As warned, after multiple staged incidents used to ratchet up fear and paranoia in the build-up to US and its allies’ military intervention in Syria and Iraq, at least two live attacks have now been carried out in Canada – precisely as they were predicted.
The first attack involved a deadly hit-and-run that left one Canadian soldier dead. AP would report in its article, “Terrorist ideology blamed in Canada car attack,” that:
A young convert to Islam who killed a Canadian soldier in a hit-and-run had been on the radar of federal investigators, who feared he had jihadist ambitions and seized his passport when he tried to travel to Turkey, authorities said Tuesday.
The second, most recent attack, involved a shooting in Ottawa injuring several and killing another Canadian soldier on parliament Hill. RT in its article, “Ottawa gunman ‘identified’ as recent Muslim convert, high-risk traveler,” would report that:
While the name of the Ottawa gunman is yet to be announced, a number ofofficials told numerous media that the shooter is believed to be Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a recent Muslim convert, allegedly designated as a high-risk traveler.
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was born in Quebec as Michael Joseph Hall north of Montreal, two US officials told Reuters, claiming that American law enforcement agencies have been advised that the attacker recently converted to Islam.
AP sources also identified the man to be Zehaf-Bibeau. A Twitter account associated with Islamic State militants tweeted a photo they identified as the Ottawa shooter. The Globe and Mail reports that the shooter was designated a “high-risk traveler” by the Canadian authorities with his passport seized.
Clearly, both suspects were under the watch of not only Canadian authorities, but also US investigators, before the attacks.
Canada’s Attacks Were Predictable – Western Security Agencies are Prime Suspects
It was warned last month after security agencies staged scares in both the US and Australia, that suspects under investigation, being walked through planned terrorist attacks by Western security agencies as part of “sting operations” would inevitably be switched to live terrorist attacks.
In mid-September A Rochester man, Mufid A. Elfgeeh, was accused by the FBI of attempting to provide material support to ISIS (undercover FBI agents), attempting to kill US soldiers, and possession of firearms and silencers (provided to him by the FBI). The FBI’s own official press release stated (emphasis added):
According to court records, Elfgeeh attempted to provide material support to ISIS in the form of personnel, namely three individuals, two of whom were cooperating with the FBI. Elfgeeh attempted to assist all three individuals in traveling to Syria to join and fight on behalf of ISIS. Elfgeeh also plotted to shoot and kill members of the United States military who had returned from Iraq. As part of the plan to kill soldiers, Elfgeeh purchased two handguns equipped with firearm silencers and ammunition from a confidential source. The handguns were made inoperable by the FBI before the confidential source gave them to Elfgeeh.
It was warned that only an inoperable firearm stood between Elfgeeh’s arrest and his successful execution of deadly plans hatched by him and his undercover FBI handlers. This script, written by the FBI to entrap Elfgeeh, would be followed almost to the letter in live attacks subsequently carried out in Canada resulting in the death of two Canadian soldiers. Conveniently, both suspects are now dead and little chance remains of ascertaining the truth of who they were in contact with and how they carried out their deadly attacks.
With both suspects having been on both US and Canadian watch lists – it is very likely undercover agents were involved in either one or both cases. While many possibilities exist, Western security agencies should be among the first suspects considered as potential collaborators.
A Modern-Day Operation Gladio - Inducing Fear, Obedience, and Control
Before Elfgeeh’s entrapment and later live attacks in Canada, US policymakers and pundits had begun in earnest setting the rhetorical stage for eventual staged attacks. With serial beheadings failing to raise Western public support necessary for an expedient intervention in Syria, more insidious provocations appeared to be in the works. Setting the stage, a CBS/Associated Press story titled, “Former Deputy CIA Director: ‘I Would Not Be Surprised’ If ISIS Member Shows Up To US Mall Tomorrow With AK-47,” would claim immediately after the initial James Foley ISIS execution video that:
“The short-term concern is the Americans that have gone to fight with ISIS and the west Europeans that have gone to fight with ISIS could be trained and directed by ISIS to come to the United States to conduct small-scale attacks,” Morell stated. “If an ISIS member showed up at a mall in the United States tomorrow with an AK-47 and killed a number of Americans, I would not be surprised.”Morell warned that over the long-term the extremist group could be planning for a 9/11-style attack that killed thousands of Americans.
The FBI has a long list of foiled terror plots of its own creation. More disturbingly are the plots they conceived but “accidentally” allowed to go “live.” One might recall the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. FBI agents, according to the New York Times, were indeed overseeing the bombers that detonated a device killing six and wounding many more at the World Trade Center.
In their article, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,” NYT reported:
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.
The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars.
Considering the 1993 bombing and the fact that the FBI literally oversaw the construction and deployment of a deadly bomb that killed 6, it is clear that the FBI can at any time through design or disastrous incompetence, turn one of their contrived entrapment cases into a live terror attack. One can only guess at how many similar FBI operations are currently taking place within the United States involving ISIS sympathizers – any one of which could be turned into a live terror attack provided the weapons handed over to potential terrorists are functioning, just as the bomb was in 1993 when it was driven into the lower levels of the World Trade Center.
It is very likely that the recent attacks in Canada involved at least one “informant” working for the FBI. Because the FBI uses confidential informants to handle suspects, if a plot is switched ”live,” the informant will be implicated as an accomplice and the FBI’s covert role will remain uncompromised.
Image: The FBI has an impressive portfolio of intentionally created, then foiled terror plots. Its methods include allowing suspects to handle both real and inoperable weapons and explosives. These methods allow the FBI to switch entrapment cases “live” at any moment simply by switching out duds and arrests with real explosives and successful attacks. Because the FBI uses “informants,” when attacks go live, these confidential assets can be blamed, obfuscating the FBI’s involvement.
Everything from a mass shooting to a bombing, and even an Operation Northwoods-style false flag attack involving aircraft could be employed to provide Wall Street and London with the support it needs to accelerate its long-stalled agenda of regime change and reordering in both Syria and across the Iranian arc of influence. Readers may recall Operation Northwoods, reported on in an ABC News article titled, “U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba,” which bluntly stated:
In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
In addition to Operation Northwoods, the public must also consider NATO’s Operation Gladio, and its larger “stay behind” networks established after World War II across Europe and at the center of multiple grisly assassinations, mass shootings, and terrorist bombings designed to demonize the Soviet Union as well as criminalize and crush support for left-leaning political parties growing in popularity in Western Europe. It would be determined that NATO’s own covert militant groups were killing innocent Western Europeans in order to effect a “strategy of tension” used to instill fear, obedience, and control over Western populations.
That the FBI and Australian authorities had coordinated staged security operations in tandem on opposite ends of the globe to terrify their respective populations into line behind an impending war with Syria, and now two highly suspicious attacks have been carried out using the very script Western security agencies were using to lead suspects through “sting operations,” suggests a new “Operation Northwoods” or “Operation Gladio” of sorts is already being executed.
Staged executions on cue by ISIS in the Middle East of US and British citizens at perfectly timed junctures of the West’s attempt to sell intervention both at home and abroad, and now live shootings just in time to heighten a new “strategy of tension” reek of staged mayhem for the sole purpose of provoking war. Could grander and ultimately more tragic mayhem be in store? As ABC News’ article on Operation Northwoods and the Military Channel’s documentary on Operation Gladio suggest, there is no line Western special interests will hesitate to cross.
With the West attempting to claim ISIS now has a “global” reach, the US and its partners’ attempts to obfuscate the very obvious state-sponsorship it is receiving will become exponentially more difficult. That the FBI is admittedly stringing along easily manipulated, malevolent patsies who at any time could be handed real weapons and sent on shooting sprees and/or bombings – and now apparently have been – Americans, Canadians, Europeans, and Australians would be foolish to conclude that their real enemy resides somewhere in Syria and not right beside them at home, upon the very seats of Western power.
Reprinted with permission from GlobalResearch.ca.
It has been my contention that the recent Ebola outbreak is likely the result of US military testing of Ebola gone awry. SEE: THE PAPER TRAIL: The US Government Involvement in Developing Ebola as a BioWeapon
Now more evidence has been brought to my attention of the alarming nature of the Ebola testing going on by the US military.
Apparently, the military has created an airborne version of Ebola and tested it on monkeys.\
A paper written by E. Johnson, N. Jaax, J. White, and P. Jahrling of US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Frederick, Maryland was published in 1995 in the International Journal of Experimental Pathology.
The abstract from the paper, Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus, informs:
The potential of aerogenic infection by Ebola virus was established by using a head-only exposure aerosol system. Virus-containing droplets of 0.8-1.2 microns were generated and administered into the respiratory tract of rhesus monkeys via inhalation. Inhalation of viral doses as low as 400 plaque-forming units of virus caused a rapidly fatal disease in 4-5 days. The illness was clinically identical to that reported for parenteral virus inoculation, except for the occurrence of subcutaneous and venipuncture site bleeding and serosanguineous nasal discharge. Immunocytochemistry revealed cell-associated Ebola virus antigens present in airway epithelium, alveolar pneumocytes, and macrophages in the lung and pulmonary lymph nodes; extracellular antigen was present on mucosal surfaces of the nose, oropharynx and airways. Aggregates of characteristic filamentous virus were present within type I pneumocytes, macrophages, and air spaces of the lung by electron microscopy. Demonstration of fatal aerosol transmission of this virus in monkeys reinforces the importance of taking appropriate precautions to prevent its potential aerosol transmission to humans.
The military just loves aerosols of all kind, back in 2012 I reported on aerosol testing of a different nature in the US: Manhattan Project Spin-Off: St. Louis Minorities Targeted for Secret Cold War Chemical Testing.
News of an airborne version of Ebola being tested by the US military, thus, should come as no surprise. I reported earlier that a top international disease scientist, who spent time in West Africa during other outbreaks of Ebola has contacted and informed me that the United States government considers Ebola a strategic weapon. SEE: Ebola and the United States Government.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Air pollution is a term that likely conjures images of industrial smokestacks and billowing plumes rising into the atmosphere. Those are certainly examples of air pollution but the oft forgotten truth is that the worst air quality you experience every day is most likely to be located right in your living room. Trapped, stagnant air and poor ventilation combine to create a toxic cloud inside the home. Here’s 10 facts everyone should know about indoor air pollutants and how to protect themselves and their family from the potential health dangers.
1. IAQ is a Top 5 Health Risk
The United States EPA ranks indoor air quality as a top five environmental risk to public health. EPA studies found indoor air pollutants were generally 2 to 5 times greater than outdoor pollution levels. In some cases, indoor air pollution was 100x greater.  There are many reasons to why this is the case, including poor ventilation, the burning of toxic candles, use of air fresheners, chemical laden household cleaners, and more.
