""Only if one loves this earth with unbending passion can one relieve one's sadness," don Juan said. "Warriors are always joyful because their love is unalterable and their beloved, the earth, embraces them and bestows upon them inconceivable gifts. The sadness belongs only to those who hate the very thing that gives shelter to their beings." Don Juan again caressed the ground with tenderness. "This lovely being, which is alive to its last recesses and understands every feeling, soothed me, it cured me of my pains, and finally when I had fully understood my love for it, it taught me freedom." - DJ

While America sleeps...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/german-election-winner-seeks-independence-from-us-what-does-that-mean/ar-AA1zHrXm?ocid=BingNewsSerp

German election winner seeks ‘independence’ from U.S. What does that mean?
Story by Adam Taylor • 1h • 5 min read

Within hours of emerging as the near-certain next chancellor of Germany after Sunday’s election, Friedrich Merz offered a grim prognosis of the transatlantic relationship.

Europe needs to “achieve independence from the United States, step by step,” Merz told public broadcaster ARD. The Trump administration does not care about Europe “one way or the other,” he said, and called the advocacy of Vice President JD Vance and tech billionaire Elon Musk on behalf of Germany’s far right “no less outrageous” than Kremlin-backed election interference.

It was a remarkable assessment, in large part because of who delivered it. Merz, 69, is a veteran politician representing Germany’s conservative Christian Democrats. He is not known as a firebrand but a pro-business politician who worked for an organization whose aim is to further U.S.-German relations.

What would have been a more radical position a few years ago or from a different source instead came across as a basic recognition of an impending tectonic shift in European foreign policy. The continent has seen Washington as its most important ally and security guarantor since World War II.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia three years ago, the first large-scale European land war since 1945, had shown Europe that it needed to rethink its defenses. The uncertainty over U.S. leadership under the Trump administration has brought the matter of dependence to a crisis.

Europe should still hope for a good relationship with the United States and continue to support the NATO military alliance, Merz said at a news conference Monday. However, he added, “if those who really make not just America first but almost America alone their motto … prevail, then it will be difficult.”

Though Europe as a whole spends more than $290 billion on defense, its fragmented system and the reality of reliance on the United States creates vast inefficiencies. One estimate released last week found that Europe would need hundreds of thousands of new troops and at least $260 billion more in funding to deter Russia without the United States.

As Europe’s largest economy, with a critical central location and large population, Germany would be expected to play a central role.

But independence is particularly daunting for Germany, where military spending remains influenced by the aftermath of World War II and decades of occupation and division after. Some 50,000 U.S. service members were stationed in the country last year, second only to Japan. Germany’s armed forces, the Bundeswehr, are widely considered weak and bound by a postwar consensus that they cannot act unilaterally.

Germany said it met NATO’s 2 percent of economic output target for defense spending last year, but many voices within the alliance — not just President Donald Trump — have called for Europe’s largest economy to contribute far more.

Berlin should commit to defense spending at 5 percent of gross domestic product as soon as possible, Jakub Janda, director of the Prague-based European Values Center for Security Policy think tank, wrote on X on Monday. “If Germany does this, most European nations will follow and the United States will not leave Europe.”

German business is dependent on trade with the United States, making the country vulnerable to tariff threats from Washington. In key areas, including tech and defense, Germany relies on the United States for specific orders that it cannot easily source from within Europe. The German economy, once the strongest in Europe, has been sputtering in recent years, contracting for the past two.

Merz’s statements reflect a major shift for someone who grew up in Cold War-era West Germany, said Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations. “He suddenly has to navigate a landscape that looks entirely different,” she said.

Elon Musk, a billionaire White House appointee, repeatedly posted to X, the social media platform he owns, in support of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party ahead of Sunday’s vote, while Vance had met with AfD’s leader, Alice Weidel, during a Munich security conference at which he also suggested that the party should not be barred from government.

Merz reacted with strong displeasure to the words of U.S. officials before the vote, stating that Musk’s action in particular “cannot go unchallenged.” In his comments Monday, he also pointed to what he described as an “unacceptable” U.S. attempt to make a deal with “Russia about Ukraine over the heads of the Europeans.”

