American Survival Newsletter:
Combining the World of Finance, Health & Politics
A weekly newsletter brought to you by
Discount Gold & Silver 800-375-4188
Edited by Alfred Adask
Friday, November 22nd, A.D. 2013
Between Friday, November 15th, and Friday, November 22th, the bid prices for:
|Gold fell 3.6 % from $1,290.40 to $1,243.70
|Silver fell 4.4 % from $20.78 to $19.83
|Platinum fell 3.3 % from $1,437 to $1,389
|Palladium fell 2.6 % from $731 to $712
|DJIA rose 0.6 % from 15,961.70 to 16,064.77
|NASDAQ rose 0.1 % from 3,985.97 to 3,991.65
|NYSE rose 0.1 % from 10,189.80 to 10,205.71
|US Dollar Index fell 0.2 % from 80.81 to 80.67
|Crude Oil rose 1.0 % from $93.74 to $94.72
"Only buy something that you'd be perfectly happy to hold
if the market shut down for 10 years."—Warren Buffett
“If the market shut down for 10 years, what investment would you
dare to hold—other than gold?”—Alfred Adask
Notes on the Coming Assault Against Consumers
by Alfred Adask
Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World; A.D. 1932) wrote that,
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
There’s a 3-minute video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgYbchc6gII of the “Black Friday” shopping “riots” that we’ve seen in the past and can expect to see again this Thanksgiving and on the following “Black Friday”. Consumers run wild for the privilege of purchasing a few scraps of colored plastic and bits of electronic circuitry.
I believe that these “consumers” are the sort of people who “love their servitude“. If so, Huxley’s prediction is coming to pass.
Watching the video, you gotta admit, these “riots” look like fun. People are grinning and laughing as they jostle to buy some “stuff”. They really do “love their servitude”. The video is certainly funny to see.
But the video also unnerving. These consumers are no better behaved than a pack of monkeys at the zoo. You can almost imagine the rich and powerful throwing some plastic trinkets down into the midst of the “Black Friday shoppers” and laughing among themselves at how funny it is to see the “consumers” scramble for bits of trash like baboons squabbling for marshmallows on Monkey Island.
What do these people–these “consumers“–do besides eat, sleep, drink, fornicate, reproduce, and shop for “stuff”? Do their lives have meaning other than to “consume”? What do they produce? How many fit the description of “useless eaters” provided by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger?
• For the rest of this article, I’m going to compare “consumers” to “producers”.
What do I mean by “consumers” and “producers”?
After all, we all consume. Even those in a coma are consumers. If you have a pulse, you must eat, you must breathe, have clothes and shelter. Therefore, you’re a consumer. I’m a consumer. Everyone who is alive is a consumer.
And most of us also produce goods or services–at least during the prime of our lives. So you could argue that all of us are also “producers”.
But my distinction between “consumers” and “producers” is one of net. Whether you’re a net “consumer” or a net “producer” depends on whether you consume more than you produce or produce more than you consume.
If you mostly consume, you’re a consumer”. If you produce more than you consume, you’re a “producer”.
• There was a time when this world needed people like today’s consumers. Our civilization was sufficiently crude that we needed the physical labor of people who weren’t all that intelligent, educated or motivated to push brooms, stack boxes in warehouses, and shovel dirt from ditches. But, thanks to machines, automation and robots, we no longer need many of these “Black Friday shoppers”.
Worse, a lot of consumers are simply incapable of producing anything of value at minimum wage in this level of civilization. In a highly technological society, how many people understand how to write software or do research in chemistry? Many of our “consumers” have become a permanently dependent class who probably can’t survive in the modern world without welfare, subsidies and “entitlements”—or violence.
• But what “entitles” a “consumer” who can’t produce enough to support himself and his family to claim the wealth of another man who is a “producer”?
My answer is that all of us were made in God’s image and we therefore have an obligation to help and support each other. That’s a cliché that’s easily said and easily ignored–but that’s my answer.
However, it seems certain that people in the “producer” class–especially the super-rich–find my answer unpersuasive. The producers are asking, Why should they be required to support all of the “consumers”? They’re asking, Why do we need all the consumers other than to purchase more plastic gee-gaws to give each other at Christmas, and then stack up in their garages?
These questions have dangerous moral overtones, but they’re not irrational.
Why should “producers” continue to tear up the world in order to support a mass of “consumers” who are unable to produce anything other than more “consumers”? Why should those who are productive be forced to support those who are, at best, only reproductive?
• We’re fast approaching a time when automation and robots will render much of the population not only unproductive but also unnecessary. Inevitably, the relatively few remaining producers will ask Why should we support consumers who are, themselves, unnecessary?
