Salmon has earned its research reputation as a health-supportive food based largely on its unusual omega-3 fatty acid content. It's very common for 4 ounces of baked or broiled salmon to contain at least 2 grams of omega-3 fats—more than the average U.S. adult gets from all food over the course of several days. (If we consider 4 grams of omega-3 fatty acids to be a daily goal for a person consuming a 2,000 calorie diet—based upon recommendations from the 1999 Workshop on the Essentiality of and Recommended Dietary Intakes (RDI) for Omega-6 and Omega-3 Fatty Acids sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—then this would equal about 50% of this goal. For more on this, see our write-up on omega-3s.)

About half of this omega-3 fat is provided in the form of EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and a slightly lower amount is provided in the form of DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). The amounts of EPA and DHA contained in salmon are unusual among commonly-eaten foods. In addition to this high concentration of omega-3 fats is the relatively small amount of omega-6 fats in salmon and its outstanding ratio of omega-3 to omega-6. Four ounces of salmon will typically contain less than 1/2 gram of omega-6 fat, for an omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of approximately 5.5 to 1. In the average U.S. diet, this ratio has repeatedly been shown to be lop-sided in the opposite direction, with at least 4-5 times as much omega-6 fat as omega-3 fat, and in some studies, up to 12-20 times more. In our World's Healthiest Foods rating system for food, only two foods provide more omega-3s per standard serving than salmon. Those two foods are walnuts and flaxseeds. Both of these plant foods are outstanding sources of omega-3s! However, they cannot be compared on an equal basis to salmon because their omega-3 fats come in the form of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) rather than EPA or DHA. The widely-studied benefits of omega-3 fatty acids are documented in our Omega-3 Fatty Acids profile in the Essential Nutrients section of our website. In general, these benefits involve improved control of the body's inflammatory processes, better overall cell function, improved transfer of information between the body's cells, and better brain function. When researchers look specifically at intake of omega-3-containing fish like salmon, they find health support in all of the above areas. However, some areas of omega-3 support are what we would call "standout" areas. For more, see Salmon

The name PatriotsFighting has been take from President's speech on terrorism. I liked it very much and found it very acceptable and unique.

Patriots will be fighting all the time, anywhere anytime in the world.

The Canadian Equivalent to the PATRIOT Act

32114

On January 27, 2009, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released guidelines for processing personal data across borders. These guidelines explain how PIPEDA applies to personal information that is transferred to third parties for processing, including those located outside of Canada.

This guide will be of particular interest for individuals who are concerned about their personal information being transferred to third party organizations in the United States, namely because of the controversial PATRIOT Act which increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to access records held by American organizations.

Many Canadians are often uneasy about the notion that their personal information can be subject to American law enforcement agencies. However, unknown to many, PIPEDA actually allows Canadian law enforcement agencies to share information with U.S. intelligence agencies if warranted.

Highlighted in PIPEDA Case Summary #394, CanWest used these principles to explain that “government access without consent will always remain a possibility, both in Canada and in the United States.”

From PIPEDA, 7(3)c:

(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is

• (c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;
• (c.1) made to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that
• (i) it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs,
• (ii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada, a province or a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law, or
• (iii) the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering any law of Canada or a province;
• (i) required by law.

Although the PATRIOT Act may allow American government officials easier access to personal information, Canadian legislation effectually allows the Canadian government to do the same. This is a legal risk that organizations must recognize.

But should you be worried?

According to PIPEDA Case Summary #394, Canadian organizations would normally be subject to such requests in the “national security and anti-terrorism context.”

It’s also important to note that section 215 of the PATRIOT Act could allow U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain your personal information from Canadian organizations anyways:

“Section 215 of the Patriot Act has proven to be a controversial provision in both the United States and Canada. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner and British Columbia’s Information and Privacy Commissioner have both expressed concerns that section 215 could allow U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain personal information about Canadians from U.S. companies with offices in Canada, or from U.S. companies in the United States who hold personal information of Canadians due to outsourcing contracts.”

Source: “The USA PATRIOT Act and Canada’s Anti-terrorism Act: Key Differences in Legislative Approach”

Canadians must realize that their personal information can be disclosed to government officials in either America or Canada without their consent if it is necessary for law enforcement.

• facebook
• twitter
• pinterest
• email

The Patriot Act Is a Vital Weapon in Fighting Terrorism

Nathan A. Sales is a law professor at George Mason University School of Law. He previously served at the Justice Department, where he helped write the Patriot Act, and was deputy assistant secretary of homeland security.

UPDATED MAY 23, 2014, 10:40 AM

America needs the Patriot Act because it helps prevent terrorism while posing little risk to civil liberties. The law simply lets counterterrorism agents use tools that police officers have used for decades. And it contains elaborate safeguards against abuse.

Consider the three provisions Congress renewed last May.

1. Congress authorized “roving wiretaps” back in 1986 -- court orders that allow police to monitor criminals even if they switch phones. The Patriot Act allows the same thing in terrorism investigations. The law levels the playing field: If a roving wiretap is good enough for Tony Soprano, it’s good enough for Mohamed Atta.

The Patriot Act features strict safeguards. Agents can’t eavesdrop unless they get a judge’s permission. They must demonstrate that the suspect is a terrorist. And they must notify the judge when they go up on a new phone.

2. Grand juries in criminal cases routinely subpoena “business records” from companies like banks and retailers. The Patriot Act lets counterterrorism agents get the same documents.

The law simply lets counterterrorism agents use tools that police officers have used for decades.

The act’s protections are even stronger than the grand jury rules. Prosecutors issue subpoenas unilaterally, but the Patriot Act requires the F.B.I. to get a judge’s approval. Americans can’t be investigated on the basis of First Amendment activities, and special limits apply to sensitive materials like medical or library records.

3. Before 9/11, it was difficult for authorities to monitor “lone wolves” with murky ties to overseas terrorist groups. The F.B.I. suspected that Zacarias Moussaoui was a terrorist, but agents hadn’t connected him to Al Qaeda, so it wasn’t clear they could search his apartment. Congress fixed that problem. Now, agents can monitor a terrorist even if they haven’t yet found evidence he belongs to a foreign terrorist organization.

Again, the Patriot Act has robust safeguards. Agents have to convince a judge to let them track a lone wolf. This tool can only be used to investigate international terrorism, not domestic. And it doesn’t apply to Americans, only to temporary visitors like tourists.

A decade after 9/11, the Patriot Act remains a vital weapon in the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda hasn’t given up. Neither should we.