2. Your Furniture May be the Most Dangerous Culprit
Furniture purchased prior to 2006 contained toxic PBDEs — chemicals used as flame retardants. These flame retardants have the possibility of sending toxins into the air. Even after 2006, flame retardants continue to be used. Chlorinated tris (a known carcinogen banned from children’s pajamas in 1977) was reintroduced, and new flame retardant chemicals appear to create the same dangers. Inhalation has been noted as the primary route to exposure.
3. Air Fresheners are Poison
The NRDC determined most air fresheners contain phthalates, noxious chemicals known to disrupt hormone function in babies and children, interfere with reproductive development, and aggravate respiratory ailments such as asthma.  A recent study found the terpenes released by air fresheners interact with ozone to form compounds like formaldehyde and acetone at concentrations which can cause respiratory sensitivity and airflow limitation. 
4. Candles are No Better than Air Fresheners
Candles can be nice but it’s important to pay attention to what you’re buying. Most candles, especially the scented ones made with paraffin wax, contain benzene and toluene, two known carcinogens. These candles also contain hydrocarbons called alkanes and alkenes (chemicals found in car exhaust). When you burn toxic candles in your home, you’re releasing toxic chemicals, don’t do it! If you purchase candles, choose soy- or beeswax-based varieties scented only with pure essential oils.
5. Inkjet Printers Release Fertility-Robbing Chemicals
Did you ever think your inkjet printer could be a source of air pollution? Printing inks, like those used in home printers, contain glymes. These industrial chemicals have been linked to developmental and reproductive damage. The EPA has expressed concern about their safety, especially in regards to repeat long-term exposure.  It may be better to have your photos printed at the store.
Toxic relationships…we’ve all been there. But most of us have learned from them and start looking for the “red flags” before we commit. Not so with the Great Father. As everyone knows, the Great Father wrecked the car again over in Syria. He got drunk at the Arab Spring block party, met someone he got romantically interested in real fast, and plowed right into Bashir al-Assad’s house. The Great Father never learns—friends don’t let friends drive drunk. That’s why he was warned about trying to drive Syria after shotgunning a twelve pack of Regime Change Ale. What’s more, the Great Father’s party pals and romantic partners are rather seedy characters that don’t belong in the house. Take for example the Great Father’s last love interest over in Syria. Or, rather, his former love interest. That being the entity known as ISIS/ISIL that the Great Father enlisted to topple Assad over in Syria. The Great Father fell in love with them and thought he had a future with them. The Great Father took them to the mall to look at rings and military aid packages. ”Let’s just see where it goes”, said ISIS. Until not long into the relationship, they said they needed space. The Great Father was into too much drama. They just weren’t all that into him and moved on. What?! The Great Father jilted again?! The Great Father doesn’t appear to be too lucky in terms of international relationships.
Well, ISIS talked to their friends who talked to the Great Father’s friends who talked to him. They wanted more out of a relationship than Syria. And the whole thing turned into such drama! Who didn’t see that happening? Now, Assad warned the Great Father not to get mixed up in this thing. “Look, you don’t even know this person and you’re already talking marriage. You’ve been out on one date and you’re already naming the kids. I heard the gossip about that. You’re going to name one Democracy and another you’re naming Regime Change. This isn’t going to work out, trust me. Look, listen to me now, ISIS is a gold-digger.” But the Great Father didn’t listen, nor did he listen to anyone else. ISIS then turned out just like all the rest and kicked the Great Father to the curb. They didn’t even text him to tell him it was over! Dang it, they kept the weapons, too! Everyone thought the Great Father learned his lesson over in Iraq, what with that engagement that morphed into a catastrophic Friends-With-Benefits relationship. That ex of the Great Father still gets money, military advisors, and airstrikes out of him. People told the Great Father, “Didn’t you see ISIS has a violence addiction before you got mixed up with them and started planning the wedding? Were you really so naïve that you thought once Assad was out of the picture, ISIS would see what a great guy you are? Didn’t you learn anything from that fling you had in Libya? You spent all that cash and they ended up seeing other people.” So it is, we are stuck yet again with another relationship of the Great Father as sordid, tawdry, and tempestuous as those of his Hollywood celebrity friends.
I see in the news that “retired military officers” (aka paid shills for the Great Father) are saying the airstrikes against ISIS won’t be enough. We need troops on the ground. Of course! Who didn’t see that coming? But, it’ll need to wait until after the elections. In the meantime, ISIS is running amok, inspiring lone-wolf terrorist attacks in such places as Canada. But the truth of the matter is, we see once again that the Great Father creates the enemies he says he and everyone else needs to fight later. The Great Father messes up and everyone pays. No one ever asks to see the tracking numbers on all the U.S. arms shipments that went over to that particularly volatile part of the world to find out who signed for them. Maybe it’s time we banned the government from shipping arms and money over there. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of paying for the love gifts the Great Father showers his girlfriends with. It’s bad enough he has this on-again/off-again open relationship with Israel that’s costing us a bundle. Plus, whenever he shows affection for Israel, the Saudis get jealous and he has to then give them a few fighter planes. That region of the world is costing us a fortune, thanks to the Great Father wearing his heart on his sleeve. This is exhausting.
We’re being told there’s a human rights disaster going on, thanks to ISIS. But the finger doesn’t point far enough. The disaster is the direct result of U.S. government meddling in the region. The U.S. seeks to “fix” what it perceives is “broken” when, in fact, nothing is really broken. What is actually happening is the U.S. portrays itself as “THE West” (not just part of, but the ultimate embodiment of the West) and thinks that the solution to perceived Middle Eastern problems is to Westernize them at the point of a gun. This is ridiculous, arrogant, and unworkable. They’re the East, not the West. Obviously, the U.S. government cannot read a compass, among other things. Trying to pound the Eastern square peg into the Western round hole is doomed to failure. People that know the history of the region know that current Western solutions are infantile, at best. But that’s not who we’ve got making U.S. policy decisions over there. Who we’ve got making those decisions bring all of the vast historical knowledge of lawyers to the table. The American people need to end the Great Father’s stalker-like obsession with this region of the world. We need a restraining order that says the Great Father cannot come within aircraft carrier range of the Middle East. What’s more, if “Westernizing” the region through “democracy” solves world peace problems there, then explain how World War One and World War Two happened. Those two wars were started by Western powers with Western governments. And we’re selling this as a solution to the Middle East?
If peace is what you desire, sending weapons to people that are obvious extremists isn’t going to accomplish that. Chances are, what will happen is destabilization, war, and an eventual bloodbath as minority groups such as Syrian Christians are targeted. How do we know they’re extremists? Because they told us what they believe. They told the Great Father, too, but he chose to see them through rose-coloured glasses. Toppling Assad should have never been a mission of the United States in the first place. We now see the disaster of trying to do that. Syrian Christians, Kurds, and Yazidis are paying for the Great Father’s mistake with their lives.
But what about the oil? That’s a market issue, not a military issue. Oil cannot be transformed into money without selling it. So long as people want to buy it, the owners of the oil will sell it. We don’t need to control the actual land it’s on in order to buy it. That’s like saying we need to own the local grocery store before we can purchase milk there. The Saudis are good at extorting military protection from the U.S. by playing the oil card. But the truth is, oil has no value to the seller if it cannot be sold, so whoever happens to sit on the throne of Saudi Arabia is going to sell the oil regardless. Who possesses the oil must sell it in order to realize a benefit from it beyond their own use. It’s the same with any product be it oil, grain, or consumer goods. If we made it clear we have no interest in who runs what over there and stopped interfering in the sovereignty of other nations, the fruits of terrorism might just begin to wither on the vine. We would limit our dealings to commerce and leave the politics at the door. In the end, commerce is what will decide the destiny. If people need access to the market to sell their own oil, it will be they themselves that get rid of terrorists hindering them.
The thinking that we need to control the land the oil sits on is a legacy of the Cold War. We thought that we needed to hold the land to prevent the Soviets from gaining it and cutting the oil off. This is the whole sad truth behind the U.S. backing of Islamic fundamentalists. They were vehemently anti-communist, so we used that in our favour. But the Cold War is over. There isn’t a Soviet Union that can marshal the entire Middle East into a Warsaw Pact and cut the U.S. off from the oil. The relationship with Israel is from the same legacy. We needed them to fight proxy wars with Soviet-backed countries in the Middle East. They were basically a proving ground to test U.S. weapons systems against Soviet weapons systems. Israel was also used to cull the armor and aircraft supplied to Middle Eastern countries by the Soviets. It’s time for us to move on.
Finally, the Great Father needs to be on his own for awhile. He needs some alone time. He needs to find a constructive hobby, like tai chi or something. Attend some seminars on how to build healthy relationships. Right now, the Great Father simply isn’t ready for a healthy relationship and that’s why he needs to admit he’s just not relationship material at the present. He needs to admit his own manipulative tendencies and anger issues in a relationship that attracts people who also don’t know what a healthy relationship is. In a healthy relationship, you don’t give someone surface-to-air missiles just because they ask for them while strolling the mall concourse hand-in-hand, all moon-eyed and in love. What’ll be the next thing asked for? A tactical nuclear weapon? Isn’t that how the Great Father’s old flame Israel basically ended up with some? “Don’t worry, Great Father, it’ll be our little secret. Your kids will never find out. The registration and title are in my name, after all…”, Israel said during a candlelit dinner. No, there need to be healthy boundaries in a relationship. Such as not arming thugs, toppling governments, and then lying about it. But, instead, the Great Father started drunk-dialing the anti-Assad Syrian “moderates” with offers of romantic get-aways at U.S. military training camps. Didn’t the Great Father know they were ISIS’s cousin? They both used to cruise the boulevard together on Saturday nights back in the day. Everyone knows that, except the Great Father it would appear. My word, another romantic tryst doomed from the beginning. But he’s already taken them shopping.
Where does the Great Father meet these people?! At the State Department Lonely Hearts Nightclub, that’s where. He strolls in, clad in his polyester leisure suit, and sees that lonely person at the bar, obviously on the rebound, just like him. He saunters over, puts on his best smile, and says, “Hi beautiful…come here often?”
Last weekend, city officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho ordered the owners of a local wedding chapel to conduct same-sex marriages or face jail time. One-hundred-and-eighty days of jail time, to be exact, plus a $1,000 fine for each day they continue to decline.
The chapel’s owners, ordained ministers, are suing on the grounds of religious freedom, saying the mandate forces them to contradict their religious beliefs.
But while the religious freedom perspective on this dispute is probably better for the chapel’s public relations, this issue is just as much economic as religious. Without the specious concept of “public accommodation,” disputes like this wouldn’t arise. Only because this category is accepted in the first place can the courts find justification for forcing vendors to service the demands of customers in ways that defy their religious convictions.