And inevitably, producers who ask some of these questions will begin to ask another–if only silently: Why shouldn’t the “herd” be culled to remove most of the consumers and “Black Friday shoppers”?
I guarantee that the richest 1% of this nation (and just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they are “producers”) and the world are talking among themselves about the “consumer problem”. They may have another name for the problem, but I guarantee that they’re preparing themselves for a moment when a huge number of “consumers” will be openly killed or merely allowed to die due to extreme political and economic circumstances.
Do producers need concentration camps to kill of the bottom 20% of this society? Or do producers merely need a severe and prolonged economic collapse (wherein the consumers will kill each other)?
Do producers need guillotines or gas chambers to kill the non-productive? Or can producers achieve the same result by merely shutting down the power grid for a month or two . . . or even by instituting Obamacare, complete with “death panels”?
• To be clear, I’m not advocating that “consumers” be “culled” by “producers”.
However, I am warning that in a world where the supply of resources is diminishing, forces are mounting that will inevitably seek to dramatically reduce the number of “consumers”.
I’m also not advocating that government voluntarily stop providing welfare or subsidies. (There’s no point to that advocacy since it’ll never happen.)
But, I am advocating that as a matter of personal survival, you need to stop taking, or even planning to take, the government’s hand-outs. You need to change your mindset to recognize the psychological danger of becoming a dependent/consumer. You need to find a way to live on less than your produce–even if that means you leave your $250,000 house to move into a two-bedroom, one-bath apartment.
• I believe we’re coming to a time when it will be dangerous to be a “consumer”.
And I’m not talking five or ten years from now. Parts of this country are already over-populated by “consumers”.
For example, some of Detroit looks like the ruins of a city bombed out in WWII. Why? Because Detroit has been overwhelmed by its consumers. Having lost sufficient producers to keep the city functional, the consumers of Detroit live lives characterized by poverty, disease, criminality, robbery, violence and shortened life expectancies. Without the presence of sufficient producers, the consumers are reduced to predating on each other like a tribe of starving cannibals.
East L.A. is similar. Every major city has impoverished districts where the consumers are so predominant that the producers have left in fear for their lives.
In the end, community poverty and violence are primarily the result of too many consumers and too few producers.
• The poverty that’s obvious among Blacks and Hispanics is increasingly shared by Whites and even Asians. The way out of poverty is not merely having wealth (in the sense that you can receive hand-outs from the government, liar’s loans from the banks, or Master Cards to pay off your Visas). The way out of poverty is by persistently producing more wealth than you consume.
The primary characteristic of producers is savings. If you can save any part of your income, you’re a producer (and that includes saving in a medium that can’t be easily confiscated).
More, you don’t have to produce $1 billion per year to be a “producer”. If you produce just $10,000 a year, but live on $8,000–and save $2,000—you’re a net “producer”.
If you’d like to avoid winding up in the “ghettos” among masses of predatory consumers, you don’t need a Mc Mansion. You need a modest home you can actually afford without much stress in a neighborhood populated by other producers. You need a job or a business where you can continue to produce more than you consume. You need to become a producer–not just in fact, but even in your mind. Regardless of your income, you need to adopt the values of producers.
If you’re going to rely on welfare, subsidies, “entitlements” or credit to survive–even if you can legally do so–you’re diminishing yourself in a way that will render you vulnerable and perhaps defenseless when the excess consumers are inevitably “culled”.
• Some people think of the super-rich as super greedy, super-pathological, lovers of money and perhaps wicked. There’s some truth to that opinion. The top 1% are undoubtedly trying to pig all the wealth of this world for themselves. They’re unwilling to share the wealth with the other 99%. That greed seems morally wrong.
There was a time when accusing the rich of excessive greed would’ve been based on the fact most all of the remaining 99% made a contribution to producing the excess wealth acquired by the top 1% and were being underpaid for their contributions. The distribution of wealth (production) was unfair and unreasonable. The super-wealthy consumed beyond what they personally earned and were therefore “consumers”. Excess consumption by the rich can lead to violent revolutions and guillotines. Ask the French.
But, today, the “bottom” 99% can’t all claim to have somehow contributed to the production of the wealth acquired by the top 1%. Without having contributed to the production of wealth, what’s the moral basis for any adult’s claim to a share of that wealth?
• According to government, 7% of Americans are unemployed. John Williams at Shadowstats.com says the real unemployment number is about 22%. Whatever the true level of unemployment may be, it’s obvious that the unemployed are consuming but not producing anything. They are net consumers.
It may be that they could produce, they want to produce, and they are not producing through no fault of their own. Nevertheless, so long as they’re not producing, what’s the basis for their claim on the wealth being currently accumulated by the top 1%?
