(Part two. Continued from part one.)
CIA cold war and hot war activity was coming to light for the first time and was falling into the crosshairs of Congress and the media. Anti-communist arguments had been a sufficient rationale, up to this point, to conduct black ops in the foreign and domestic arena. Not anymore. This gold mine was being shut down. The war against commies was no longer palatable to Congress or to the public.
DEA Saves the Day for Disgraced Cold Warriors
But the new three-letter agency, which was created by executive fiat on the exact same day that the long successful anti-red rationale for war was shut down by Congress, saved the day for previously covert and sometimes overt warriors who were facing unemployment. The array of soon-to-be homeless CIA Agents now had a home in a brand new start-up agency – with an elusive unrestrained seamless foreign and domestic mission – that needed immediate staffing. What a concept. A war on a substance. Go anywhere; foreign, domestic; and do anything – covert and overt – against anyone! No more need for a big propaganda campaign to build up public contempt for foreign foe after foreign foe or domestic foe after domestic foe with a lot of expensive hype. Many CIA Agents were given positions in the new organization which possessed few restrictions in the foreign arena.
As the grand adventure in Vietnam, and accompanying cold war interventions around the globe, largely came to a screeching halt with Nixon’s disgrace, the activities were now re-branded and re-legitimized. Just in time! Whew, that was close! Quick thinking by Tricky Dick kept the covert arena alive and immune from scrutiny for at least another 25-30 years until a new kind of taxpayer war fatigue would set in.
The displaced spooks were glad to know that their foreign resumes and skills could have them back on the road to their previous overseas posts – and many new ones – without the bothersome ever-increasing restrictions on direct CIA activity that continued to be forthcoming throughout the 1970s. The outcome of the Watergate Committee investigation coupled with The New York Times publication of the “Family Jewels” revelations about CIA assassination attempts, attempts to subvert foreign governments, and efforts to spy on U.S. citizens resulted in the creation of the U.S. Senate “Church Committee” (officially called the “United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities”) chaired by Senator Frank Church. The Committee investigated the activity of the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI. The hearings resulted in additional restrictions on CIA activities including the issuance of President Ford’s Executive Order 11905 prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state. But, the renamed CIA agents quickly got to work in their new agency crafting permissive procedures for foreign operations, keeping them as informal as possible, so as to not be too restrictive and too well known and “reviewable.”
The now aimless U.S. military was given a massive foreign support role in the “war on drugs.” So, the covert and overt actors could now return hand-in-hand to the jungles of Southeast Asia with the same equipment and tactics and branch out into new places as well. The visual parallels to the Vietnam War were amazing. American and foreign pilots were once again flying in the exact same American-provided green Hueys sporting M-60 door gunners. Foreign guys with interspersed American agent “advisors” and troops all wearing Vietnam style green floppy boonie hats and clad in U.S. purchased green camo uniforms were patrolling the jungles again carrying M-16s and M-79 grenade launchers.
There was the same appearance of winding muddy rivers lined with banana and palm trees receding under the whop-whop of the Hueys as colored smoke grenades were thrown to mark “LZs”(landing zones) for troops who inserted by scampering off of helicopters followed by a quick dust-off of the choppers. C-130s and pursuit aircraft criss-crossed the skies over the Hueys. Armed patrol boats and armed motorized rubber zodiac rafts once again snuck along the tropical rivers á la “Apocalypse Now.” Thuds of high explosives reverberated through the jungles as TNT, C4, and grenades were tossed around to destroy infrastructure. Large cratering charges created shock waves in the humid mist of the surrounding jungles as airstrips were destroyed. Flames rose up into the sky as structures and vehicles were burned to the ground with thermite grenades. Automatic weapon fire rang out occasionally as the aerial and ground personnel fired at profiled “enemies.” Many (including me) were amazed that all of this was occurring continually around us while U.S. news sources showed practically nothing and said that the U.S. had no foreign wars and was at peace.
For all intents and purposes, this was a continuation of the Southeast Asian overt and covert anti-communist money-burning activity, but now targeting a different “enemy” and expanded into additional geographic areas. Put a “Doors” soundtrack of “The End” behind video footage of the Southeast Asian and Latin American drug wars and you would have a hard time telling the difference between the sounds and images of the foreign drug war and the Vietnam War. Yet, these more visible operations carried out by DEA are not its main foreign activity. Most of it is invisible “plain clothes” activity – garnering even less public scrutiny – as has been the case with most of the CIA’s foreign activity.
