How to: get rid of deep fat from your stomach

Millions of Americans suffer from deep fat.

The worst part is that no matter what people do to try and lose it, it seems to never go away.

Researchers have now found out the reason why.  It turns out there is a master switch that controls when the cells turn into energy and when they turn into fat.

You can learn all about this technique on how to flip the master switch right now in your own home by watching this short video right now.

Click here to find out now.

P.S. If you are unsure that you have deep fat, there is an easy at home test to find out if you have deep fat right now.  Click here to find out the easy test.

Go to Source
Author: Gundry MD

Advertisements

White House slams former FBI director after IG report: Comey “is a proven liar and leaker”

Update (1455ET): The White House has issued an extremely strong statement on the Inspector General’s report:

Statement from the Press Secretory

James Comey is a proven liar and leaker. The Inspector General’s report shows Comey violated the most basic obligations of confidentiality that he owed to the United States Government and to the American people, “in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

Because Comey shamefully leaked information to the press – in blatant violation of FBI policies – the Nation was forced to endure the baseless politically-motivated, two-year witch hunt.

Comey disgraced himself and his office to further a personal political agenda, and this report further confirms that fact.

*  *  *

Update (1405ET): President Trump has taken a momentary break from helping Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis batten down the hatches ahead of Hurricane Dorian’s weekend landfall – and from doing everything he can to pump the market – by taking a shot at disgraced former FBI director James Comey following the Thursday publication of the DoJ’s IG report, which confirmed that Comey violated both DoJ policy and the law, by leaking the contents of his memos to the press.

“Perhaps never in the history of our Country has someone been more thoroughly disgraced and excoriated than James Comey in the just-released Inspector General’s Report,” Trump tweeted. “He should be ashamed of himself!”

Of course, as we mentioned below, Comey doesn’t see it that way. But maybe, someday, he’ll at least acknowledge that he acted rashly – and put his subordinates in a very awkward position – by deciding to leak the memos as an unabashed strategy to try and undermine the newly inaugurated president of the country he claims to love so dearly.

* * *

In a long-awaited report released Thursday morning, the DOJ’s inspector general revealed that former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the memos he took from meetings with President Trump before he was unceremoniously fired in early 2017 violated department policy and the law when he shared them with a longtime confidant, who then leaked their contents to the press.

“We conclude that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement,” the Justice Department inspector general report states.

Fox News Host Sean Hannity warned that Comey should be worried about facing the repercussions for his decision to leak the contents of the memos.

“Without a doubt…[Comey] should be sweating a lot tonight about what might be in those reports. This report is expected to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Jim Comey.”

The IG’s office had referred Comey for potential prosecution earlier this summer based on his handling of the memos, CNN reported. But the DoJ declined to bring a case, in part because prosecutors didn’t believe there was evidence to show Comey knew and intended to violate laws pertaining to the handling of classified information.

Still, as Hannity said, things are “not looking good…for Mr. Super Patriot, a guy that knows better than us…we are told that the report will strongly rebuke the disgraced former FBI director, document his utter lack of candor. That means lying,” Hannity said.

As an earlier media report reminded us, the Comey report is separate from a larger report about how the DoJ handled the Russia investigation, though it’s still not clear why the separate report is needed.

Comey infamously took created the memos after meetings with President Trump where Trump purportedly asked him to go easy on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Comey then leaked the contents of these memos to a friend through a trusted confidant, helping to spur the launch of the Russia probe.

In a series of tweets replying to the report, Comey tried to spin the report’s findings, highlighting a section of the report that was favorable to his narrative.

Here are some highlights from the report, starting with the conclusion:

Congress has provided the FBI with substantial powers and authorities to gather evidence as part of the FBI’s criminal and counterintelligence mission. The FBI uses these authorities every day in its many investigations into allegations of drug trafficking, terrorism, fraud, organized crime, public corruption, espionage, and a host of other threats to national security and public safety. In the process, the FBI lawfully gains access to a significant amount of sensitive information about individuals, many of whom have not been charged, may never be charged, or may not even be a subject of the investigation. For this reason, the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI’s investigative authorities depend on the FBI’s ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure.

As Comey himself explained in his March 20, 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he was unable to provide details about the nature or scope of the FBI’s ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election because the FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating…. Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense. We need to protect people’s privacy…. We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.

However, after his removal as FBI Director two months later, Comey provided a copy of Memo 4, which Comey had kept without authorization, to Richman with instructions to share the contents with a reporter for The New York Times. Memo 4 included information that was related to both the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Flynn and, by Comey’s own account, information that he believed and alleged constituted evidence of an attempt to obstruct the ongoing Flynn investigation; later that same day, The New York Times published an article about Memo 4 entitled, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation.”