According to Congress, “public accommodations” are businesses and facilities open to the general public. The idea first made its way into American law by way of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II of that Act prohibits discrimination in places of “public accommodation.” Specifically, the law reads:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.
This description is followed by a list of qualifying establishments. These include inns, restaurants, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, and “any establishment which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.”
Such establishments are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender or sexual orientation, allegedly on account of their being open to the public.
On the surface, barring owners of public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, disability, etc., seems like a nice thing to do. Why would any business owner in their right mind turn away business from someone because of some harmless genetic trait, anyway? But this type of mandate has some serious problems.
First, by defining certain businesses as places of “public accommodation,” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 turned the force of law into a mechanism for social engineering. The Act is based on the premise that discriminating on the basis of race is wrong, and it utilizes the force of law to make business owners behave in accord with this moral dictate. But law is not supposed to engineer social behavior. If this were not so, being mean, rude, hateful, inconsiderate, unpunctual, selfish and/or a bad parent (among many, many other things) should also be illegal. But we don’t all have the positive right to be loved, appreciated, surrounded by selfless people, and/or have great parents. There is a logic to this. Our rights only say what others cannot do to us — not what others should do for us. Public accommodation and the Civil Rights Act pervert this framework, however, and say that business owners must serve everyone, regardless of their religious convictions, thereby creating a positive right to be served at any store open to the public — stores that would not exist had the owner not invested his own capital toward its creation.
Second, the right to be serviced at any place of public accommodation has unenforceable and awkward implications. This is because inherent in the demand for service is the demand for quality commensurate with what other customers received. If Hitching Post Wedding Chapel must marry same-sex couples, is it not implied that its ministers marry the couple with the same attention and quality with which they married other couples? But the obvious problem is that quality is subjective — while the same-sex couple may not be happy with the outcome and allege that the chapel did a subpar job because of their moral qualms with homosexual marriage, the chapel’s owners can just as easily allege that they did the best job possible. Who is to determine whether the wedding (or whatever relevant product or service) is of equal quality to others the chapel has supplied? Are judges and juries to decide whether one product or service is of equal quality to every other products or services of equal price?
For another, more blatant example, consider New Mexico photographer Elaine Huguenin. In 2008, Elaine was forced to pay $6,637.94 in attorney’s fees to a lesbian couple whose wedding ceremony she refused to photograph. She lost her case on the grounds that her photography business was one of “public accommodation,” and therefore subject to the nondiscrimination clauses in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But if she had agreed to take photos, would the lesbian couple have had grounds to sue if they weren’t of equal quality? Is the jury to examine photographs and determine whether Elaine worked as hard taking one as she did another?
The reality is that this is an illogical law that cannot be enforced equitably and whose transgressors cannot be tried impartially.
Finally, by dictating who business owners must serve, “public accommodation” as expressed in the Civil Rights Act turns business owners into mere managers (instead of owners) of their respective businesses, legally forbidden from determining for themselves which customers they will serve. Their businesses exist at the whims of policymakers, who with the stroke of a pen can direct their business operations toward the fulfillment of some arbitrary social end. But this begs a question: If business owners are not the effective owners of their companies, who is? The answer is government. By mandating that certain businesses serve customers that their owners deem (for whatever reason) unserviceable, government decision-makers become the effective owners. According to the Act’s logic, it is government, after all, that licensed the business to operate in the first place. Government, then, should be allowed to determine who can and cannot patron the business. Public accommodations’ owners’ freedom to engage in commerce is merely an illusion. They are only free as long as they comply with overbearing government regulations.
But this, of course, is no freedom at all.
Of course, some might object and argue that the law should be a means for elected officials to engineer social behavior, or that freedom to engage in commerce really isn’t that important. If this is where you stand, then we have more serious disagreements.
When money doesn’t develop as a commodity, it gives one pause to wonder why. Is it real money? Is it viable in a free market? How did it come into existence if it didn’t develop as a good with uses other than money? Today we observe persistent thievery of goods (e.g. land, cars, gold, and silver) by the state. Individuals are often on the lookout for mechanisms that reduce the chance that their property will be forcefully appropriated. The possible reduction of state theft risk is one of the main selling points of Bitcoin.
Money has historically been a tangible good that was desired by people on its own merits as a good. Salt had uses and could be traded and divided and lasts longer than a chicken. Eventually, the link to a good was lost as pieces of paper with no connection to anything prevailed when the state had its way – via legal tender laws – at concocting new and improved methods of theft via inflation and banking cronyism. But, paper is still tangible and is seized frequently as well.
In the 1990s, I remember seeing little deed certificates for micro-acres of ranch land that could be traded like money. That concept seems like it might be a workable idea for money if you don’t consider the state factor. What if the state doesn’t like the idea of mini paper titles to ownership of micro-acres of a large Texas ranch? The state can steal the whole ranch. Or, the state can add a new confiscatory tax to the land that varies vastly from the original agricultural tax scheme thereby reducing the exchange value of the asset-connected paper deeds. The state can proclaim the whole idea to be a money-laundering operation. The state can see the link to something tangible and seize all the assets pertaining to the persons who implemented the idea as was done with the Liberty Dollar which had a connection to real precious metals redeemable on demand.
Those real acres can be confiscated by the state just as gold and silver are; just as “real” paper and virtual fractional reserve computer digits can and are confiscated by the state.
So, if Bitcoin didn’t follow the normal route for money origination as a good in the market, why did it develop and can it survive in a free market?
The principle marketed features of Bitcoin are its limited supply and its resistance to state predation when being held and transferred. The limited supply is a mathematical reality. That, plus the hoped-for resistance to state thievery supposedly overcome the fact that it didn’t originate as a good on the market. It has no link to something real that can be taxed, seized, or plundered. But does this benefit really overcome its non-good status?
Thin cylindrically-shaped food packages may develop so that food may be passed to an inmate through a rat-hole in the wall of a concentration camp, but such a device – devised and utilized to get around a state-caused hardship – would probably not survive with its original state-caused value intact when, and if, the economy reverts to a free market because of the extra cost involved in shaping food into thin cylindrical packages. The exchanged value of an item whose primary beneficial feature is state avoidance would be lower in a freer society than an innovation whose primary value is to serve the other preferences of a freer people. Such a weird-shaped food is not an outgrowth of an entrepreneur’s efforts to satisfy the free market preferences of people outside of state confines. It is an innovation to circumvent state predation. If the suffering imposed by the state is ever lifted or escaped from, the anti-state innovation has less utility and less desirability than an innovation inspired by the desire to enhance the exchanges of value and the lifestyle of a freer people.
Medical tourism to foreign countries may be a booming business during a time – like our present time – when the state is restricting the free market for medical services in the U.S., but would that mechanism be a big success if you lived in an area and in a time that had an unhindered free market for medical services? I advise people on medical options in foreign countries, but if I created a medical tourism business and shuttled people around for that purpose, that business may suffer if medicine reverted to free market principles in the U.S.
Some things develop in a time and place because of horrendous state intrusions into or restrictions on the free market. But if liberty prevails in the future in that area, will the state- circumventing innovations survive if that is one of their primary claims to value? Would they be needed and desired and valued if there was more freedom?
Bitcoin is Anti-State Money and State-Caused Money
Bitcoin’s coming into prominence was mainly due to a desire to avoid confiscation, tracking, and inflation; all things that are hallmarks of the state’s dedication to the principle of stealing value from you. It has the benefit of being something with no link to something real that can be confiscated. So, Bitcoin has the ironic dual honor of being anti-state money and state-caused money. The anti-state aspect is one of its main claims to fame. The innovations that may possibly circumvent the state’s main methods of taking value are considered to be its main features. The fact that it is devoid of any tangible value is portrayed as a good thing in a statist environment. Gold’s primary claim to fame isn’t a claimed ability to avoid theft, tracking, or inflation although its high value-to-size ratio and relative scarcity assist with those things.
Without state predations, adaptations to avoid those predations possess less utility, less desirability, and possibly no value at all; especially, as in the case of Bitcoin, when there never was any tangible value.
Will There Never be Freedom?
So, could Bitcoin survive in an unhindered free market even if it is largely a state-caused medium of exchange that has no status as a commodity good? Would an alternative that was related to a good be preferred by users if there was no state predation or reduced state predation? And, is it logical to assume that the level of state predation will never go down? Will state theft risk be so pervasive in most every transaction or savings action from now into eternity that the lack of connection to anything seizable in a purely virtual money will be the paramount consideration from now on over actual value offered by a tradable money that is also a saleable, usable, tangible commodity?
Virtual currencies are an interesting idea. But, if they lack an inherent connection to the tangible world, a doubt is created about their value and there will be similar assumed-value pitfalls as exist with supposed “intellectual property” which also has no claim on anything tangible. One or more currencies with a “virtual” aspect may persist and survive. Only the market will determine that. The real long-term test, however, may be their ability to pass over into a freer society without a big loss of value.
I am optimistic that freedom will prevail, if not universally, then at least in pockets competing against the state to which people will migrate so as to preserve their wealth and personal freedom. In those pockets of relatively higher freedom, the thin, cylindrical, labor-intensive prison food packages would probably fetch a lower price than real ham sandwiches or real pizzas. They would likely be competed out of existence. People would probably eat normal food and rarely invest resources into squishing it into odd, thin, narrow, “state-caused” tubes that would be required when passing it through a secretive conduit in a state-imposed wall. Innovations that get around state-imposed harms are good things, but would they be preferred and exist otherwise without other features?
To go a bit further, is Bitcoin really the equivalent of a squished-up ham sandwich? Bitcoins don’t actually contain any ham. They are claims that a person hopes to trade – though they represent nothing tangible – for a ham sandwich. The hope is that the ham sandwich trader will perceive the risk of state theft also and agree to hold value in nothingness, so that his value can’t be stolen by vigilant Leviathan during the process of storing and transferring wealth used to buy and sell ham sandwiches. So, there needs to be a universally accepted disconnect of tangible value during transactions and between transactions (savings) in order for bitcoin to be viable in the long term. An understood suspension of real goods-for-goods must happen every time a money transaction occurs, with pretty much the sole intent being of avoiding state predations that may intervene in those transactions. And this doesn’t even address the issue of whether Bitcoin is really immune to state plunder.
So, can real capital be moved in a stable manner between people and across generations this way? Real ham sandwiches cannot be received by a starving inmate through a hole in a prison wall in this manner. Can a secret number passed through the hole in the wall be traded inside the concentration camp to other prisoners for ham sandwiches? Possibly, for a while, if everyone agrees in that context that secret numbers not originating with any otherwise usable traits equate to ham sandwiches, but a prisoner that has access to a friend on the outside who can smuggle in real things, for example eggs, will probably get more ham sandwiches in exchange for his real contraband items since the real things meet tangible preferences and represent the free market breaking into the restricted statist market.