DEA, the New Unfettered CIA
The significant foreign role of DEA had been relatively unknown to those outside the intelligence community until the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq when the public became somewhat aware of the DEA’s widespread and diverse role overseas. The media reported that troops in the Afghanistan war would deliver prisoners to DEA and its foreign teams for interrogation. Before this, no one in the media really cared, or bothered to report on the fact, that DEA had established low-key foreign networks for interrogation, response, and military targeting.
DEA has been the U.S. Government’s main effective foreign-imbedded entity with the ability to handle multifaceted intelligence and paramilitary activity since the mid-1970s. This agency has served to drag people into U.S. or foreign civilian courts and prisons, and for that matter, U.S. or foreign military courts and prisons. You would strain to find an agency whose range of action rivals the ultimate range of options – including taking and destroying things – available to this do-all low-profile agency who is relatively unmatched in the black ops world in its unconstrained ability to “get things done.”
A CIA without admitting that role. An FBI without admitting that role. An ATF without admitting that role. A DHS without admitting that role. A Border Patrol without admitting that role. A Secret Service without admitting that role. A military and a military targeting agency without admitting that role. A county sheriff’s office or city police department without admitting those roles. The agency’s investigative activities in non-drug areas, particularly in the foreign realm where other U.S. agencies are few, can branch out into and involve a spectrum of activity including such things as arms trafficking, counter-terrorism, WMDs, human trafficking, murder for hire, and counterfeit currency. On any day of the week, the DEA may be cooperating and working directly with Israeli, Russian, Chinese, or fellow U.S. intelligence, military, and police agencies, or members of private organized crime; and making deals with all of them.
DEA has been one of the primary innovators and utilizers of regulations on banking / financial institutions in both the foreign and domestic environment utilizing OFAC, Patriot Act, and FinCEN devices, along with money laundering laws, and civil, criminal, and administrative asset forfeiture mechanisms to either outright take things or to implement restrictions and to decertify or penalize foreign and domestic persons, companies, and banks (or, if needed, entire governments) from doing business if they don’t play ball with U.S. imposed rules.
And, of course, as had been reported repeatedly in the media, the DEA has been a leader in data collection and communications intercepts; another preferred technique of its discredited cold war predecessors.
The other older, more bureaucratic, and more hamstrung federal agencies desire that DEA come to their meetings. They want access to DEA reporting, assets, and streamlined procedures. They like DEA to use its expertise with, and access to, foreign investigative units to implement interrogation sessions and to expand on interrogation results. Get the guys involved in the show that have been doing this ever since the CIA went (temporarily) belly up. If the “investigative” tactics or small group assaults don’t work, DEA can always just call in the foreign (or domestic) police or the foreign (or U.S.) military to assault the targeted individuals.
The Age of Cooperation
What has made it all the more wonderful is that we have entered the area of official interagency “cooperation.” Fusion centers. Deniability. No snooping is illegal because the other guy from the other agency has a need and he asked you to access that data stream that you couldn’t otherwise access legally. Legitimate request. Approved. Reason for using invasive illegal system? Let’s see, the binder says, “official request from other agency,” so we are all good here.
Share everything. Pursue everything. Use every tool. If one agency has the power or means, then we all benefit from that not yet defamed technique or “asset.” Drug dealing and “turism” are rampant you know. Wasn’t this the enlightened conclusion that came from the 9/11 reviews of government’s failings? Isn’t this what we all wanted? Wasn’t the clear message that agencies had all of these wonderful spying systems and wonderful information that could have saved the world, but just weren’t talking to each other?
Shouldn’t we be happy at a more complete merger of covert and overt activities and sharing of intercepted intelligence across the board? If one heroic guy tightens the screws on a bad guy, shouldn’t the whole “intelligence community” benefit? When another heroic guy illegally hooks some wires together so he can grab some data “if needed,” shouldn’t that data all be centralized and available to all of Leviathan – just in case? Those crazy jealous disconnected power centers have done great harm by not centralizing their functions and cooperating. Hurray for the new era of centralized group hugs, sharing, and high fives! If one guy blows up a turist, we all blew up a turist. If one guy shouldn’t have blown up a turist, then nobody really blew him up because some “bad intelligence” originated from an unidentifiable, unblameable source.