Then, there’s the people on welfare—almost 13 million; over 4% of the US population. They don’t produce anything. What’s the moral basis for their claim on the wealth of the producers?
What about government employees? They’re about 7% of the population. How many produce anything that the free market would value? Insofar as they produce nothing tangible (and are overpaid besides) what’s the basis for their claim on the wealth of the nation’s producers?
What about illegal aliens? 20 million, maybe more. Many are producers; they work for peanuts and live on less. Others, however, are consumers who take more than they produce.
How many farmers and businessmen who appear to be “producers” are, in fact, receiving sufficient subsidies from government to be net “consumers”?
According to Mitt Romney, 47% of Americans receive some sort of support from the government. It’s not necessary true that all of those 47% are net consumers, but it’s likely that most of ‘em are.
The bigshots on Wall Street would have us believe that they’re all red-blooded capitalists fighting for their share of the American dream and therefore “producers”. But most of them would be bankrupt and perhaps imprisoned if they hadn’t: 1) bribed Congressmen to pass laws favoring their various rackets; and 2) received (now) $85 billion per month to shore up their failing financial institutions. These tycoons have acquired wealth, but have they produced wealth? Probably not. If they haven’t produced as much as they’ve consumed, they’re consumers rather than producers.
As I’ve already written, you can make $10,000 a year and still be a “producer” if you live on $8,000. But, likewise, you can earn $500 million a year on Wall Street and still be a “consumer” if $300 million of your income was ultimately derived from government subsidies.
• It’s probably the natural order of things that most people in any society are net consumers and only a minority are net producers. But that minority of producers must be maintained at some minimum level or the society will implode.
It may take a minimum of thirty producers to support 100 consumers. Maybe it takes only twenty. But certainly, 100 consumers can’t survive with only one producer.
When consumers not only outnumber the producers, but also embrace the philosophy that they’re entitled to the producers’ wealth, the nation plunges toward a condition where everywhere resembles bombed-out Detroit. That condition won’t be escaped or even alleviated until the people rediscover their need to respect, honor and emulate their producers.
America is running out of producers. More, the ranks of the “consumers” are growing. Worse, we’ve embraced a collectivist belief in “entitlements” and the idiotic, suicidal notion that we can become prosperous in a “consumer-based economy”.
As the number of net producers falls, the ever-dependent consumers will become more aggressive in their need to predate upon the producers.
In Detroit, the man who runs a small Bar-B-Q joint and produces $200 a day for himself can expect to be repeatedly robbed and perhaps murdered by the neighborhood thug-consumers who are so dependent, that $200 justifies robbery. Eventually, the thug-consumers will so impoverish that restaurant owner that he abandons his business. The local community will lose one more producer and slide deeper into dependence and “consumerism”.
• But that consumer-thug mentality is not confined to Detroit or other ghettos. It’s common in Congress where they pass bills like Obamacare or support policies like QE3 that essentially predate on the nation’s producers in order to serve the nation’s consumers.
Two months ago, I wrote about a study by two economists who concluded that if government regulations had remained at the level that existed in A.D. 1949, today’s median household annual income ($53,000) would be over $300,000. Government regulations favor consumers but destroy producers.
Government, itself, produces nothing and is a pure consumer, so it’s no surprise that government naturally favors the consumer “mentality”.
Worse, given that we live in a democracy and consumers naturally outnumber producers, most politicians who wants to be elected must embrace a pro-consumer philosophy. (It’s arguable that a fundamental purpose of the Constitution was to respect and protect the producers from the insatiable consumers.)
Result? We’re predating upon, destroying, and therefore running out of producers.
Evidence? Our standard of living hasn’t increased in 40 years. Many of our industries and productive jobs have been shipped to foreign countries. Our economy would collapse right now for lack of producers and production—except that we’ve borrowed or printed enough fiat currency to temporarily conceal our non-productive nature.
Solution? Deep, dire, economic depression.
There’s no way that anyone will convince most of the America’s consumers that they need to become (or even respect) the nation’s producers. There are no words, no speeches, no speakers or writers who are sufficiently articulate or charismatic to convince the 47% who are taking checks from the government that they need to voluntarily stop doing so.
We may all agree in theory that something’s got to be done about the rest of those freeloaders, but virtually none of us will agree in fact that our own “entitlement” should be stopped.
Go ahead and try to stop welfare payments to black consumers in “d’ hood” and what’ll happen? The greedy, ungrateful, violence-prone black consumers will riot and burn down a chunk of the cities where they live.
But, if you think black consumers are bad, go ahead and just mention the possibility that the Federal Reserve may start “tapering” the $85 billion in hand-outs they currently inject into the economy each month, and the white consumers will figuratively threaten to “riot” and “burn down” the indexes in the stock exchanges and precipitate an economic collapse.