So, if state seizure action is partly or completely negated in a freer society – thereby degrading the value of Bitcoin – the only other value left to Bitcoin is the limitation on its supply.
Robinson and Friday Try a Trendy Limited Supply Virtual Money
On that point, here is a little thought experiment involving Robinson Crusoe and Friday on an island. Assume that the two live in a voluntary society with each other and, consequently, all exchanges are mutually agreed upon and maximize value from the viewpoint of each party. They decide to use a trendy virtual currency instead of salt which they previously used. They choose an agreed-upon finite number of planets as their currency. They agree that no new planets can ever be added to the money supply even if more are detected. They decide that their money supply will consist of eight planets. They both like Pluto as a planet, but they decide to not use it so that they can each start out with an even number of planets; four and four. They like the idea that their medium of exchange has a limited supply and that a state, if one should ever descend upon them, would not be able to pluck the virtual planets out of their brains.
One day, on the verge of the short tropical winter, Robinson notices that Friday has accumulated a lot of macadamia nuts. Robinson had been concentrating more on bananas. Robinson proposes to Friday that he will exchange half of Jupiter for ten pounds of macadamia nuts. Friday declines the offer. Then Robinson offers all of Jupiter for ten pounds of macadamia nuts. Friday declines again. Then, Robinson offers all of his planets for any amount of macadamia nuts. Friday declines, but proposes that he will exchange macadamia nuts to Robinson at the rate of three nuts for every banana that Robinson gives him. Friday reminds Robinson that winter is around the corner and that Friday cannot eat virtual planets. Friday also sees no imminent risk of a state stealing his possessions.
So in this case, both Robinson and Friday know that the planets as a medium of exchange are not deliverable to the other as a tangible good to satisfy the other’s real preferences because neither Friday nor Robinson has a spaceship or other means of obtaining possession of real tangible planets for physical delivery to satisfy the other’s wants. The virtual planets are merely a mutually understood method of describing a finite amount of money in a non-good form that has the advantage that it cannot be stolen by the state. The planet names used by Robinson and Friday only serve to specify an intellectually-defined scarcity of something imaginary. So, in this example we can see that the whole virtual solar system cannot be exchanged for a handful of real macadamia nuts. Even though the agreed-upon number of planets that are possessed in a virtual sense represents a finite supply, those virtual planets can never meet any physical needs or tangible preferences in the free market context where Robinson and Friday reside.
In this situation, real bananas and real macadamia nuts trump a completely virtual currency, even one that has a limited supply.
Moral Hazard of Bitcoin
Competing currencies are wonderful, but we still can speculate about how each one would function in a free society or a non-free society and which ones would out-compete the others under different circumstances. Bitcoinesque currencies may or may not have a role in a surveilled, concentration camp society, where prisoners’ possessions and incoming care packages are continually plundered by the prison guards, but they may be lacking utility in a free economy. Non-good virtual currencies have the “shortfall” that they don’t have legal tender laws to force their wide acceptance with guns as do imaginary state monies. Modern man may have become used to these state plunder laws to the point that he may contemplate that non-good items can and do function as money, since he sees the state forcing this to happen around him. But economic reality is different when people are allowed to function without the state mandates and threats, improving their lives in the process.
If society as a whole gets freer, or when pockets of freedom develop, there may also be a moral hazard that will affect Bitcoin holders. They may begin to favor some level of statism that will preserve the value of Bitcoins by maintaining some of the perceived state plunder risk involved when dealing with real commodity exchanges in a free society. The pressure of freedom on Bitcoin may reduce its value and motivate some intelligent holders to value state seizure actions that made this non-good currency so enticing in the first place. There is a risk that Bitcoin holders may become tacit or vocal advocates of barriers to entry for commodity monies as those competing monies may reduce the value of their Bitcoin holdings in a freer or “opt-out” economy where people aren’t baring their souls to a plundering system. Bitcoin holders – seeing their “wealth” dissipate in that context – may militate against the idea of real goods dominating as a medium of exchange.
State caused phenomena often have warped aspects to them because they are the outgrowths of, or response to, an evolving coercive or bubble-causing process. But those things, which sometimes appear as a small previously unneeded detour around the state or as a larger widespread degradation in the human condition don’t always, or even usually, or possibly ever contribute to the long-term benefit of mankind when the specific state pressure ends or decreases.
And when the topic is money, it is one of utmost importance since money is one-half of most daily transactions and one of the primary means by which men express preferences and honor commitments during their lifetimes and across generations. A temporary non-good mechanism that does not pass any real tangible value is a doubtful way to plan one’s future or to convey wealth to one’s heirs.
The doubts on long-term viability of Bitcoin become more relevant when more and more people opt out of state structures – as is common in Latin America – and begin to deal directly with each other without allowing a predatory third party to monitor and intervene in every transaction.
For the last 10 years, job listing site CareerBuilder has put out a list it calls “The Most Unbelievable Excuses for Calling in Sick.” Last year an employee said he couldn’t come in because his false teeth flew out the window while he was driving down the highway. Another claimed that someone had glued her windows and doors shut so she couldn’t get out of her house. This year the excuses include a worker who said he felt he had to stay at a casino when he had money left after a gambling weekend. Then there was the employee who said she couldn’t come in because she had woken up in a good mood and didn’t want to ruin it. I like this one from a past survey: Employee said the ghost in his house kept him up all night.
This year’s excuses were gathered through a Harris HRS +0.39% Poll that ran from Aug. 11 to Sept. 5, 2014, among 3,000 workers and 2,000 hiring managers. See the complete list in the slide show above and at the end of this post.
The list is entertaining—one employee said she couldn’t come to work because she had just put a casserole in the oven—but there is a more serious issue underlying this story. Federal law does not require private employers to give any paid sick leave, making the US the only one of the world’s wealthiest nations that doesn’t guarantee workers this right. Since 2006, cities and states have been adopting their own paid sick leave laws. California, Connecticut, Washington, DC and 13 cities including New York now require many employers to provide some sort of paid sick leave. But according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 39% of private employees still have no access to paid days off. In the CareerBuilder survey, 38% of respondents said they go to work when they’re sick because they can’t afford to miss a day’s pay.
The survey also shows that workers are taking a risk when they come up with far-fetched excuses. Nearly one in five employers (18%) says they have fired an employee for calling in sick with a fake excuse. If you’re spending the day at the beach while pretending to be ill, don’t post about it on Facebook. Nearly one in four employers (24%) has caught an employee lying about being sick by checking social media.
By Dr. Mercola
Seasonal changes come with abundant health benefits, including a bounty of wonderfully tasty superfoods. Eating more fresh vegetables is one of the simplest steps you can take to improve your overall health.
A vegetable-rich diet can help protect you from arthritis, heart disease, stroke, dementia, cancer, and even slow down your body’s aging process. I almost hesitated to write a top five list as there are so many wonderful vegetables.
Vegetables benefit all of your body’s cells and tissues by infusing them with highly bioavailable nutrients that work synergistically for optimal health. Some of those nutrients even help you adapt to stress, such as the B vitamins and folate, omega-3 fats, magnesium, potassium, and glutathione.
A recent study1 found that people who consume seven or more portions of vegetables and fruit per day have a 42 percent lower risk of dying from all causes, compared to those who eat less than one portion—and vegetables pack the greatest punch.
Not all vegetables are nutritionally equal, however. If you want your vegetables to have the highest nutritional density, take a look at my list of powerhouse fruits and vegetables. Bear in mind that consuming a wide variety of different fruits and vegetables is one of the best ways to maximize your nutritional benefit.
In the July 2014 issue of Forbes2 is an article entitled “7 Best Anti-Aging Anti-Cancer Superfoods for Summer.” Now let’s take a look at my own top five—and why I think they deserve that honor.
The beautifully sweet but brightly acidic flavor of a tomato picked fresh from the garden makes for a tasty treat. But in addition to their vibrancy and flavor, tomatoes—especially organic tomatoes—are packed with nutrition, including a variety of phytochemicals that boast a long list of health benefits.
Tomatoes are an excellent source of lutein, zeaxanthin, and vitamin C (which is most concentrated in the jelly-like substance that surrounds the seeds), as well as vitamins A, E, and the B vitamins, potassium, manganese, and phosphorus. Some lesser-known phytonutrients in tomatoes include:
- Flavonols: rutin, kaempferol, and quercetin
- Flavonones: naringenin and chalconaringenin
- Hydroxycinnamic acids: caffeic acid, ferulic acid, and coumaric acid
- Glycosides: esculeoside A
- Fatty acid derivatives: 9-oxo-octadecadienoic acid
Tomatoes are also a particularly concentrated source of lycopene — a carotenoid antioxidant that gives fruits and vegetables like tomatoes and watermelon a pink or red color.
Lycopene’s antioxidant activity has long been suggested to be more powerful than other carotenoids such as beta-carotene, and research suggests it may significantly lower your risk for stroke and cancer.
It’s estimated that 85 percent of dietary lycopene in North Americans comes from tomato products such as tomato juice or tomato paste.3 In addition to lowering your risk for stroke, lycopene from tomatoes (including unsweetened organic tomato sauce) has also been deemed helpful in treating prostate cancer.
If you consume ketchup, choose organic ketchup as it’s been found to contain 57 percent more lycopene than conventional national brands.4 You should alwaysstore your tomatoes at room temperature; ideally, only store them in glass to reduce your BPA and phthalate exposure.
It would also be wise to cook any canned or bottled tomatoes as they tend to accumulate methanol very similar to aspartame. However, if you heat the tomatoes, the methanol is highly volatile and will boil away.
Avocados are nutritional gems, including being rich sources of monounsaturated fat that your body can easily burn for energy. Because they are so rich in healthy fats, avocados help your body absorb fat-soluble nutrients from other foods.
They also provide close to 20 essential health-boosting nutrients, including potassium, vitamin E, B vitamins, and folic acid.
A recent study published in The Journal of Nutrition5 found that consuming a whole fresh avocado with either an orange-colored tomato sauce or raw carrots significantly enhanced your body’s absorption of the carotenoids and conversion of them into an active form of vitamin A.6
The greatest concentration of beneficial carotenoids is in the dark green flesh of the avocado, closest to the peel, so you’re best off peeling your avocado with your hands, like a banana. Avocados have the following additional health benefits:
- Reducing excess cholesterol
- Reducing inflammation
- Combating cancer cells
- Protecting your liver
- Helping with weight management: According to a recent study, if you are overweight, eating just one-half of a fresh avocado with lunch may satiate you and tamp down excessive snacking
Berries contain concentrated amounts of the disease-fighting phytochemicals found to boost your immunity, prevent cancer, protect your heart, and prevent seasonal allergies. Berries are lower in sugar than many fruits, so they are less likely to destabilize your insulin levels.