Nixon’s Genius Revealed
DEA’s obscure role as the foreign eyes, ears, hands, and guns of the U.S. government is becoming more visible as the years go by. The advantage of a war on a substance is that the “war” can reach into foreign territory without the need to continually demonize a series of “bad” foreign individuals or groups in order to justify a continued presence. The presence has been justified under the nebulous war on drugs. The agents aren’t seen as a political threat to the hosting country. The military support and involvement in the war led by the state’s “agents” is a natural blend with the hidden imbedded agents making the judgement calls and serving as one of the invisible unnamed protected sources who will not be held accountable for “bad intelligence” when things go wrong. As long as an agent comes out of a closed-door interrogation session and gives the thumbs up, the turbines can spool up, the ordnance can be dispensed, and any kind of scorched earth that results after that is A-OK for the military. No demerits will be forthcoming. It’s nobody’s fault.
So, it has turned out to be a very workable arrangement for the total state in recent decades which no longer needs a congress to specifically authorize a war or black ops against a certain “bad buy” or his people. It can be done with the ubiquitous connection to the war on drugs. Don’t you know that all the bad foreign people that the U.S. wants to attack, discredit, or wreak havoc on obtain their funding for terrorism from drug trafficking?
Now, finally, to answer the question alluded to previously.
Question: Why did Nixon create the DEA?
Answer: In the early 1970s, the black ops functionaries of the Executive Branch, both domestic and foreign, were in the spotlight, had been disgraced, and were being shut down. He needed a new mechanism to do both covert and overt ops in a seamless manner between the foreign and domestic environment and along a new line with a new rationale that was not related to the cold war which the public was weary of. Something new. Something that the public and Congress did not yet detest because they did not know the ultimate reach of the new monster being created to replace the old one.
This process – cold war to drug war – was, of course, not instantaneous, all occurring on that fateful date of July 1, 1973. Nixon had made preludes for a desired drug war before that date and the cash-strapped cold war limped along for a while after that date with some confused glory seekers – who apparently didn’t get the memo – trying to mix commies and drugs in places like Nicaragua.
But, it is interesting to see that on the same day that Congress was officially nailing the coffin shut on the cold war, Nixon opened a window to let the demons – that had possessed the soul of the previous war- out of the grave. Those demons then flew into a convenient herd of swine that Nixon summoned in the nick of time.
Completing the Circle
Fast forward. Nowadays, with fatigue for the drug war setting in, a new rationale and a new direction have been devised to wage the worldwide war on freedom. A condensation of concerns from within W’s Beltway in 2001 might have been summed up and expressed in the following query which would make a person reminiscent of the dilemma in which Nixon found himself in 1973:
“We’ve had a good run; more than a quarter of a century, but now that the drug war is falling into disrepute, what will be the next nebulous war against an undefinable enemy that will justify the continuation of covert and overt operations around the world for another 25 years?”
But that question is no longer timely since it has already answered itself. And with that new direction came the resurgence of the old agency that fell into disrepute in the 1970s. All evil and embarrassing things are apparently forgotten and forgiven by the state; and sadly by an apathetic public. The previous restrictions on the CIA are now seen to have been short-sighted in recent times. Non-reading Americans don’t know we have gone through this before.
Who knows, with a multi-decade hiatus and retreat out of the limelight into the sewer, the substance war may even rear its head and become popular again sporting a new round of door smashing and asset stealing. But next time, the seizures should probably be creatively rebranded as something new, and therefore not yet recognizable and detestable. How about “carbon forfeitures” made from “carbon cartels” headed by evil “carbon kingpins.”
“Hey Bob, what happened to your car?”
“The CEA took it. They said it was a ‘Schedule One’ car on the carbon list and had no legitimate purpose.”
(The preceding is an excerpt from a book project, “Cold War to Drug War,” being undertaken by David Hathaway.)
If you’re a prepper, you know all about the Berkey water filter. It’s the shiny metal canister that sits on your counter, and filters water using gravity. It has been around for a while and has lots of fans, so it’s easy to find reviews and statistics on it.