The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. Comey said he was compelled to take these actions “if I love this country…and I love the Department of Justice, and I love the FBI.” However, were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly, as Comey himself noted in his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony. Comey expressed a similar concern to President Trump, according to Memo 4, in discussing leaks of FBI information, telling Trump that the FBI’s ability to conduct its work is compromised “if people run around telling the press what we do.” This is no doubt part of the reason why Comey’s closest advisors used the words “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning what Comey had done.

We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy.103 Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism. In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.

* * *

If he wanted to force the appointment of a special counsel, the report found that Comey had other lawful options besides leaking to the press, yet, he chose to ignore them.

Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism. In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome. The OIG has provided this report to the FBI and to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility for action they deem appropriate.

Even members of Comey’s leadership team were “shocked” by the then-director’s actions.

IG: Members of Comey’s senior leadership team used the adjectives “surprised,” “stunned,” “shocked,” and “disappointment” to describe their reactions to learning that Comey acted on his own to provide the contents of Memo 4, through Richman, to a reporter

As Ryan Saavedra pointed out, the IG found that Comey set a “dangerous example” for the tens of thousands of FBI employees working under him…

Read more via ZeroHedge.com

Go to Source
Author: Zero Hedge

Third confirmed case of dengue fever confirmed in Miami-Dade County

Mosquitoes are becoming a problem in Florida.

zika heli 3
Intellihub/Shepard Ambellas

(INTELLIHUB) The Florida Department of Health announced on Friday that three people in Miami-Dade County have contracted dengue fever virus in 2019 causing concern for residents, tourists, and passersby.

From the Miami Herald:

The three cases don’t seem to be related, the health department said in a statement. The department issued a mosquito-borne illness alert Friday after a resident of the county was diagnosed with the virus, which is spread through bites from infected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. The Aedes also spread chikungunya and Zika virus.

Additionally, five more cases have been reported this year among travelers to the state.

Unfortunately, there is no vaccine or treatment available for the virus.

©2019. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Go to Source
Author: Staff Writer

Drone captures rare up-close footage of joint FBI-NYPD raid of Jeffrey Epstein’s “Orgy Island”

LITTLE ST. JAMES, U.S. Virgin Islands (INTELLIHUB) — Drone footage posted to the Rusty Shackleford YouTube channel reveals the size and scope of a joint FBI-NYPD raid of Jeffrey Epstein’s Little St. James Island, a.k.a. “Orgy Island,” compound where the 66-year-old sex trafficker pimped out underage girls to rich powerful clients such as Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and others.

In the video, investigators can be seen attempting to somewhat shield themselves from the drone which got in rather close at times.

©2019. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Go to Source
Author: Staff Writer

Epstein autopsy shows he may have been murdered

Intellihub editor’s note, from Shepard Ambellas: Keep in mind, when reading the following article via Zero Hedge that the corpse the mainstream media is claiming to be Jeffrey Epstein’s is actually not Epstein’s body. The MSM wants you to believe that he was somehow murdered, possibly by the Clinton’s or someone powerful who was involved with the 66-year-old sex trafficker but the reality is that Epstein is still alive. More reports on the way. Stay tuned to Intellihub.com for real news on Jeffrey Epstein.

https://flic.kr/p/5TeHky
Adrian Clark/Flickr

From ZeroHedge.com:

As the public carries on with the great debate about what really happened (or didn’t happen) to Jeffrey Epstein early Saturday morning in the hours before he was found dead in his cell at MCC in an apparent suicide, the Washington Post has unleashed a bombshell.

First, remember how some witnesses claimed they had heard horrifying shrieking coming from Epstein’s cell in the hours before his death? Well, here’s one explanation for that: An autopsy report found that Epstein had endured multiple breaks in his neck bones, deepening the mystery surrounding his death last week.

Among the bones broken in Epstein’s neck was the hyoid bone, which in men is near the Adam’s apple. These breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensic experts and studies on the subject.

Go to Source
Author: Zero Hedge

How to: Fix aging skin — Do this everyday

If you’re over 40 and frustrated with aging, wrinkly skin, get this…

Our good friends and trusted colleagues Dr. John Layke and Dr. Payman Danielpour put together a presentation revealing a 2-minute home method to restore youthful skin…

And as of writing this, it’s touched the lives of over 4 million people…

Click below to discover this youth-restoring breakthrough for yourself:

==> Watch their shocking presentation here

You’ll never see wrinkly skin the same way…

We know we don’t…

Go to Source
Author: Gundry MD

7 unanswered questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s death that the MSM needs to be talking about

Did Jeffrey Epstein commit suicide or was he murdered? This is a question that is being debated by millions of Americans right now, and without a doubt this is the biggest story of this news cycle.  Unfortunately, the mainstream media is already dropping the ball.  Instead of going wherever the evidence leads them, there already seems to be a tremendous effort to marginalize any explanations for his death other than “suicide”.  And it may turn out that “suicide” is where the evidence takes us, but while things are unclear we should not be afraid to ask the hard questions.