Women who eat more than three servings of blueberries and strawberries per week have been found to enjoy a 32 percent lower risk of heart attack, due to the fruits’ high anthocyanin content.
In particular, blueberries have several known health benefits. They exert positive effects upon your lipid profile, reducing your risk for type 2 diabetes. And because of their bountiful antioxidants, blueberries are one of the best fruits to protect you from premature aging. Blueberries have also been shown to alleviate inflammatoryintestinal conditions, such as ulcerative colitis.
Two recent studies reveal even more about how berries can protect you against illness. One study published in the June 2014 issue of Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy7 identified a compound in black raspberries that suppresses the growth of tumor cells. Another recent study found that strawberries contain a compound called fisetin that may help prevent Alzheimer’s disease and memory loss.8
In spite of their mild favor and high water content (95 percent), cucumbers contain a number of necessary vitamins and minerals, as well as exerting anti-inflammatory properties. They are rich in vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid), fisetin, vitamin C, vitamin K, potassium, magnesium, manganese, silica, and fiber, and can help your body eliminate toxins. Recent studies show that cucumbers also contain powerful lignans that bind with estrogen-related bacteria in the digestive tract to potentially reduce your risk of several cancers, including breast, uterine, ovarian, and prostate.
Other phytonutrients in cucumbers called cucurbitacins—part of a larger group known as triterpenes—strongly inhibit cancer cell development.9 Cucumbers’ anti-inflammatory properties make them useful when applied topically for skin irritations and puffiness, for conditions such as sunburn and puffy eyes. Traditionally, cucumbers have been used to treat headaches and water retention.
5. Greens, Greens, and More Greens!
Consuming a variety of fresh organic greens is one of the absolute best things you can do for your body. Topping the list in terms of nutrient density are watercress (which are really easy to sprout at home), chard, beet greens, and spinach—but adding other gorgeous leafy greens such as lettuce, kale, collards, dandelion leaves, mustard greens, and escarole will just add to your overall nutrient infusion. Greens like spinach and kale are loaded with cancer-fighting antioxidants including beta-carotene, vitamin C, and sulforaphane. Spinach provides folate, which research shows can dramatically improve your short-term memory.
Eating folate rich foods may also lower your risk for heart disease and cancer by slowing down wear and tear on your DNA. Some leafy greens, including collards and spinach, contain vitamin K1, which is good for your veins and arteries. Beet greens are even more nutritious than beet roots, which should be eaten in moderation due to their high natural sugar content. Beet greens are even higher in iron than spinach and strengthen your immune system by stimulating your body’s production of antibodies and white blood cells, while protecting your brain and bones.
Multiply Your Nutrition Times 30 with Sprouting
Sprouts are a superfood that many people overlook, as they offer a concentrated source of nutrition that’s different from eating vegetables in their mature form. Sprouts provide some of the highest quality protein you can eat and can contain up to 30 times the nutrient content of homegrown organic vegetables. Some of the most common sprouts include alfalfa, mung bean, wheatgrass, peas, broccoli, and lentils—but my personal favorites are sunflower and watercress.
You don’t have to be a gardener to enjoy sprouting. Growing sprouts in your kitchen is easy and requires little space and time. But if you ARE a gardener, don’t throw out those extra seedlings when you’re out thinning your broccoli patch—just toss them right into your salad because they’re a nutritional goldmine! Sprouts have the following beneficial attributes:
- Support for cell regeneration
- Powerful sources of antioxidants, minerals, vitamins, and enzymes that protect against free radical damage
- Alkalinizing effect on your body, which is thought to protect against disease, including cancer (as many tumors are acidic)
- Abundantly rich in oxygen, which can also help protect against abnormal cell growth, viruses, and bacteria that cannot survive in an oxygen-rich environment
Boost the Nutrient Power of Your Harvest by Juicing and Fermenting
Eating foods that are local and in season will help ensure they are fresh and at peak nutritional value, as well as typically being less expensive. Summer through early fall is a time when you can stock up on your favorites—although they may be SO plentiful that you might not know what to do with them all! I have just the solution: juicing and fermenting.
Juicing provides an easy way for you to consume more vegetables in greater variety, in an easily assimilated form. Virtually every health authority recommends you get six to eight servings of vegetables and fruits each day, but very few people actually get that. Juicing is an easy way to reach your daily vegetable goal. Raw juice can be likened to a “living broth,” as it is teeming with micronutrients and good bacteria that many people are lacking.
When you drink fresh-made green juice, it is almost like receiving an intravenous infusion of vitamins, minerals, and enzymes because they go straight into your system without needing to be broken down. Drinking your juice first thing in the morning can give you a natural energy boost without resorting to stimulants like coffee. Since the juice is so easily digested, it can help revitalize your energy levels in as little as 20 minutes. Juicing is also an excellent way to get your vegetables in if you have difficulty digesting fiber.
Fermenting is one of the best ways to turn ordinary vegetables into superfoods. The fermenting process (also known as culturing) produces copious quantities of beneficial microbes that are extremely important for your health, as they help balance your intestinal flora and boost your immunity. When fermenting vegetables, you can either use a starter culture or simply allow the natural enzymes, and good bacteria in and on the vegetables, to do the work. This is called “wild fermentation.”
Personally, I prefer a starter culture, because you have more control over the microbial species and can optimize it to produce higher levels of vitamin K2. For the last two years, we’ve been making two to three gallons of fermented vegetables every week or two in our Chicago office for our staff to enjoy. We use a starter culture of the same probiotic strains that we sell in our store as a supplement, which has been researched by our team to produce about 10 times the amount of vitamin K2 as any other starter culture.
Tips for Selecting the Best Vegetables
Generally speaking, the more vibrantly colorful the vegetable, the more nutritious it will be. I strongly advise you to avoid wilted vegetables because they lose much of their nutritional value. It is wise to eat a variety of dark green leafy vegetables, plus other vividly colored veggies (purple, red, yellow, and orange) to ensure you receive a broad range of those powerful plant nutrients. The following infographic demonstrates how the color of your veggies can give you a clue about which nutrients they provide. For an extensive review of the health benefits of vegetables, please explore our Mercola Food Facts Library.
Food for Thought
The bounty of harvest provides a perfect opportunity for you to get more fresh fruits and vegetables into your diet, and perhaps try a few you haven’t tried before. The more variety you consume—especially local and seasonal—the higher their nutritional quality will be and the more you will benefit.
My top five vegetable superfoods are tomatoes, avocados, berries, cucumbers, and leafy greens (with watercress, collard greens, kale, and spinach topping the list). You can enrich your diet even further by adding juicing, sprouting, and fermenting to your dietary routine. Keep in mind that your goal is to consume the widest possible variety of fresh, organic vegetables and fruits to ensure the broadest complement of phytonutrients, which is the ultimate way to feed your body—and take control of your health.
Sources and References
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Russia, China; terrorists, communists, Ebola. Need a war? They have an enemy.
Not yet satiated, The Department of Defense has found a new one; Rachel Martin interviews Admiral David Titley. Let’s leave the story-telling to them:
RM: The debate over climate change in this country has dramatically shifted over the years. The question is no longer whether climate change exists, but rather what can be done to slow its effects? And the U.S. Department of Defense is asking the same question.
I agree completely – there is no question that the climate is changing, much as has happened in every chapter of history. Cold spells, warm spells, droughts, floods. Almost like clockwork, the climate changes.
RM: This past week, the Pentagon released a report saying that rising temperatures pose an immediate threat to national security, and it outlined a plan to the crisis.
I guess the Navy has run out of wars to fight? How is this a threat that the Navy can handle?
DT: So while I don’t think anybody claims that climate change caused the Arab Spring, there’s a lot of research that shows that it was probably one of the contributing factors.
Oh. Blame it on the Arabs. Those darn sun spots – they drive people crazy, I guess. Perhaps when the entire world gets as hot as the Arabian Desert, we will all become terrorists?
The Admiral suggests that the battle for climate change will be fought in the Arctic. Don’t worry, the interviewer is equally confused:
RM: Can you make the connection? Can you make the connection for me? Why would the U.S. military have to open up that front? Why would they be working in the Arctic?
DT: Oil and gas, I think many people know that some of the last greatest reserves of oil and gas are up in the Arctic.
So, the navy must protect access to oil and gas – one of the primary contributors (per the bogus science) of man-made global warming climate change?
RM: But how would the military respond? …What do you propose that the U.S. military be doing to combat climate change? Is there anything from a tactical level that can be done?
DT: Sure. So from a tactical level….
Tactical nukes – enough to lower the temperature a few degrees:
Nuclear winter (also known as atomic winter) is a hypothetical climatic effect of countervalue nuclear war. Models suggest that detonating dozens or more nuclear weapons on cities prone to firestorm, comparable to the Hiroshima city of 1945, could have a profound and severe effect on the climate causing cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or even years by the emission of large amounts of the firestorms’ smoke and soot into the Earth’s stratosphere.
How about just lobbing twenty or thirty thousand warheads in the direction of the sun? Knock a few hundred thousand square kilometers of the Sun’s photosphere out of commission, diminishing the area from which energy is released? Call it “Operation Enduring Winter.”
Just kidding, he didn’t say this.
Maybe they can attach a thermostat to the Sun. Yeah, that’s it.
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
World War II created the vast military-complex. Once that was created, they used the threat of Communism to expand. Indeed, Communism was the battle cry for both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The discovery of Eisenhower’s notes on his famous Farewell Speech of January 17, 1961, which were discovered only in 2011, illustrate that this was in the draft stage for years.
Eisenhower was always talking about the Cold War and the threat it was transforming American into a “garrison state.” Eisenhower was a general and the military thought they had put their man in office and he would give them the golden keys to the nation’s vault. The military wanted a lot more than he was willing to give them. Most people have no idea that Eisenhower stood as a check against the military that he saw had grown 10 fold from before the war and was consuming the nation’s resources.
The military was extremely frustrated Eisenhower and his farewell address was critical for he was attempting to pass on a warning. This battle between the ever-increasing demands from the military is what Eisenhower warned about and I believe Kennedy clearly understood that development and was eventually assassinated for trying to curtail its growth.
Yes there was Lee Harvey Oswald who was never put on trial and was assassinated by Jack Ruby who dies in prison. If there had been a trial, it may have proven there were other shooters and that he was a unknowing participant in a much grander conspiracy. This same pattern appears to have been used with 911. Yes there were “terrorists” but they too were being used for a greater purpose – to expand the military complex once again.
Reprinted from Armstrong Economics.