As a nation, we’ve become so addicted to “free lunches,” “something for nothing” and “entitlements,” that we will never voluntarily abandon the consumer lifestyle and mentality.
Implication? The only way we’ll stop being net consumers is by force. The only way we’ll abandon our free lunches and the consumer lifestyle is to have them beaten out of us by the relentless “hard knocks” of a brutal, long-term economic depression.
• Look at the former Soviet Union. The Russians embraced the communists’ “consumer mentality” for 69 years and thereby destroyed and cannibalized most of whatever producers remained in Russia. Then, in A.D. 1991, Soviet “consumerism” collapsed under the weight of their consumers. A decade of poverty, chaos, lawlessness, violence and a diminished life expectancy followed.
Result? Their decade-long economic depression and the humiliation of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, forced the former communist-consumers to “learn their place” and recognize the truth that their very survival depended on their “producers”. After ten years of brutal depression, the Russians began to respect and even emulate the values of those producers.
I can’t say that all communist-consumerism has died in Russia. But there’s been a change in values to allow producers to increase to a level sufficient to support the Russian nation and even allow it to regain its status as one of the world’s most productive and therefore powerful nations.
• If America doesn’t restore respect for producers and suppress the forces of consumerism (and I don’t think we will or even can), we can expect to follow the former Soviet Union’s example.
It’s unlikely (but not impossible) that the fifty States of the Union will disintegrate into several smaller nations. But when the U.S. inevitably collapses under the weight of its consumers, we can expect to see a decade of “hell on earth” as many of our consumers and much of our consumer mentality are repudiated and flushed out. Those who can’t learn to produce more than they consume will be forced to live on even less than they produce. Consumer poverty will become manifest and traumatic. Consumers’ life expectancies will be shortened by premature, or even violent, death.
If you want to survive the coming correction, I suggest that you “get your mind right”. I suggest that you abandon all trace of your consumer values and diligently seek to understand and emulate the values of producers. Learn how to survive independently. Learn how to produce. Learn how to live within your means and without debt. Learn how to protect whatever wealth you produce from confiscation by the nation’s innumerable and insatiable consumers—which certainly include the government.
It's the Origination Clause Stupid
By Laurie Roth ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2013
Join me each day on my national radio show from 7-10pm PAC www.therothshow.com.
Obamacare is completely illegal and UN – Constitutional
I have screamed this for the last several months on my national radio show and called Government officials over and over on this. In my article on this October 4th I exposed that Harry Reid and the Senate had completely gutted the House proposed version of the Affordable Care act and illegally passed it as law.There is a bold lawsuit being brought by Pacific Legal Foundation, which confronts this huge violation. Thankfully 40 Representatives have signed onto this.
This week Bob Unruh wrote about the danger the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit poses to Obamacare. I am so glad that someone else is finally noticing what I have been writing and screaming about for months. It is about time.
The Origination clause Article 1, Section 7. Clause I says,…”All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” What is there to question or stall on?
Harry Reid and the Senate are on the record completely, 100% gutting the House version sent over and putting in their own illegal and ‘Origination violation’ version. It is also on the record if you can believe it that they knew that they were violating the Origination clause but planned to manipulate the Affordable Care Act into law anyway. Who cares about the law in the Senate? It is just in the way apparently. Oh…the inspiration that flows down from Obama.
Randy Barnett – Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Lae Center states:
“If any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act.” The only way the violation could be more obvious is if the Senate hadn’t even bothered to use a shell bill, but had simply written a bill of its own without a shell.”
As our nation suffers King Kong size insurance policy losses and enormous pain due to Obamacare, time is of the essence. Obamacare is an illegal ‘Gambino type law’ literally destroying our entire Health care system and killing scores of people. It is blatantly illegal and violates the Origination Clause. It does this with the classic style of ‘I see nothing – I hear nothing – I know nothing.’
Let the law suit go forward and make it fast. When January 2014 hits, we will see at least 150 million dropped from Employer health policies. You think it has been painful so far? This will make Hurricane Katrina look like a puddle and the crimes against American humanity look like a massive Health-Genocide.
Sign up for nothing. Give out zero personal information and PRAY your guts out while preparing for more carnage.
There is one born every second….why is it so difficult to keep your money in gold and silver and not worry about being scammed.
MOVING: Massachusetts Halts WCM777, Says It Was Selling Unregistered Securities And Targeting Brazilian Community
By PatrickPretty.com 9:53 am Nov 15, 2013
Massachusetts has halted the WCM777 multilevel marketing scheme, saying it was associated with entities in Hong Kong, the British Virgin Islands and the United States and selling unregistered securities. In Massachusetts, the state said, the scheme was targeting the Brazilian community.