The new language coming from Germany’s election winner suggested a break with the foreign policy of Angela Merkel, who led the country from 2005 and 2021. Merkel was a Christian Democrat, like Merz, and known for her tight relationship with U.S. President Barack Obama, but she attempted to maintain working relationships not only with Washington but also Moscow and Beijing.

Merz’s immediate predecessor, Olaf Scholz of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), had offered a vision of Germany’s shifting international circumstances three years ago, describing it as a Zeitenwende or “turning point” in history. With the left-wing SPD expected to join the right-wing Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in a grand coalition, they may at least be on the same page here.

“Germany is facing a new reality,” Sudha David-Wilp of the German Marshall Fund said. “It needs to step up and make decisions in order for it, and Europe, to maintain its role in the world.”

In addition to boosting defense spending, Germany deployed Bundeswehr troops to Lithuania in recent years, a move designed to protect the European Union’s eastern flank. But that could be just a first step.

A joint study released last week by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, estimated that Germany would need to increase its annual defense spending by more than $145 billion to ensure that Europe could defend itself against Russia without the United States, as well as provide NATO with an additional 100,000 troops.

Speaking Monday, Merz suggested that his first priority in coalition talks with the Social Democrats would be foreign policy and security. He has suggested that he is open to loosening Germany’s constitutional “debt brake” that had imposed strict budget rules on borrowing.

“It is Merz’s uber-Atlanticist and fiscally conservative CDU background that lends force to his calls for independence from the U.S.A., and will give him the credibility to bury the debt brake,” said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a European think tank.

While both parties appear willing to borrow to finance ambitious policies, they might not agree on what those policies should be. And in the AfD, they will have a powerful opposition force in the Bundestag. This political fragmentation, in part promoted by the Trump administration, could end up proving Germany’s critics in Washington right.

“If Germany isn’t able to significantly shift the way it sees its own role in NATO and Europe, it will end up being seen as weak and ineffective, which will only serve as fuel for Trump’s worst beliefs about Europe,” said Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.

Kate Brady contributed to this report.

This FOOL.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rfk-jr-really-away-adhd-152947023.html

Can RFK Jr. Really Take Away ADHD Medications?
Elizabeth Yuko
Sun, February 23, 2025 at 7:29 AM PST9 min read

A recent executive order has sparked widespread concern about the availability of medications treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a condition that affects more than 22 million Americans. Entitled “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,” the executive order has Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s fingerprints all over it, focusing on several of the pillars of his MAHA campaign, from increasing Americans’ life expectancy to fighting chronic illness.

But the recent wave of anxiety about ADHD medications largely stems from a line from the executive order calling on the soon-to-be-formed MAHA Commission to produce a report on children’s health “assess[ing] the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.” Stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin are commonly used to treat ADHD in adults and children, along with behavioral treatment. This attack on ADHD medication comes more than two years into a nationwide Adderall shortage, which has already made accessing the medication especially difficult.

The language used in the executive order was an immediate red flag for Max Wiznitzer, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital in Cleveland and co-chair of the Professional Advisory Board at CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder). “When they use the word ‘threat,’ it automatically implies there’s something wrong with this treatment, and ignores the mounds of scientific evidence about the utility of the use of medication in conjunction with a multi-modal approach towards target management of ADHD,” he tells Rolling Stone.

Positioning ADHD medications as a “threat” is in line with some of Kennedy’s previous remarks about the treatment in the context of his plan for “wellness farms,” where “addicts” taking illegal and legal drugs — including Adderall — could grow and eat organic food, learn a trade, and “learn to get re-parented.”

So, do parents of children with ADHD and adults with the condition need to worry? Does Kennedy actually have the power to take away or restrict access to people’s medications? Rolling Stone spoke with medical and legal experts to find out what Kennedy does — and doesn’t — have the authority to do, and why this messaging on ADHD medications from the federal government is both stigmatizing and dangerous.