The State a singularity? How so? And what does “singularity” mean? According to the Oxford Dictionary it means “the fact of being singular” and singular means “single, unique”. The word singularity is derived from the Latin “singularitas” and this amounts to uniqueness, anomaly, outlandishness. And that`s exactly what the State, every state, is! It`s a unique phenomenon as it is the sole entity on this planet that:
1. originated from violent crime
2. exclusively, permanently, and constantly commits violent crimes
3. cannot survive without committing violent crimes
Without exaggerating the State therefore can be characterized as institutionalized violent crime. No other person or institution on this planet even comes close. Astonishingly, despite its morally perverted character, the overwhelming majority of the people love the State, take it for granted, regard it as necessary, or simply accept it with a shrug as some kind of natural phenomenon, while simultaneously utterly critizising criminal behavior by individuals and corporations and stridently calling for prosecution – amusingly by the country`s biggest criminal, the State. This obviously must be understood as some kind of global schizophrenia.
1. That on the first stages of its formation the State was created solely from violence, coercion, and predation has already most reasonably been established by Prof. Franz Oppenheimer. The State is a societal institution which was imposed by a victorious group of people with the only purpose of securing the rule of the conquerors over the defeated and safeguarding it against internal uprisings and external attacks. And the rule had no other objective than the economic exploitation of the defeated by the victorious (Oppenheimer, Der Staat, 3rd Edition [German], 1929, p.15). This is still true today, considering the citizens` forced tribute payments under such trivializing and obfuscatory terms like taxes, duties, and contributions.
2. That the State exclusively, permanently, and constantly commits violent crimes already reveals itself with little intellectual effort from the laws made by the State itself, which of course only apply to the inferior subjects and not to the godlike State, sitting enthroned above everyone and everything.
The State commits murder and manslaughter, e.g. by the unprovoked, not justified by self-defense, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It deprives the individuals being at its mercy of heir freedom (= puts them in jail) if they don`t pay the imposed tributes (= taxes) or otherwise don`t do exactly what it requests in its self-made laws. It collects the demanded tribute (= taxes) by violence or threat of violence (extortion under threat of force). The State keeps some of the loot from its extortion for itself and distributes the rest to his bureaucrats and minions (money laundering and concealment of unlawfully obtained assets). To stealthily and unnoticedly expropriate its subjects the State produces bank notes which are no money and which don`t possess any underlying real asset value (counterfeiting and fraud). This list could be continued almost infinitely.
To these facts the alleged intellectuals object (“alleged” because intellectual essentially means that someone has the ability to apprehend and perceive) that the State`s laws permit the actions of the State and its bureaucrats and that the laws were made by representatives which were elected by the people. This of course is incredible idiocy and has always been used as a foolish excuse to justify state atrocities in which oneself participated or still participates energetically. Voters can only confer such rights upon their representatives which they themselves possess. But no voter has the right to coerce his neighbor at gunpoint to hand over his money or to kill someone who didn`t attack first. Hence no representative can have got these rights transferred to him. And consequently no riotous assembly of representatives (“parliament”) can enact any law justifying robbery and murder if committed by the State. That state laws can neither morally-ethically nor according to (natural) law create authorities for the State already follows from the efforts all states have pursued and still pursue for presenting some basic justification for their arbitrarily created rules and authorities, be it from divine counsel or from the democratic procedure which superseded it in modern times.
The Fifth Commandment reads: “Thou shalt not kill” and not something like “Thou shalt not kill except by order of a state”. And the Seventh Commandment says: “Thou shalt not steal” and not “Thou shalt not steal unless justified by majority decision”. The laws the State begets are solely meant to safeguard its power derived from its monopoly on the use of force and its fiscal monopoly. Thus, in reality these laws signify what already Frédéric Bastiat astutely perceived: “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” The tax evaders who, conducive to the State and well-covered by the media, fake remorse and call for tax-honesty, are a nice illustration, as well as the explanation for the military`s murder missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as defending America “over there”. For the politicians no explanation is too foolish not to present to the people as a justification for the State`s criminal behavior – and the people are foolish enough to take each and every of these explanations at face value.
And then there are the so-called minarchists who want to reduce the State`s scope and limit its enforcement powers but don`t intend to abandon it altogether (“laisser-faire regimen”) – an especially distinctive form of schizophrenia. For the minarchists it`s intolerable that the State kills millions of people, but a few thousands are okay. For minarchists it`s not acceptable that the State extorts billions of taxes from its subjects but there are no objections to a few hundred millions. While regarding the serious-crime state-lovers with disgust they themselves fancy being on the morally safe side as petty-crime state-lovers. This conception makes nonsense of itself as it isn`t able to reason what a less sprawling criminal behavior could possibly change with regard to the fact of the persistent and intrinsic state delinquency and its amorality. Ask the victims of the smaller minarchist state if they feel that this kind of state is quite alright.
3. That the State cannot survive without permanently committing violent crimes already follows from a simplethought experiment: if you take away the State`s possibility for the monopolized use of force, it immediately collapses as it is no longer able to finance itself by violence or threat of violence. It then simply cannot fund its favored groups (big corporations, banks, pressure groups etc.) and its own bureaucracy (pretentiously called “public servants”) any more. This means: a state without violence is neither possible nor imaginable.
The term “public servant” for the bureaucrats is deceptive as in reality they do not serve the public. They solely serve the State and not its subjects and therefore should be called “state servants”. The State depends on them for its survival. They implement what the state-owners determined. Without these willing agents who don`t consider themselves too good for leaving any ethics at the latest in the cloakroom when entering the State`s service as a quid pro quo for getting a fixed monthly salary from robbed loot, the State wouldn`t be able to act. This firmly proves the corrupt basic attitude of these state servants.
But who are those bureaucrats anyway? Themselves criminals! Every state of course recruits and only can recruit criminals for executing its dirty job because morally superior people would never work for a racket. The State and its bureaucrats are both parasites living on other people`s productivity. Their essential principle of action – might makes right – is almost identical. And their chief objective, to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, is congruent (Justin Raimondo). Therefore you won`t find morally decent people in state service, at best some desperately pretending to be – and professionally at most second-rate individuals. For who works voluntarily for a gang of criminals which pays his fixed monthly salary from robbed loot? Now, there are those gullible men who believe that criminal attitude cannot be ascribed to every bureaucrat or even to the majority of bureaucrats. But that`s an indefensible position. On the contrary, one must ascribe criminal attitude and this accusation is well-founded. The State procures its funds by predation and extortion. This knows every bureaucrat, even if maybe he doesn`t like to admit this perception to himself or suppresses his conscience. Should he actually not know, then ignorance is no excuse against moral and (natural law) legal liability. The bureaucrats subsist on part of the State`s loot, the rest becomes redistributed to the State`s minions. In that the bureaucrats assist energetically. This in the State`s own, self-invented legal terminology is called complicity, aiding and abetting, fencing, money laundering, and concealment of unlawfully obtained assets. Everybody working for the State participates in it and all participants are (co-) responsible.
There are more than a few opining that the State also does good and useful work. On the one hand – they say – it provides protection against external enemies and internal criminals. On the other hand it applies the monies from the taxes it collects to social purposes. But, whoever justifies the existence of the State, pointing to its protective function domestic and against foreign enemies, shows that he hasn`t conceived the causation why the State accepted this function in the first place. The protective function is a duty assumed by the ruling class on behalf of safeguarding their sovereign rights and revenues. The State doesn`t come into existence because of its protective function, instead the protective function arises on behalf of the already existing state (Oppenheimer, loc. cit., p.13). The State provides protection not for the sake of its subjects but only in its own interest, i.e. for himself. As regards the State`s alleged social attitude there immediately arises a serious moral question. If I take away $1,000 at gunpoint from my neighbor and then pass on $100 to a needy old woman so she doesn`t starve, is my action towards my neighbor then legally – based on natural rights – and morally justified? Of course not! To begin with, it`s without doubt easy being generous when I don`t have to work for my money but only need to threaten somebody with my gun. Moreover, my social support of a needy doesn`t change anything with the criminal wrongs of my preceding act. Otherwise every bank robber would have to get out scot-free if he directed a small part of his loot to social purposes. And if the State indeed rendered useful services why doesn`t it meet the challenge of competing with it on the free market, without any coercion? Quite simply because the State knows exactly how many people would make use of its services if they had free choice: almost nobody. If the State were sure of offering a valuable good or a useful service for a competitive price, would it then have to convince its “customers” at gunpoint to purchase these goods and services? Of course not! But that`s exactly what the State does when “offering” its services, knowing quite well that otherwise almost nobody would “buy”.
And yet others believe that the State`s existence and actions are justified by a social contract with its subjects, articled in the constitution. This opinion is nothing but crude nonsense, circulated by the usual state-funded state apologists. I know of not one single state having come into existence by voluntary agreement between all individuals concerned. The State did neither arise out of the need for association (Plato) nor is it a natural construct (Aristotle) nor did it develop to end the war of all against all (Hobbes) nor did it emerge by virtue of a social contract (Grotius, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau), but by violence and conquest (Oppenheimer, loc. cit., pp.13, 14).
The State really is a singular phenomenon. Murray Rothbard stated quite rightly that with the exception of the State all other persons and groups in society – save for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers – obtain their income by voluntary exchange of goods and services. Only the State “earns” its revenue by coercion, threatening dire penalties should tribute – known under the term “taxes” – not be paid. Taxes are simply extortion under threat of force to the greatest conceivable extent, an extent of which an ordinary criminal can only dream. Taxes are the forced confiscation of the State inhabitants` property. And one might add the following: Even the acknowledged and sporadic criminal is in a morally better position than the State. For if you take away the possibility of use of force from an individual or a corporation, still the individual or the corporation remains. And they then, without using force, still can do a lot of good: produce commodities, offer services, help other people in need and much more. The State by contrast, without resort to violence, couldn`t do any of this good because he would not be able to finance itself and its supporters/bureaucrats without coercion any longer and would immediately cease to exist. This leaves only one morally correct decision: the State must be abolished.
As a demonstration of how well-drilled New York City officials are in how to deal with Ebola, it left a lot to be desired.
Two New York City police officers who attended the Harlem apartment building of Dr Craig Spencer – the first confirmed Ebola case in the city – were observed afterward dumping their protective gear and caution tape in a garbage bin on the street.
While it was not immediately clear if the two officers had been inside Dr Spencer’s apartment, the episode had many people asking if the equipment should not have been disposed of in a biohazard bag – even if only as a precaution.
Jitters spread through New York on Thursday after it was revealed Dr Spencer spent seven days in the city after returning from Africa with the Ebola virus in his bloodstream.
He caught the subway, went bowling with friends, visited a tourist site and ate at a restaurant.
While officials say he had no symptoms at the time of these activities and was therefore almost surely not infectious, many New Yorkers are worried all the same.