In a filing by the office of Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, the state says it opened a probe into WCM777′s business practices in September.
Identified entities include World Capital Market Inc. of Pasadena, Calif., an asserted offshoot of a banking enterprise in the British Virgin Islands; WCM777 Inc., a dissolved Nevada business with an office in City of Industry, Calif; and WCM777 Limited of Hong Kong.
WCM777 purports to sell “cloud” Internet services. The investment scheme spread in part through weekly pitches in August and September by a WCM777 distributor using a “function room” at a Massachusetts hotel, the state said.
Investors were lured with promises they’d receive “profit sharing” and an ability to “purchase stock options” in the run-up to an asserted IPO in 2014, the state said.
The Massachusetts filing is a consent order. WCM777, according to the order, has agreed to cease business in the state and to provide refunds to all Massachusetts investors. The scheme netted at least $300,000 in the state from about 160 investors, the vast majority of whom were members of the Brazilian community, according to the order.
“Nearly all” of the investors bought into the scheme at the $1,999 level — the level that promised the highest daily payout, according to the order.
Promos advertised returns of “over 90 percent” in 100-day cycles, the state said.
WCM777 has neither admitted nor denied the allegations, the state said.
Attorneys for WCM 777 made the refund offer on Nov. 13 after presenting the state a spreadsheet on Oct. 14 showing information on Massachusetts participants, according to the order. The document does not say whether other states also are investigating WCM777. The nation of Colombia is known to be investigating WCM777.
Please, pick up your phones and say NO to ANY immigration reform. Democrats want it so bad as they need to win 2014 elections. We already have laws on the books tell them to enforce them. It will temporarily flood the markets to show economy strength and ACA needs it to succeed. There are reports it will cost over 2 trillion dollars (in todays terms) over a 5-10 year period to absorb the millions of illegals.
PELOSI OPEN TO PIECEMEAL APPROACH ON IMMIGRATION
By David Sherfinski>br>
The Washington Times, Thursday, November 21, 2013
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill appeared to be reaching consensus this week that immigration reform can be done in pieces — a key procedural concession by President Obama and his fellow Democrats that could help revive chances for a bill next year.
But even as they said they could accept the GOP’s plans to tackle immigration bill-by-bill, rather than one massive measure, Democrats insisted that before the process is done, Congress will have to tackle all parts, including rewriting the legal immigration system to granting citizenship rights to most current illegal immigrants.
“We have always said on that score that the speaker is the speaker, and any way he wants to bring the bill to the floor, in pieces or in big chunks or whatever it is, we just want to see legislation come to the floor so that Congress can act upon that legislation, the House can, and send it to the conference table with the Senate,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, last week seemed to close the door on chances for an immigration bill to pass this year when he said the House would work on its own timeline and would not enter into negotiations with the Senate, which has passed a single broad bill legalizing illegal immigrants and rewriting the legal immigration system. Mr. Boehner also insisted on a step-by-step approach.
Asked this week if that meant the issue is dead, Mr. Boehner said, “Absolutely not.”
“I believe that Congress needs to deal with this issue,” he said. “Our committees are continuing to do their work. There are a lot of private conversations that are underway to try to figure out how do we best move on a common-sense, step-by-step basis to address this very important issue.”
He also said he was “encouraged” when Mr. Obama earlier this week also signaled his willingness to accept a piece-by-piece approach.
“They’re suspicious of comprehensive bills, but you know what? If they want to chop that thing up into five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don’t care what it looks like, as long as it’s actually delivering on those core values that we talk about,” Mr. Obama said at The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Annual Meeting.
Mr. Obama said he thinks many House Republicans want to give illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, which he said would involve paying fines and, for many, waiting more than a decade before they could obtain a green card.
Beneath this week’s apparent agreement, however, lurk several hurdles, including whether House Republicans insist that border security come before any legalization bill passes. Democrats have considered that a non-starter.
Mr. Boehner said Thursday that it’s the American people who are — and should be — skeptical of comprehensive bills.“The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time,” he said.
Tom Howell Jr. contributed to this report.
Seven loopholes favoring a nuclear Iran in deal signed by the world powers
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 24, 2013, 4:51 PM (IDT)
The first preliminary nuclear deal the six world powers (US, Russia, China, UK, France and German) signed with Iran before dawn Sunday, Nov. 24, at the end of a four-day marathon, failed to address the most questionable aspects of Iran's nuclear program, i.e. its clandestine military dimensions. The accord confined itself to aspects of uranium enrichment and stockpiles. UN inspections were expanded – but not applied, for instance, to Iran's concealed nuclear sites - or even the Parchin military base where Iran is suspected of having tested nuclear-related explosions.