What does the executive order say about ADHD medications?
The MAHA Commission executive order focuses on the use of stimulants to treat children with ADHD. It begins by claiming that the “health burdens” of chronic conditions in children — including allergies, asthma, and fatty liver disease — “have continued to increase alongside the increased prescription of medication.” The example provided is ADHD: specifically, that 3.4 million children are currently on medication for the condition. That figure comes from a 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, which also indicates that the 3.4 million children ages three to 17 who are taking medication for ADHD represent 53.6 percent of the kids with the diagnosis.

Later, the executive order stipulates that the MAHA Commission — with Kennedy at the helm — has 100 days to submit a report assessing “the prevalence of and threat” posed by stimulants used to treat ADHD, as well as other mental health medications, including mood stabilizers and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

“For now, the White House is only calling for an assessment of how these drugs are being administered and their impact on patients,” says Ana Santos Rutschman, a professor of law at Villanova University specializing in FDA law and policy, noting that the commission’s findings won’t be legally binding. In other words, the executive order “does not and cannot make a change in law, nor a change in the FDA’s approval of any medications,” says Elizabeth Y. McCuskey, professor of health law policy & management at Boston University. “Congress has set the procedures for that.”

The dangerous part of this executive order, Wiznitzer says, is that there’s a good chance that this report will be based on opinion, inaccurate facts, and preconceived notions rather than science. “When using the term ‘threat’ [in relation to ADHD medications], there’s a concern that they’re not going to be looking at this in an objective manner, but they’ve got a preset agenda that is to be addressed — and that’s not the scientific method,” he says. “The scientific method is asking a question in an unbiased manner and then investigating that question in order to come up with an answer.” This is problematic because the commission’s report(s) “will almost certainly be the policy basis for a couple of agencies to then take steps to make changes,” Rutschman tells Rolling Stone.

Plus, even if experts with appropriate training and expertise are appointed to the MAHA Commision, Kennedy’s still the one in charge. “Putting a secretary with zero epidemiological, medical, or scientific training or professional expertise in charge of studying and interpreting mountains of data is a cause for concern in itself,” McCuskey says. And if Kennedy were to say that ADHD medications aren’t medically necessary, that could create a conflict between the federal government and medical professionals and “make it a more chaotic environment for patients,” says Richard Pan, MD, a pediatrician who prescribes ADHD medications and former Democratic state lawmaker.

Does Kennedy have the power to ban ADHD medications?
Banning or restricting access to any medication currently used in the treatment of ADHD would have to involve the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which falls under and follows the policies of the Kennedy-led Department of Health and Human Services, Rutschman says. “These ADHD drugs have been approved by the FDA — which by law has to make a determination that a drug is safe and effective before a company can sell it,” she says. “Also by law, the FDA can withdraw approval or restrict distribution if new evidence suggests that an approved drug is not safe or effective.” So, banning or restricting access to these drugs would require some sort of FDA-initiated decision based on data raising concerns about a specific ADHD drug.

According to Rutschman, the MAHA Commission report itself wouldn’t be a sufficient source of this data; rather, it would need to come from several studies reflecting the current “scientific consensus” demonstrating that a specific ADHD drug was causing issues, or was not effective. “If the FDA makes a decision that does not reflect that consensus, then the decision could be challenged in court,” she says. Plus, as McCuskey points out, the FDA has to go through review processes and consider evidence before revoking the approval of a drug or imposing stricter prescribing or dispensing requirements.

Separately, the FDA can impose extra hoops to jump through or conditions for dispensing approved drugs, McCuskey says. One example of this is when the FDA established — and later removed — a restriction on the abortion medication mifepristone, requiring patients to take the pill inside the doctor’s office. But Kennedy can’t simply order the FDA to implement restrictions on ADHD medications: the FDA still has to go through the processes and produce the required justifications for these restrictions that Congress has defined.

“The Secretary absolutely can and certainly does influence FDA’s conduct and what it investigates, but he cannot dictate it,” McCuskey says. “There is cause for concern, but the administrative processes put in place by Congress and challengeable in court are designed to pump the brakes a bit on what any one political appointee can do to an approved drug.”