Accidents at Germ Labs Have Occurred Worldwide
Nations such as Russia, South Africa and the U.S. have long conducted research into how to make deadly germs even more deadly. And accidents at these research facilities have caused germs to escape, killing people and animals near the facilities.
For example, the Soviet research facility at Sverdlovsk conducted anthrax research during the Cold War. They isolated the most potent strain of anthrax culture and then dried it to produce a fine powder for use as an aerosol. In 1979, an accident at the facility released anthrax, killing 100.
The U.S. has had its share of accidents. USA Today noted in August:
More than 1,100 laboratory incidents involving bacteria, viruses and toxins that pose significant or bioterror risks to people and agriculture were reported to federal regulators during 2008 through 2012, government reports obtained by USA TODAY show.
In two other incidents, animals were inadvertently infected with contagious diseases that would have posed significant threats to livestock industries if they had spread. One case involved the infection of two animals with hog cholera, a dangerous virus eradicated from the USA in 1978. In another incident, a cow in a disease-free herd next to a research facility studying the bacteria that cause brucellosis, became infected ….
The issue of lab safety and security has come under increased scrutiny by Congress in recent weeks after a series of high-profile lab blunders at prestigious government labsinvolving anthrax, bird flu and smallpox virus.
The new lab incident data indicate mishaps occur regularly at the more than 1,000 labs operated by 324 government, university and private organizations across the country ….
“More than 200 incidents of loss or release of bioweapons agents from U.S. laboratories are reported each year. This works out to more than four per week,” said Richard Ebright, a biosafety expert at Rutgers university in New Jersey, who testified before Congress last month at a hearing about CDC’s lab mistakes.
The only thing unusual about the CDC’s recent anthrax and bird flu lab incidents, Ebright said, is that the public found out about them. “The 2014 CDC anthrax event became known to the public only because the number of persons requiring medical evaluation was too high to conceal,” he said.
CDC officials were unavailable for interviews and officials with the select agent program declined to provide additional information. The USDA said in a statement Friday that“all of the information is protected under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.”
Such secrecy is a barrier to improving lab safety ….
Gronvall notes that even with redundant systems in high-security labs, there have been lab incidents resulting in the spread of disease to people and animals outside the labs.
She said a lab accident is considered by many scientists to be the most likely source of the re-emergence in 1977 of an H1N1 flu strain that had disappeared in 1957 because the genetic makeup of the strain hadn’t changed as it should have over those decades. A 2009 article in the New England Journal of Medicine noted the 1977 strain was so similar to the one that disappeared that it suggests it had been “preserved” and that the re-emergence was “probably an accidental release from a laboratory source.”
When this writer was 3 years old, the Empire of Japan devastated Battleship Row of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Before I was 7, Gen. MacArthur was in an office in Tokyo overlooking the Imperial Palace, dictating to a shattered Japan.
In 1956, President Eisenhower, impressed by the autobahn he had seen in Hitler’s Reich, ordered a U.S. Interstate Highway System constructed, tying America together, one of the great public works projects in all history.
Within a decade, the system was on its way to completion.
In 1961, John F. Kennedy said the United States, beaten into space by Nikita Khrushchev’s Soviet Union, would put a man on the moon and return him to earth within the decade.
In July 1969, President Nixon, on the deck of the carrier Hornet, welcomed home Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins of Apollo 11.
What ever became of that America? What ever became of that can-do nation? What has happened to us?
This October saw the vaunted Center for Disease Control and Prevention fumbling over basic questions on how to protect Americans from an Ebola epidemic in three small countries of West Africa.
In September, an intruder with a knife climbed the White House fence, trotted across the North lawn, walked through the unlocked front door of the president’s house, barreled over a female officer, and ran around the East Room before being tackled by a Secret Service agent going off duty. The president had just departed.
Days earlier, an armed security guard in Atlanta with a violent criminal past was allowed by Secret Service to ride an elevator with Barack Obama.
Last summer came reports that 60,000 children and young people from Central America had walked across the border into the United States, overwhelming our Border Patrol.
Last spring, we learned that sick and suffering vets were deliberately made to wait months for appointments to see VA doctors, and dozens may have died during the wait.
Earlier, the rollout of Obamacare, years in preparation, became a national joke and a metaphor for government incompetence.
Under President Bush came Katrina, where 30,000 residents of New Orleans were stranded for days behind a pool of stagnant water after a hurricane. The city and state couldn’t handle it.
Yet, during five days in 1940, 350,000 British troops, besieged at Dunkirk, were rescued from across the Channel by their countrymen in boats and yachts under the guns of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.
Such events have contributed to a collapse of confidence among Americans in the competency of their leaders and their government.
Large majorities now believe America is heading downhill, that the future will not be as good as the past, that we are going in the wrong direction.
Malaise pervades the republic.
And there are larger reasons for these sentiments.
Our recent wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, all seem to have left them and us worse off. In fighting our new war in Iraq and Syria we have neither a credible strategy nor sufficient troops to prevail against the Islamic State.
Already, Americans are asking: Why is this our war?
Since the mid-1970s, the real wages of working Americans have stagnated as we have run uninterrupted trade deficits totaling more than $10 trillion. Under Obama the national debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product.
Our manufacturing base has been hollowed out with Detroit as Exhibit A. We outsource our future by borrowing from China to buy from China.
We borrow from Japan and Europe to defend Japan and Europe, though World War II has been over for 70 years.
FedEx tracks with precision millions of packages a day. But the U.S. government cannot locate and send back 12 million illegal aliens.
Thirty years after a Reagan amnesty that carried a commitment to secure our borders, Obama is preparing an executive amnesty for untold millions of illegals, as soon as the election is over. And still the borders are not secure.
If government is conceded a role in anything, it is in building roads, bridges, highways and airports, and in running public schools.
Yet our infrastructure is crumbling, U.S. children fall lower and lower in international competition, and the racial divide in academic performances has never closed, despite an investment of trillions in education over half a century. Even Joe Biden calls LaGuardia a “Third World” airport.
Many private institutions are succeeding splendidly. But our public institutions, save the military, seem to be broadly failing.
Congress is gridlocked. The president is seen as a dithering incompetent. The Supreme Court is polarized irreparably.
Our political, racial and cultural clashes, traceable to conflicts created by the revolutions of the 1960s, are daily magnified and exacerbated by cable TV, the Internet and social media.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,” wrote the poet Yeats.
Clare Luce put is another way. In this world, she said, there are two kinds of people — optimists and pessimists. “The pessimists are better informed.”
Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was violently brought down from the skies over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers to what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation. The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative procedure was never carried out. Until that’s done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders or black boxes and eye-witnesses’ testimonies. This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft, whether a rocket fired from the ground or gunfire from a military jet.
Reprinted with permission from Russia Today.
Throughout the history of alternative medicine, few remedies have had the staying power of colloidal silver. No matter how much the medical establishment tries to ignore and ridicule it, somehow its practice has never been forgotten. And for every person who claims it is harmful snake oil, there is another who has been using it for years without any ill effects.
That’s because, despite what the media will tell you, colloidal silver isn’t as dangerous as you might think. There are only a handful of people who have been afflicted with the famous “blue man” disease known as Argyria. Typically these are caused by silver chloride or silver proteins, though the media tends to lump them all together with colloidal silver. In other cases the afflicted was taking extremely large doses over many years.
Whatever the case may be, it is possible to make your own colloidal silver, and do so cheaply and safely. As antibiotics begin to breed superbugs, and viral outbreaks continue to make headlines, more and more people are looking towards alternative remedies like colloidal silver. Since Ebola has reached American shores, and with no real cure in sight, the attention towards colloidal silver has been making a comeback
This of course means that a lot of people will be making their own colloidal silver (CS) machines, because most of the devices you can buy online don’t come cheap. Which is unfortunate, because the materials required to make your own CS machine aren’t that expensive.
Below is an example of a pretty simple method of making your own CS without breaking the bank. It should look pretty familiar to those of you who’ve been making their own CS for a long time, but with some slight changes. It involves connecting two pieces of silver to a battery source, and setting them rest in a container of water. As the electricity tries to run between the pieces, particles of silver will be shed from the source, and will be suspended in the water. Viola! Colloidal Silver.
Of course, it’s a little more complicated than that, especially if you want to do this safely. I prefer this method because it’s so cheap and so widely known. If it were harmful, there would be a lot more cases of Argyria. Since I can count with my fingers how many people have gotten sick from silver, I trust this method over the rest. So without further ado, let me show you how to make your own colloidal silver.
First thing’s first though, you’re going to need to gather your materials
You’ll need 3-4 9 volt batteries. If you only plan on using only small amounts of CS, then the cheaper disposable batteries will last you a long time. If however, you plan on administering CS to your family on a regular basis, or perhaps you’re going to be using it for housecleaning (it is after all, antibacterial), then you might want to invest in some lithium batteries and a charger.
The simplest way to connect your batteries to the silver, is by connecting them to alligator clips. In this particular design, you’ll need three pairs of clips. Unfortunately it’s pretty hard to find alligator clips that aren’t sold in bulk, so you’ll probably have to buy a set of 10. Fortunately, even in bulk they’re pretty cheap.
There’s a wide variety of opinions on what you should use as your source of silver. What is agreed upon, is that you should have two separate pieces, that contain a minimum of 99.9% silver or .999. Silver plated or sterling silver will not do. These materials contain other elements like copper or nickel (which is toxic).
Most CS machines take silver wire. You’ll have to shop around and avoid most of the jewelry grade wire, which is usually just sterling silver. A lot of people buy 99.99% for CS as opposed to just 99.9%. It’s probably safer, but it’s also a lot more expensive. I personally wouldn’t mind the extra cost since this material will last you a long time, but it’s often way overpriced when it comes from certain CS vendors. Fortunately there are some cheaper listings out there.
Some people don’t trust the quality of silver wire though, since a lot of it is made in China. I can’t say I blame them. Those folks usually prefer to buy 1 ounce silver bullionbars (typically .999, which should be sufficiently safe). They’re cheaper, easier to trace back to their country of origin, and are more rigorously regulated than jewelry wire. You can trust that you’ll get what you pay for.
It’s vitally important that you use only the cleanest sources of water. There should be almost no particulate matter of any kind in your water. You can usually find relatively cheap distilled water at any grocery store. Although, if you don’t trust store bought water you can make your own. Some of you may already have a Berkey water filter, which should be more than sufficient. Most CS websites also recommend distilling the water by boiling it and collecting the steam. You can either buy a water distiller, or you can go the DIY route.
Current Regulator Diode
This is where this design will differ from most DIY colloidal silver machines. You’re going to need a way to regulate the current that is running between the two pieces of silver. When the silver first goes into the water, there will be very little current, because distilled water isn’t very conductive. Silver however, is the most conductive element on the periodic table. So as those particles separate from your silver wire, the water will become more conductive.