Israel, the Gulf States and others are therefore highly dubious of the deal's capacity for freezing Iran's nuclear program where it stands today, least of all roll it back, as President Barack Obama claimed.
DEBKAfile's intelligence and military sources list seven of the most glaring loopholes in the first-step accord:
1. Parchin: This long-suspected facility remains out of UN oversight. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry boasted after the signing that daily IAEA inspections will take place at Fordo and Natanz. However, cameras are already fixed at both those facilities without an agreement, whereas Tehran's consistent denial of IAEA access to Parchin is not addrfessed.
2. Secret nuclear locations: Under the heading "Possible Military Dimensions," the last IAEA report noted: "Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related organizations, including activities related to the development of a payload for a missile."
The watchdog has received information indicating activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." This was further corroborated by new information obtained since November 2011.
Tehran's non-cooperation for investigating these findings is not mentioned in the Geneva interim accord, nor was it addressed in the negotiations.
3. Dirty bombs: Iran doesn't need a full-scale nuclear bomb or missile warhead for attacking Israel. For decades, Tehran has been working on perfecting hundreds of dirty bombs as part of its nuclear program, by adding plutonium or enriched uranium to conventional bombs. These weapons are easy to make and easy to use. In the hands of Hizballah or other Shiite terrorist organizations in Syria or Iraq, for instance, they could be used to strike Israel without leaving a trail to Tehran. This peril too was ignored by the six powers in Geneva.
4. Rollback. While President Obama has presented the deal as a first step toward freezing or even rolling back "key aspects" of Iran's nuclear program. The fact remains that, so long as Iran is permitted to enrich uranium, even though this is restricted to a low 5 percent grade, it is free to produce as much fissile material as it wants, whenever it wants. This seems more like roll forward than roll back.
5. Enrichment. Obama and Kerry said the new deal does not recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium. They were contradicted by the Iranian president and senior negotiator as well as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. So what is the truth? If Iran won recognition for this right, it blows the bottom out of the Non-Proliferating Treaty because, in no time, all the signatories may start enriching uranium with permission from the big powers. Neither is there any point in making Iran join the NPT's Additional Protocol for snap inspections.
6. Centrifuges. Iran has undertaken not to add new centrifuges to its enrichment facilities, according to President Obama, but there is nothing to stop it from keeping up their production. In the six-month interregnum for negotiating a comprehensive nuclear deal, Tehran wins time to turn out enough centrifuges to substantially expand its production of enriched uranium.
7. A leap to breakout: Far from being static or in freeze, as the Americans claim, Iran is free to step up centrifuge production and boost its stock of 3.5 percent enriched uranium, thereby accumulating enough material to enhance its capacity for producing enough weapons-grade uranium to break through to a nuclear bomb rapidly enough to defy detection by the IAEA or Western intelligence until it is too late.
The first loophole appeared hours after the new accord was signed: Iran's lead negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, announced that his country's enrichment rights had been recognized in the negotiations, after which Iranian President Hassan Rouhani praised the supreme leader's guidelines for achieving world power recognition of Tehran's "nuclear rights."
However, Secretary of State John Kerry in his first appearance after the signing denied this concession had been made. He said: "The first step, let me be clear, does not say that Iran has a right to enrich uranium." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov lined up solidly behind the Iranian version of the accord, confirming world recognition had been extended for Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, including the right for enrichment.
Out of step with the celebratory mood in Geneva and Washington, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned that the deal would not impede Iran's capacity to gain a nuclear weapon. He challenged President Obama's words that the deal was a historic achievement and called it a historic mistake, which would not obligate Israel. Israel, he said stood by its right to self defense against a regime dedicated to its destruction.
As prime minister, Netanyahu pledged not to allow Iran to procure a nuclear weapon. President Obama also announced that key aspects of Iran's nuclear program will be "rolled back" against limited sanctions relief and the release of deposits (nettng Iran $6-7 billion in revenue.) He said that no new centrifuges would be activated for the enrichment process, work would stop at the Arak heavy water reactor and UN inspections expanded to daily visits at the Natanz and Fordo enrichment plants to ensure that uranium is not enriched above the 5 percent permitted by the accord.
The core sanctions architecture will remain in place, Obama promised, pending a comprehensive solution to be negotiated in the next six months, but no new sanctions would be imposed. Lavrov summed up the four-day conference by saying: "Considering the whole body of circumstance, there are no losers [in the Geneva deal], all sides are winners" - a view seriously challenged by Israel, Saudi Arabia and most other Middle East governments.