The following are 7 unanswered questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s death that the mainstream media needs to be talking about…

#1 Why are the autopsy results being delayed?  According to NBC News, the New York City medical examiner’s office is requesting “more information” before determining the cause of Epstein’s death…

The New York City medical examiner’s office said Sunday that it had completed an autopsy of the financier and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein but that it needed more information before determining the cause of death.

#2 What will the cameras show?  By now most people have heard that there were no cameras filming what was going on inside Epstein’s cell, but there were cameras filming the doors of each cell

The news of the delay to the autopsy results comes after a source told the New York Post there was no video of the moment he died in his jail cell at Metropolitan Correctional Center.

Cameras are said to film the doors to each cell which would show anyone who entered or exited, but they do not point inside.

So if someone paid a “visit” to Epstein, there should be video evidence of it.

#3 Why was Jeffrey Epstein taken off suicide watch?  After Epstein attempted to “kill himself” the first time, he was put on suicide watch, but only for a short period.  The following comes from CNN

No. Epstein was temporarily placed on a suicide watch after he was found in his jail cell July 23 with marks on his neck, a law enforcement source and a source familiar with the incident told CNN at the time.

It wasn’t clear whether those injuries, which were not serious, were self-inflicted or the result of an assault, the sources said. Epstein told authorities he had been beaten up and called a child predator, they said.

#4 Why did the guards break prison rules and not check on him every 30 minutes?  Apparently these guards had been working a lot of overtime, but that is no excuse for breaking prison rules

Epstein should have been checked on by guards in his cell every 30 minutes, but that didn’t happen the night before his apparent suicide, a law enforcement official told the Times.

The Times spoke to the official on the condition of anonymity. The Associated Press has not independently confirmed the information.

A law enforcement source also said he was alone in his cell Saturday night after his cellmate was transferred. An official with knowledge of the investigation told the Times that the Justice Department was told Epstein would have a cellmate and be monitored by a guard every 30 minutes.

Read more via EndOfTheAmericanDream.com

Go to Source
Author: Michael Snyder

Report: Epstein’s guards overworked, skeleton crew

https://flic.kr/p/kSZZA
Hindol Bhattacharya/Flickr

(INTELLIHUB) — Metropolitan Correctional Center guards were overworked and understaffed on the morning of Jeffrey Epstein’s purported death by hanging.

From the AP:

Guards on Jeffrey Epstein’s unit were working extreme overtime shifts to make up for staffing shortages the morning of his apparent suicide, a person familiar with the jail’s operations told The Associated Press.

The person said that the Metropolitan Correctional Center’s Special Housing Unit was staffed with one guard working a fifth straight day of overtime and another who was working mandatory overtime. The person wasn’t authorized to discuss jail operations publicly and spoke Sunday on the condition of anonymity.

The jail staff failed to follow protocols leading up to Epstein’s death , according to a report from The New York Times , deepening the fallout from what led to the highly connected financier’s apparent suicide.

Sounds like a perfect set up for a jailbreak or a good excuse for someone who has been put into a witness relocation program, wouldn’t you say?

Go to Source
Author: Lexi Morgan

Joe Rogan and Brendan Schaub discuss the push to ban assault weapons

(INTELLIHUB) — Left-wing politicians such as Joe Biden and others want to take away Americans right to bear arms as the U.S. Constitution allows.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Comedian and talk show host Joe Rogan and comedian and talk show host Brendan Schaub discuss gun control (taken from the Joe Rogan Experience podcast #74.)

©2019. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Go to Source
Author: Staff Writer

7 reasons to oppose red flag gun laws

The Associated Press reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws.

These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,

Trump said in a White House speech.

Red flag laws have garnered support from several conservative intellectuals, as well, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro.

Here are seven reasons red flag laws should be opposed, particularly at the federal level.

Most people haven’t heard of red flag laws until recently—if they have at all—but they aren’t new.

Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?

“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

The Washington Post reports that California’s red flag went basically unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Washington, D.C.’s law has gone entirely unused. Other states, such as Florida and Maryland, have gone the other direction, seizing hundreds of firearms from gun-owners. Yet it’s unclear if these actions stopped a shooting.

With additional states passing red flag laws, researchers will soon have much more data to analyze. But before passing expansive federal legislation that infringes on civil liberties, lawmakers should have clear and compelling empirical evidence that red flag laws actually do what they are intended to do.

The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”

Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.”

Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they?

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties.

In 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis in his own house after waking him at 5:17 a.m. The officers, who were not harmed during the shooting, had been ordered to remove guns from his home under the state’s red flag law, which had gone into effect one month prior to the shooting.

While red flag laws are designed to reduce violence, it’s possible they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners like Willis, especially as the enforcement of red flag laws expands.

In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.

In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.

“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”

Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.

Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.

As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.

I’m not the only writer to make the connection. In an article that appeared in Salon, Travis Dunn linked red flag laws “to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.”

That government can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat posed to civil liberties is quite real.

If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology.

The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.

Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society.

It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.

Go to Source
Author: FEE