holiday for giving thanks. Its huge meal and abundant leftovers reinforce our ancient impulse to pack on pounds to help us outlive the cold weather we feel coming. Many will put on five to 15 pounds during such autumn and winter feasts.
Many cultures honored, as the Bible does, the “drops of fatness” in our foods and bodies. This is why for thousands of years people seemed healthier and more attractive if they carried a few extra pounds.
Even today, when in the developed West we no longer consciously fear famine or starvation, many doctors recommend that older people put on five to 10 pounds more than their theoretical ideal weight.
These few extra pounds are a reserve of energy the body can use in an emergency to fight off illness or injury.
But from where does this Thanksgiving impulse to gain weight come? Is it hardwired in our genes, our biological blueprint, as an adaptation to changing seasons? Is it driven by what we sense in the environment? Is it part of what our society teaches people to do?
Bears and, to a lesser degree, a few other animals hibernate in winter. They store fat (mostly in late summer and early autumn), their metabolism slows, and then they retreat to their dens and sleep or engage in little activity during the coldest months of winter.
Some medical researchers have pondered whether we have a tiny bit of this tendency to hibernate. Western peoples tend to stay inside under electric lights more, and to be less active than they are during spring and summer. This makes some of us exceptionally prone to Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), winter depression, and being overweight.
By contrast, the Eskimo-like native Chukchi people of Siberia live north of the Arctic Circle, experiencing six weeks each winter when the Sun never rises above the horizon. But the Chukchi suffer little or no SAD winter depression, apparently because they remain remarkably active with sports and outdoor games all winter.
How can they do this in the dark? When I asked a friend who had spent an Antarctic winter near the South Pole about such darkness, he replied: “What darkness? You have clear skies, thousands of stars as distant suns shining overhead, and snow reflecting their light like a mirror. When your eyes have adjusted to all that starlight, Antarctic night is mostly like an otherworldly continuous daytime.” It might be like this in Siberia too.
But for Westerners living inactive lives indoors under electric light, SAD winter depression leaves people craving energy and cheer – and that makes sugar-laden and fat-rich “comfort” foods more satisfying than usual. Our natural bodies were not created to eat such unnatural, fattening foods.
If we ate natural foods of the season, our bodies might unconsciously recognize that “spring” foods such as leafy greens provide Omega-3 fats. Autumn-harvested foods such as corn oil and grains mostly provide Omega-6 fats. This, theorize researchers, is one way that some mammals recognize the change in seasons and begin preparing for hibernation-like winter reduced activity.
Our traditional Thanksgiving dinner is rich in autumnal foods. This change in diet tells our body to “increase its insulin resistance,” writes Betul Hatipoglu, M.D., in U.S. News & World Report. “As a result, our liver can increase fat production, and our adipose and non-adipose tissues can store fat to get ready for winter.”
With all that science has learned, Thanksgiving is not only a time to feel gratitude and whet our appetites. It is also food for thought.
Dig up the root words from which Thanksgiving grew and you discover that they are the Latin word “think” and “feel,” and the Old High German verb “to give or receive.”
This year let’s celebrate both a relatively guilt-free Thanksgiving and feast on the ideas that make this holiday Thinksgiving.
WND-CitizenBloomberg-11-28-2019 Words: 750 (main text)
By Lowell Ponte
In 1941, filmmaker Orson Welles created what many regard as the best movie ever made. “Citizen Kane” followed the career of a newspaper magnate who began as an idealist but gradually became ruthlessly obsessed only with power.
In the film, Charles Foster Kane changes from a puppet master who elects and pulls the strings of tawdry politicians into a politician himself. But when he runs to become Governor of New York, his opponents use an extramarital sex scandal to defeat him. Embittered, he in old age dies uttering the word “Rosebud,” the name of his childhood sled.
The character of Kane had striking resemblance to newspaper giant William Randolph Hearst, although Welles insisted it was a composite character also based on Joseph Pulitzer and other publishing giants.
Hearst prohibited any mention of this movie in his hundreds of newspapers. Hearst attempted to suppress the film, which was a critical success but commercial failure, and to wreck Welles’ career. As the saying went in that newsprint-ruled age, “Never offend anyone who buys ink by the barrel.”
Michael Bloomberg – who should be called “Citizen Bloomberg” – is one of today’s most powerful media magnates. He owns a major interest in a slightly left-of-center news service, a radio and a television network, and Bloomberg Business Week Magazine, a media complex that employs approximately 2,700 journalists and analysts.
Bloomberg also, according to Associated Press, has “extensive business holdings” which “include selling financial data services [that] employ more than 19,000 people in 69 countries” that raise “potential conflict-of-interest questions.”
His media empire has earned Bloomberg $52.3 Billion in net worth, which makes him at least the ninth richest person in America and 14th wealthiest person in the world. Now a declared presidential candidate, this man with “more money than God,” according to pollster Frank Luntz, has enough raw cash to buy every available ad spot on every network and major media outlet from now through election day 2020.
Bloomberg could instantly stand head and shoulders above other rival Democrat candidates simply through the power and reach of media he owns.
But days ago his Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait, former U.S. editor of the British magazine The Economist, and co-author of the 2004 centrist book The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, announced that Bloomberg outlets would during the campaign do no provocative reporting on Michael Bloomberg himself or on his Democrat opponents. They would, however, continue to dig for new information, presumably bad, about Republican President Donald Trump.
