There is a new food pyramid in town! The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services along with the Department of Agriculture rolled out this new food pyramid along with the website: https://realfood.gov The old food pyramid has remained in use for decades even though it is a high-glycemic mess. It recommended that Americans eat mostly cereals, breads, rice and grains and very little meat and dairy and fat. If you want to read about some of the politics that brought on this abomination, read The Great Plant-Based Con. The new pyramid flips that model on its head. It recognizes that meat and vegetables should form the foundation of a healthy diet, with grains occupying the smallest portion. This approach aligns far more closely with evidence-based nutrition research. “Protein and healthy fats are essential and were wrongly discouraged in prior dietary guidelines,” HHS Secretary Kennedy said. “We are ending the war on saturated fats.” Will this matter for most Americans? Probably not. Most adults don’t consult the pyramid before deciding what to eat. But the pyramid is used to teach nutrition in schools and to determine what is served in schools and on military bases. Maybe American school lunches will get better now? The post The Food Pyramid, Reconsidered appeared first on Redacted.

Massive vigils were held last night following the death of Renee Nicole Good. Every part of this incident feels wrong and the political rush to weaponize it feels even worse. Renee Nicole Good was allegedly protesting ICE raids with her partner when agents ordered her out of a vehicle. Instead of complying, she attempted to drive away. An ICE agent then fired at close range, and Good died from gunshot wounds. From there, the narratives split instantly. The right claims she was resisting law enforcement and ran an officer over. The left insists there was no immediate threat and portrays her as a “legal observer” documenting the raid. The truth is, we do not yet have enough verified information to responsibly take a partisan position and that should matter. What we do know is that a young mother is dead, and no political movement deserves to profit from that fact. There are too many unanswered questions. President Trump made this statement. He says that he “viewed the clip” and this is his assessment. Well, yeah, we’ve all viewed the clip. A president should have access to more than what’s circulating on social media. It’s possible the officer perceived a threat that the available footage doesn’t capture. It’s also possible the officer was poorly trained or reacted improperly. She may have said something threatening or something clarifying. She may have been influenced by other protesters. A woman who claimed to be her partner was filmed saying that she’d “made her come down here” to the protests. Her mother said that she was not the kind of person to attend protests like this. There is simply too much we don’t know. What we do know is that her partner was filming for social media, and ICE agents were almost certainly wearing body cameras. More evidence exists. We haven’t seen it. We’ve been here before. In the case of George Floyd, it took months before the full autopsy results were made public, revealing information that countered the early narrative formed from circulating footage. Have we learned to withhold judgment until the facts are in? It appears we haven’t. And yet, politicians on both sides are already lining up for their close-ups, issuing verdicts before any serious investigation has taken place. So what happens now? Will there be a full, transparent inquiry? Will the public see all available footage? Will this be decided in a courtroom? Those questions matter more than the partisan conclusions being rushed out today. The post A Tragedy Before the Facts appeared first on Redacted.

Ten French citizens will go to JAIL for making comments on First Lady Brigitte Macron’s gender. The court found these people guilty of cyberbulling Macron by claiming that she is a man. This ruling does NOT mean that she has proven that she is a woman. She still has not. The court ruled on harassment, not evidence. Macron did not “prove” anything beyond persuading a court that the speech caused harm under French law. That is precisely why this case is chilling. The French president and his wife used criminal law to punish their own constituents for speech about a public figure. In a society that claims to value free expression, that should alarm everyone. Article 11 of the EU Charter guarantees freedom of expression, yet there has been no meaningful condemnation from the European Union of a ruling that criminalizes speech about those in power. In a free society, people are allowed to question what their own eyes tell them, whether they are right or wrong. Courts are not meant to arbitrate truth through punishment, and governments are not meant to be insulated from speech by force of law. This case confirms that in France, speech about the government and its figures can now trigger criminal penalties, not merely civil liability. If you cannot offend the government, you do not live in a free society. The post This Is Chilling, France! appeared first on Redacted.

NATO leaders are pretty nervous about President Trump’s let’s-take-Greenland talk. Why? Because it would pull European countries into a land conflict with themselves. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, which is also a NATO country. If the U.S. waged war on Denmark, the snake would eat itself. NATO pretends that it is only a defensive organization but, lol. It’s first operation under President Clinton was an unprovoked bloodbath. Usually NATO can hide behind some made up pretense for its many wars but there would be no such cover for taking Greenland. You can’t claim self-defense while attacking your own members. Why is President Trump ruffling feathers about Greenland anyway? We’ve been warning you since 2023! It’s all about the arctic trade route. And where would that leave NATO? Would it fight for it’s U.S. paymasters or piddly little Denmark? Strip away the mythology, and what’s left is an alliance that only works as long as its internal contradictions are never tested. Greenland would test all of them at once. The post Greenland Would Break NATO appeared first on Redacted.

Israel is preparing for a war with Iran due to protests that have erupted inside Iran. Which raises an obvious question: why would domestic protests in Iran have anything to do with Israel? Mass demonstrations have spread across Iran since mid-December, driven by an economic crisis and volatility in the national currency. Israel has openly supported these protests, which it now cites as the reason Iran may retaliate by attacking Israeli targets. There are reports that protesters have been killed, though those claims remain uncorroborated. Still, President Trump has warned that the U.S. would intervene if “peaceful protesters” are killed. Only in Iran though. Protesters in Israel against the Netanyahu government should not look to the U.S. President for this kind of support. Now Israel is warning that Iran is poised to strike “targets across the Middle East.” But is that plausible? The New York Times reports that Iranian officials have described the Islamic Republic as being in “survival mode.” Would they attack abroad if they were in “survival mode”? Iran, in particular, has almost never initiated direct military attacks, and when it has acted militarily, those actions have been limited and retaliatory. So stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Israel: Iran is about to attack us. Israel: Launches a “preemptive” strike. The United States: This is fine. How can we help? When did this last happen? Last summer. Israel warned of Iranian aggression, escalated first, then portrayed Iran’s retaliation as proof of its warning. The post Iran: Domestic Protests, Foreign War appeared first on Redacted.