How else could this impact people taking ADHD medication?
Even if nothing comes from the executive order, the fact that it’s based on unfounded opinion rather than scientific fact is damaging in itself. “When executive orders are vague and not grounded in science, there’s a real disservice, because it’s undermining things that have been established to be true: like that ADHD exists, has profound impact on individuals, communities, countries, and their performance, [and] that it’s very treatable,” says Craig Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

Along the same lines, Surman’s concern is that people have access to reliable sources of scientific medical information so they can make informed decisions about their health and their children’s health. “I think it’s particularly concerning to be sowing any kind of distrust or confusion when there’s already quite a hurdle to clear for people to get good information,” he tells Rolling Stone. “There’s lots of misinformation about ADHD on TikTok, for example, and I would hope that the government can support entities that are conveying scientific information, because otherwise it’s all just guesswork and storytelling, and people don’t have access to treatments they need.”

Suggesting ADHD medication is a “threat” also casts a negative light on a treatment that for many has been life-changing. “For someone to stigmatize the medication after we’ve had all this positive feedback and these years and years and years of research showing us the benefits of what these medications can do for people, I think, is really to ignore the science,” Wiznitzer says. Casting doubt on the effectiveness of ADHD medication also does a disservice to people living with developmental disabilities, who may not be able to learn how to successfully manage the condition without medication, he adds.

Should access to stimulants be restricted, Surman is concerned that adults prescribed ADHD medications could begin self-medicating with alcohol, other substances, or “street” Adderall, which may be fake and contain fentanyl. “Having an FDA-sanctioned way for people to continue to function is pretty important,” he says.

So, what does this all mean for people living with ADHD? “Right now, I’d say don’t panic,” Pan says. “And hoarding medication probably is not going to be very productive. It’s unlikely that suddenly the medication is not approved, or that your health plan will say, ‘Oh, by the way, we’re not covering your ADHD medicine.’”

Even so, Wiznitzer says that it’s important to consider the impact that stigmatizing ADHD medication could have on the 22 million Americans living with the condition, as well as their families and society as a whole. “We know what happens when you don’t manage ADHD appropriately,” he says. “Productivity is down, there’s a greater risk for a negative impact on one’s health, a shortened life expectancy, increased suicide rate, and an increased chance of risk-taking behaviors, including substance use. Those are things that are not acknowledged by that executive order.”

Slowly but surely, the resistance is coming together.

If you get a bunch of elderly and gen xers in a town hall, and veterans calling in, chaos will come. Folks are showing up all over to town halls and yelling their asses off. They are beginning to scare these spineless republicans. But on this video, the veteran calling his congresswoman about cutting VA benefits, and they claimed illegals were getting them. That is a straight up LIE. Total LIE. They always deflect "look at the illegals" nope. A bunch of vets who served if they lose benefits or medical care or VA access will revolt.

Like I was talking to the twin the other day, he calls this "poking the bear." Folks all over are angry and it is like poking the bear. Eventually, the bear is gonna act. The scoop.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hFVzMP3y-U

So obviously per the third post, we can see the RFK JR madness, to take meds away, and somehow order and force a bunch of people with mental illness into not wellness camps, labor camps.

Now, think about it. If we kicked a bunch of immigrants out of the country, to then, sequester a bunch of folks with mental illness to farms to grow produce? Sounds like to me, they want to use the mentally ill as slave labor, and pay shit wages.

And his weird talk on black people and reparenting kids, absolutely racist rhetoric. So you are saying black people make their kids mental ill, let's take em away, and work them on farms?

And course, cut them off from phones and things, disconnect from outside world. Yeah, can't hear their cries for help!

So this flowerer, as far as I am concerned, is just as unhinged as the Orange Sack of Shit. I get his game here. If we kick out all those immigrants, and put together a force of mentally ill or homeless, we save on the meds, and we got forced and cheap labor. Absolutely stunning what this stupid flowerer is about.