Earlier this year, writes AP, Bloomberg “pledged to ‘separate myself’ from his foundation and private businesses should he launch a campaign.” Now, however, he has as yet offered no firewall that would keep him from using his media outlets in the presidential campaign, nor has he agreed to sell his media companies if elected. Can he ethically be both an elected President and a media baron?
This raises hundreds of legal and ethical questions. Can those reporting for Bloomberg’s media empire be fair and objective if their boss is a candidate? He has said: “I don’t want the reporters I’m paying to write a bad story about me.”
Can reporters elsewhere who might someday need to seek a job with Bloomberg’s empire be truly impartial, or would they be afraid of being put on his “enemies list” and censor themselves?
Although Micklethwait says that Bloomberg media will not attack Democrats, will rivals fear this, or fear getting little or no coverage at all, and therefore pull their punches at Citizen Bloomberg? “A Bloomberg campaign,” reported the New York Times, “would represent a seismic disruption in the Democratic race.”
America’s media is supposed to be a “watchdog” over politicians and government wrongdoing. But Bloomberg has just promised that his media will report no wrongdoing by himself or other Democratic presidential candidates. Does this destroy the credibility and trustworthiness of his empire?
To cite one example of what his media will not report: the New York Times on November 14 told of Bloomberg speaking about his company’s computer terminal able to “do everything,” including a demeaning erotic act. “I guess,” the Times quoted misogynist Bloomberg as saying, “that puts a lot of you girls out of business.”
Bloomberg allegedly has a long record of stop-and-frisk close encounters with female employees, as the New York Police Department under his 12 years as a firearms-confiscating Mayor did disproportionately with African-American and Latino males. He has recently apologized for both behaviors, but this raises the question of who Citizen Bloomberg, 77, is becoming.
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader’s Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, “China’s Top Secret War,” shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against the little-known economic threats the People’s Republic of China poses. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.
Can Bloomberg’s Billions Buy the Presidency?
Lowell Ponte says the Democrats need a rich, centrist candidate
WND, November 14, 2019
“It is time for a wealth tax,” says Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in a new ad on CNBC that identifies four billionaires and openly appeals to viewer envy. These billionaires, however, are not her primary target.
Warren is a front-runner in the race to become the 2020 nominee of a Democratic Party skyjacked by leftists. She could be the next president of the United States, but first she must subtly demonize and defeat a new contender: former three-term mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg.
“Mike Bloomberg has more money than God,” says political pollster Frank Luntz. The founder of Bloomberg News, a slightly center-left giant business news service, Bloomberg could let other Democratic contenders drain their finances on the first four primaries. He could then enter the Super Tuesday vote next March 3 “with more money than all of them,” says Luntz, “[and] potentially more money than all of them combined.”
Money, as the saying goes, is “the mother’s milk of politics,” the magical elixir able to transform an ordinary person into a political Superman overnight.
How rich is Michael Bloomberg? Donald Trump, age 73, today has a net worth of roughly $3.1 billion, according to Forbes, which makes him the 259th wealthiest person in the United States and 715th richest person in the world.
Bloomberg, by comparison, is worth roughly $52.3 billion, making him the ninth richest person in the U.S. and 14th wealthiest person in the world.
He has not yet declared himself a 2020 presidential candidate, but he met the filing deadline for Alabama and Arkansas.
Bloomberg represents more than the Democrats’ own version of billionaire Donald Trump. Like Trump, Bloomberg has been so wealthy that he could not be corrupted or “bought” by political donors and special interest groups. (Trump, prior to becoming a Republican in 2009, had been a major contributor to urban Democratic politicians.)
Like Trump, Bloomberg could afford to follow his own mix of right and left ideas. As a result, leftists today love Bloomberg the gun control zealot, but they hate the Mayor Bloomberg who used stop-and-frisk police policies that disproportionately frisked minorities. The paradox, of course, is that Bloomberg used the policy to take guns off the street.
Democrats for most of the 20th Century depicted themselves as the liberal party of workers and welfare recipients while electing wealthy presidents such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. But this apparent internal contradiction in their party was merely a sock puppet show that its left hand and farther-left hand raised together in victory. The wealthy laid the golden eggs and were not to be hated or expropriated.
Today this ideological Democratic schism has become real. because up to 70% percent of its voters find socialism sympatico and, for 30% of party partisans, Marxism is magnifico. Leftist presidential candidates from Senator Warren to avowed socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., want to use confiscatory wealth taxes to make billionaires extinct in America.
As a result, today’s Democratic leaders, whose left-leaning voter base has left them with a roster of 2020 presidential candidates trying to out-radicalize one another, rightly fear that their nominee will be too extreme for most old-fashioned Democratic voters.
Far from hating the rich, traditional Americans of both major parties continue to dream that they or their grandchildren might become billionaires and/or presidents. Even now, the Democrats, not the Republicans, rely more heavily on wealthy donors and candidates. They need a candidate as rich and centrist as Bloomberg.
Mayor Bloomberg was a nanny statist control freak who tried to regulate not only guns but also how much soda pop, salt and transfats citizens consume and where they could smoke.
A non-practicing Jew, Bloomberg has defended Israel and opposed the BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) movement of leftists to destroy Israel economically. The Democratic Party, however, is increasingly anti-Semitic, and Warren has said that as president she would force Israel to give half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s unified capital. He is seen as an energetic billionaire builder with a warm human gift for inspiring loyalty, and his eccentricities are regarded as life-affirming honesty. Now 77, Bloomberg has the human warmth of a technocratic robot who stands 7 inches shorter than Trump. In presidential races the taller candidate usually wins. ####