Govt Lawyers: Americans Have No Right to Challenge Surveillance
Ordinary Americans Have No Say, Officials Insist
by Jason Ditz, November 23, 2013
Government lawyers are demanding that the US District Court immediately throw out an ACLU lawsuit against NSA surveillance, insisting that there is no avenue by which “ordinary Americans” could even theoretically challenge its legality.
The ACLU is arguing that the surveillance, involving collecting every phone record of every American, exceeds the authority the NSA has under either the Patriot Act or the Constitution.
The government is arguing that only phone companies could challenge the collection orders, however, and then only in super-secret FISA courts, which have already rubber-stamped the surveillance time and again.
The lawyers are also arguing that the judge himself isn’t qualified to hear questions of “national security” and that he should simply trust the administration’s officials to figure things out on their own, outside of courts.
Be sure to listen to Financial Survival radio program live at dgscoins.com and Short-wave radio 7.490 AND 9.880Mhz M-F 4:00PM ET. We broadcast in cities of Spokane KTAC 93.0 5-6pm Eastern, Metairie WVOG 600AM 3-4PM Eastern and Dallas KXBD 1480AM 4-5PM Eastern.
Discount Gold & Silver Trading Co. provides all forms of precious metals including gold, silver platinum and palladium whether you are buying or selling. Our inventory includes but not limited to the American Gold, Silver, Platinum Eagle and numismatic products including rare, investment and circulated coins. Silver dollars, silver bars, rounds are on hand for the silver investor. Foreign gold is also available. Call for information regarding your precious metal gold and silver IRA. Call 1-800-375-4188 or visit the Web site at dgscoins.com or email us at: email@example.com
What's in your tincture?
by Herbalist Wendy Wilson
I recently came across an article written by naturalists who were warning people of the dangers of herbal tinctures made with alcohol. I thought to myself, why would a couple of professionals in the natural field be totally against a natural therapy such as herbal tinctures, which have hundreds of years of empirical history? And then I found out why the attack on tinctures; these folks owned and operated a supplement company that used glycerin to make their products. As an herbalist educated by one of the oldest natural healing schools in the US, I know the difference in tinctures made with alcohol and tinctures made with glycerin. However, consumers may not know what makes these two tinctures different. So, I thought let's explore this comparison and make folks aware of the good and the bad so they can make their own educated decision.
Before the modern processes of making distilled alcohol there was the ancient way of fermenting grains or fruits. In the 12th century the distillation process for making alcohol was discovered, which made alcohol more potent. Today the average beer is about 5% alcohol, wine ranges between 12% to 15% and liquor usually ranges from 30% to 50% but it can be higher.
CAREFUL WITH TERMS
Those who would have you believe that herbal tinctures made with alcohol are unhealthy or not for human consumption are incorrect. Of course consuming large quantities of alcohol is not good for you; however, an adult dose of a tincture made with alcohol is (1/4 tsp.) and contains less than 0.05% alcohol by weight. The average adult dose of a tincture made with alcohol won't cause negative effects even if you had cirrhosis of the liver. The average alcohol tincture is made with 80% vodka, which is 50% water. Using 100 proof alcohol in tincture making is not necessary and would be overkill when dealing with most herbs. Some of the misinformation circulating is that herbal tinctures are made with ethyl ethanol which is true however what is incorrect is that ethanol or ethyl ethanol is all denatured alcohol and unfit to drink. Denatured alcohol is intended for fuel and not for consumption. No experienced herbalist would use a denatured alcohol in the process of making herbal tinctures because it can modify plant molecules and disrupt enzyme compounds. Also, there are different levels of denatured alcohol; standard denatured, specifically denatured and completely denatured. However, none of these types of alcohol are used by the herb industry to make tinctures. So, what consumers need to know is that not all ethyl ethanol is denatured and in fact ethyl ethanol is a pure grain alcohol.
There are some who prefer not to have alcohol of any kind in their herbal products and will therefore gravitate toward the plant glycerin tinctures. The herbal liquids made with a catalyst of glycerin will usually be sweeter and not have the same concentrations of the plant alkaloids as the alcohol tinctures. The supplement market will claim the glycerin versions have the same potency as the alcohol tinctures but a simple test will show that you will need to consume more of the glycerin variety to achieve the same benefits. Also, the absorption of the alcohol tinctures by the body is much faster by the arterial blood supply and is completed in seconds. Glycerin tinctures have a 30% slower absorption rate. The reason that the alcohol tincture is superior is because it draws out the entire chain of plant phytochemicals and in higher concentrations. Many types of herbs will have alkaloids which will need alcohol to capture them all. Those who want the potency of alcohol tinctures but not the alcohol can take five minutes to remove the alcohol from their dose by warming an ounce of water (not boiling) to the temperature of a baby's bottle and add the dose of tincture and let the alcohol evaporate off in five minutes, then drink the water.