It’s widely believed among CS enthusiasts, that as the current grows, it begins to strip larger and larger pieces of silver. This is bad. Those larger particles aren’t as effective at eliminating bacteria and viruses, and they’re more likely to accumulate in your body over time. This means you run the risk of getting Argyria.
A current regulator diode should rectify this problem. It’ll keep the current from increasing beyond a certain point, so your CS machine will continue to produce high quality silver ions. You’ll want a diode that keeps the current at around 1 milliamp, though if it goes slightly over or under it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Five seconds in Dallas changed the course of American history, and the men haunted most by the memories of that day are the ones who could have had a hand in preventing the tragedy.
The assassination of John F Kennedy more than 50 years ago has become a subject of intense scrutiny, with countless books and more than a dozen films devoted to investigating the shooting and its related conspiracy theories.
But agents’ testimony and the findings of the Warren Commission point to simple steps that might have averted Kennedy’s death, namely having the Secret Service agents better prepared for protecting Kennedy instead of staying out late and drinking the night before.
With the Secret Service in the midst of several scandals,Vanity Fair has taken another look at the readiness of the agency in 1963 and found the hard partying and lackadaisical attitude that plagues the agency now was a problem even then.
Veteran CBS broadcaster Bob Schieffer was just a beat reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1963, but he recalled on the night before the assassination being in the company of several Secret Service agents into the early hours.
Nine agents had wandered over to the Fort Worth Press Club from the Hotel Texas around midnight, searching for a bite to eat after a long day working the escort detail for the president’s trip to Texas.
Finding the food already gone, agents made do with some scotch and sodas and a couple cans of beer before seven of the agents followed journalists to the Cellar, a late-night hangout in town.
‘The Cellar was an all-night San Francisco–style coffee house down the street and some of the visiting reporters had heard about it and wanted to see it,’ Schieffer explains.
‘So we all went over there and some of the agents came along. The place didn’t have a liquor license, but they did serve liquor to friends—usually grain alcohol and Kool-Aid.’
TORONTO – In Quebec on Monday, two Canadian soldiers were hit by a car driven by Martin Couture-Rouleau, a 25-year-old Canadian who, as The Globe and Mail reported, “converted to Islam recently and called himself Ahmad Rouleau.” One of the soldiers died, as did Couture-Rouleau when he was shot by police upon apprehension after allegedly brandishing a large knife. Police speculated that the incident was deliberate, alleging the driver waited for two hours before hitting the soldiers, one of whom was wearing a uniform. The incident took place in the parking lot of a shopping mall 30 miles southeast of Montreal, “a few kilometres from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the military academy operated by the Department of National Defence.”
The right-wing Canadian government wasted no time in seizing on the incident to promote its fear-mongering agenda over terrorism, which includes pending legislation to vest its intelligence agency, CSIS, with more spying and secrecy powers in the name of fighting ISIS. A government spokesperson asserted “clear indications” that the driver “had become radicalized.”
In a “clearly prearranged exchange,” a conservative MP, during parliamentary question time, asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pictured above) whether this was considered a “terrorist attack”; in reply, the prime minister gravely opined that the incident was “obviously extremely troubling.” Canada’s Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney pronounced the incident “clearly linked to terrorist ideology,” while newspapers predictably followed suit, calling it a “suspected terrorist attack” and “homegrown terrorism.” CSIS spokesperson Tahera Mufti said “the event was the violent expression of an extremist ideology promoted by terrorist groups with global followings” and added: “That something like this would happen in a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu shows the long reach of these ideologies.”
In sum, the national mood and discourse in Canada is virtually identical to what prevails in every Western country whenever an incident like this happens: shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country (“a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu”), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the “terrorist ideology” of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation. There are two points worth making about this:
First, Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister revealed, with the support of a large majority of Canadians, that “Canada is poised to go to war in Iraq, as [he] announced plans in Parliament  to send CF-18 fighter jets for up to six months to battle Islamic extremists.” Just yesterday, Canadian Defence Minister Rob Nicholson flamboyantly appeared at the airfield in Alberta from which the fighter jets left for Iraq and stood tall as he issued the standard Churchillian war rhetoric about the noble fight against evil.
When innocent people are being killed, wounded and driven from their homes as refugees and nowhere to go, it is very painful to have to say “We told you so”. But it’s necessary to say it because what’s going on today at Kobani is rooted in the past, and in that past it’s American war-making in Iraq and elsewhere in the war on terror that has spawned ISIS, even its weaponry.
ISIS is blowback with a vengeance. The libertarian non-intervention and anti-war position has been totally correct for a very long time. The war and intervention position of the U.S. government has been totally wrong for a very long time.
The U.S. is unable to contend with the complex politics associated with its wars. Complicated politics interfere with every U.S. intervention and the ISIS case is no exception. The politics of Turkey, Syria, Kurds and ISIS alone seriously thwarts attempts to defeat ISIS.
Politics is not the sole factor that always stands in the way of the success of U.S. war making. The U.S. political leadership, both parties comprising one war party coalition, seriously and consistently over-estimates what can be accomplished by its military forces, which are designed for wars of the distant past. Even in those wars, the methods used involved unbelievably huge numbers of deaths, civilian and military, and this won’t be tolerated by today’s public. The U.S. military is a crony capitalist construction ill-designed to fight and win fourth-generation wars. It lives as a superior force only in myth and hot air, only as a force capable of huge destruction and disruption but without meaningful victory or success.
“This is so pathetic. The journalists reporting on this intervention are so chuffed about all this hardware and blowing-up-stuff. My god, the Europeans even have a cruise missile named after a GI Joe character (Storm Shadow! What’s not to like?!) How can they not be devastating? But the sad fact is that ISIS have pick up trucks, and dudes with attitude. Spending a quarter of a million pounds to blow up a battered technical and a dude with attitude is not efficient. Nor is it going to help the people fighting those dudes. ISIS are fighting a classical war of movement, and given their numbers and the tools they’re using, it’s ridiculously inefficient to try and destroy them using modern air warfare. Boots on the ground, or go home!
“The sad reality is that there’s nothing we in the West can do from afar to stop this monster. ISIS is the Middle East’s Khmer Rouge, and they have arisen from the same hellish swamp: just as the Khmer Rouge seized power violently in the aftermath of the US destruction of Cambodia, ISIS are seizing power violently in the aftermath of the mess created by the US in Iraq, and by the US and Europe in Syria. It’s an object lesson in failed states: create them, and the psychopaths will come. The best way to stop ISIS was to stop the second Iraq war, but our leaders (of all political stripes) were so stupid, vain and cruel that they thought the second Iraq war was a grand idea. ISIS is the brainchild of Tony Blair, John Howard and George Bush. They made it, and their inheritors cannot stop it unless they are wiling to expend the lives and blood of western soldiers that they were so loathe to shed in the past war. Of course that’s not going to happen, so instead they’ll spend millions of dollars blowing up pick-up trucks for a year, until they have trained a force of rebels who will enter Syria just to die. This is what our ‘civilized’ society created, and what our leaders refuse to commit to fixing.”
I do not know what this blogger wants to see done to in the way of “fixing”. But I know the modern libertarian, anti-war and non-interventionist position, and it has been consistent for 50 years. That is the only way I know of even to begin to fix up the murderous mess that the U.S. government has created. This route requires abandoning the pretensions of power employed through military, economic and financial means to control the politics and economies of other nations.
Leadership, if it is to be exercised by any nation on earth or by any cluster of nations or by all nations each in their own ways, cannot any longer be through power and dominance. It must be through peaceful means of work, invention, communication, science, giving, art, education, building, diplomacy and example. In short, there is no fix except through all these and other of the numerous peaceful means known to mankind that have been shunted aside, suppressed and become mere appendages to the warring mentalities that now make policy in Washington.
U.S. politics has to shift to non-intervention if a fix is what is wanted. This means that the empire must be contracted and ended. If this is not done by Washington, then it will be done to Washington. Washington’s own blunders and follies will lead to the empire’s downfall.
Mourn with me.
Cadillac – Cadillac! – no longer sells a single car powered by a V-8 engine. Or such will be the case in about two months, when 2014 fades to 2015. Come Jan. 1, all new Cadillac cars will be powered by fours or sixes. Some will be turbocharged. But none will larger than 3.6 liters.
The last of the V-8 Caddys – the (very) limited production CTS-V sedan/wagon – is being retired. There appears to be a replacement on deck for 2016, but the continued politically viability of V-8 engines within the system (so to speak) is shaky. Not because people don’t want the power. But because government demands “economy” – creating an impossible Catch 22 situation.
The 6.2 liter V-8 in the current (2014) CTS-V produces 556 magnificent horsepower – more horsepower than any ’60s-era muscle car (including the halo’d Chrysler 426 Street Hemi). But its Achilles Heel in this misbegotten age – in which government bureaucrats and political hacks decree car design via regulatory edicts as opposed to the freely expressed wishes of the people who buy the cars – is its hunger for fuel. The CTS-V’s EPA mileage stats are the modern-day equivalent of a racist joke caught on mike: 14 city, 19 highway.
Hear the lamentations of the women.
And so, GM – like every other automaker – is scrambling to “apologize” for its sins – atonement coming in the form of much smaller (but ironically only slightly more economical) not-V-8s such as the 3.6 liter V-6 that will be the mainstay powerplant in future Cadillac “V” (high-performance) vehicles.
Instead of 556 hp, 420 hp. But hey, 21 city and 31 highway will be your reward. Is it a fair exchange? The loss of 136 hp, two cylinders and 2.6 liters’ worth of engine in exchange for a 7 MPG uptick in city driving – and 12 on the highway?
But that’s not the issue.
Market demand isn’t the decider here. Government force is. And that’s the issue.
Or rather, the question.
Will someone enlighten me where I can find the clause in the Constitution – allegedly the supreme law of the land – that endows the federal government with the rightful power to dictate car design to GM or anyone else? And it’s not even the elected government that’s dictating car design. It is unelected apparatchiks within the bureaucracy – EPA and DOT. These are not accountable to any voter; have never been given a mandate to do anything by “the people.” Ensconced in their warren of cubicles within dreary-looking Soviet-style buildings in and around Washington, they simply decide – and we’re supposed to accept.
These car czars (to borrow a popular term used by people in government themselves that’s very revelatory about their attitudes toward “the people” they rule) don’t like “inefficient” cars. But they seem unable to comprehend that no car company can force people to buy such cars. If, in fact, such cars are considered unpalatable by the market, the market will spit them back of its own accord. So, all the triumphant trumpeting coming out of the EPA and DOT (and White House) about the Great Work done by these wise lawgivers to make sure Americans have access to “fuel efficient” cars is (per Col. Potter from MASH) horsehockey.