Some herb manufacturers will make tinctures with alcohol and then use a process to extract the alcohol and then add the glycerin. This may seem like the best of both worlds as far as tincture making goes but the absorption rate is diminished, it contains less nutrition, not all the alcohol is removed and there is more processing for the formula which can further diminish potency.
Tincture making has a long history. Glycerin for making tinctures came much later and is generally considered a poor solvent for extracting nutrition from plants compared to vinegar which is a much stronger solvent for grabbing the alkaloids. When comparing the solvent effect of vegetable glycerin and alcohol, according to Debra St. Claire author of Herbal Preparations and Natural Therapies, the glycerin will extract fewer compounds:
Glycerine will extract- sugars, dilute enzymes, glucosides, bitter compounds, diluted saponins and tannis.
Alcohol will extract – alkaloids, glycosides, volatile oils, waxes, resins, fats, tannins, balsam, sugars, proteins, minerals and vitamins.
However, glycerin tinctures are popular with those who do not want alcohol in their herbal medicines. The alcohol tinctures extend the shelf life of the herbal product by as much as ten years whereas the glycerin product has a two-year shelf life. The alcohol tinctures are like wine and can be aged to produce more potent formulas. http://www.aaa-chemicals.com/glveusp1ga.html
According to the World Health Organization, to much vegetable glycerin (propylene glycol) can create a buildup of lactate in the bloodstream and can lead to convulsions, cardiovascular problems (heart attack) and coma. The Cleveland Clinic also reports that people can have sensitivities to the sulfites in the vegetable glycerin causing asthma-like symptoms and other allergic reactions. Other reactions can be upset stomach, swelling of the tongue, difficulty breathing, nausea, diarrhea and can rarely cause gastroenteritis. Just think of all the products vegetable glycerine is used in such as cosmetics and is in with the juices used as vapor inside electronic cigarettes. http://www.livestrong.com/article/519369-side-effects-of-vegetable-glycerin/
I see herbal tinctures made with alcohol like the Special K cereal analogy; 12 bowls of shredded wheat or one bowl of Special K. If you have an alcohol tincture made from certified organic ingredients, it is naturally aged and then cold pressed you will have a superior herbal medicine which is instantly absorbed and has a long shelf life. The folks at Apothecary Herbs make their tinctures this way and If you are interested in what a professional strength herbal product can do for you, call Apothecary Herbs toll free 866-229-3663, International 704-885-0277 online http://www.thepowerherbs.com, where your healthcare options just became endless. Save 15% on orders over $45 with coupon SAV13 (Expires 11/24/13 not to be used with other discounts). Or if your order is over $100 you can qualify for a FREE 1 oz bottle of Calcium Formula ($24.50 value) with coupon CAL13 (must add Calcium Formula to your cart to activate discount). And for orders over $150.00 you will also receive a FREE copy of The Power Herbs e-book ($14.99 value) sent to your email. This offer expires 11/30/13.
MORE HERB SECRETS IN THE POWER HERBS e-BOOK. By popular demand The Power Herbs e-book is available with symptom/herb reference guide, information on organ cleansing and how to make your own herbal tinctures plus a whole lot more. You must have email to order and receive the e-book a PDF version of The Power Herb book for just $14.99. At this time, we do not offer this title in hard copy.
COMING UP ON HERB TALK LIVE
Herbalist Wendy Wilson on Herb Talk Live
Saturday morning show:
7 am EST on GCN
12/7/13 Gary Null, PhD & author of Reboot Your Brain.
12/17/13 Dr. Rebecca Carley with more info on dangerous allopathic medicine.
7 pm EST on AVR
11/19/13 Dr. Rebecca Carley on how to reverse vaccines.
12/5/13 Gary Null, PhD & author of Reboot Your Brain.
12/14/13 Dr. Rebecca Carley with more info on dangerous allopathic medicine.
Go to http://www.thepowerherbs.com/archive.html Herb Talk Live & Radio Archive area for network link access and past shows to download and share. For Android users you can download a FREE app for Herb Talk Live on GCN. See the download link under radio archives at top of page.
The information contained herein is not designed to diagnosis, treat, prevent or cure disease. Seek medical advice from a lincensed medical physician (if you dare) before using any product or therapy.
All content is copyright © Independent News Journalist Disclaimers of FARE USE
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "Fair Use" Allowance is made for purposes such as: Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship, and Research. "Fair Use" is a use permitted by Copyright Statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, Educational or Personal use tips the balance in Favor of "Fair Use". Conclusions drawn from these articles or audio files do not necessarily represent the Opinions/Beliefs of those subjects People/Musicians/Participants/Entities therein. "Fair Use" says it all....Produced by FREELANCE AUTHOR.