But one thing that’s always left me speechless, is the GIANT list of contaminantsthat Berkey publishes on their packaging and their website. While it is impressive to see, you would have to be a PhD in water purification to understand what all the contaminants are, and how they affect you.
Ever heard of Dibromochloromethane?
How about Hexachlorocyclopentadiene?
Yes, those are real. And they are just 2 of the 203 contaminants listed on the box. Holy smokes!
So as I stare at that list on the box, what I’m really wondering is:
- Where are these contaminants coming from, and
- What are the health effects that they are having on us?
THE WATER CONTAMINANTS GUIDE
My designer and I thought it would be a helpful resource to create an illustrated“contaminants guide”, to help people better understand the sources and effects of our water contaminants.
We put together this illustrated reference guide, that quickly shows some of the many sources of water contamination, and the related health effects. The good news is–Berkey wipes them out!
Graphic courtesy of The Daily Prep.
When Caron Ryalls was asked to sign consent forms so that her then 13-year-old daughter, Emily, could be vaccinated against cervical cancer, she assumed it was the best way to protect Emily’s long-term health.
Yet the past four years have turned into a nightmare for the family as Emily soon suffered side effects. Only two weeks after her first HPV injection, the teenager experienced dizziness and nausea.
“The symptoms grew increasingly worse after the second and third injections, and I went to A&E several times with severe chest and abdominal pains as well as difficulty breathing,” Emily, now 17, said. “One time I couldn’t move anything on one side of my body. I didn’t know what was happening.”
Emily is one of the thousands of teenage girls who have endured debilitating illnesses following the routine immunisation. She is yet to recover and has no idea when her health will return to normal.
“Prior to the vaccination Emily had an ‘unremarkable’ medical history with no problems,” said Mrs Ryalls, 49, from in Ossett, West Yorkshire. “She was considered very healthy and represented the school at hockey, netball, athletics and was a keen dancer. She was also a high achiever at school, in the top sets for everything and predicted at least 10 GCSE with high grades. Her future was very bright.”
Mrs Ryalls reported Emily’s condition to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). In the 10 years to April this year the agency received almost 22,000 “spontaneous suspected” adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in 13 routine immunisation categories including flu, MMR, tetanus, diphtheria and polio, according to a Freedom of Information response released earlier this month.vaccine1
In the HPV category alone, ADRs numbered 8,228, of which 2,587 were classified as “serious” – defined by several criteria, including whether it resulted in hospitalisation or was deemed life threatening.
By Dr. Mercola
Root canal is a commonly performed procedure in most adults. But is it a wise one? Dr. Robert Kulacz, a dentist, has spent a significant portion of his professional career trying to answer this question.
What he discovered profoundly changed his life, and led him to write a book about his findings called, The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick, which I think is among the best available on this subject.
Dr. Kulacz began practicing dentistry in Brewster, New York. After six years as an associate, he opened his own practice in Somers, New York in 1992, where he performed all the conventional procedures of dentistry, from restorations to extractions and root canals.
”I did a lot of root canals for many years,” he says. “Everything was going smoothly until one day, a patient of mine said to me, ‘You know, I heard from my physician that root canals may be bad; that root canals may cause or contribute to other diseases in the body.’
And I said, ‘You’re crazy. Who is telling you this? That’s impossible.’ He said, ‘You got to look at this information.’ He gave me websites of organizations like the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) to look at.
I went on to explore this topic so I could come back to him and say, ‘Here is where you’re wrong, here’s where your physician is wrong, and here is where the American Dental Association (ADA) is right.’
Lo and behold, I found out they’re right; I was wrong.
I looked at Weston Price’s work, the work of Rosenow, and others. I decided to go to an IAOMT meeting… Dr. Boyd Haley’s lecture on root canals and how toxic they are changed my life. I realized I was wrong… From that day on, I changed my practice.”
The Importance of Informed Consent
Dr. Kulacz stopped performing root canals in 1995. He doesn’t promote a ban on root canals across the board, but stresses the importance of informed consent.
The American Dental Association states that root canals are a safe procedure that cannot cause any systemic diseases, and according to Dr. Kulacz and others who have spent time investigating the matter, that’s simply not true.
“If a patient is informed that these root canal teeth remain infected; that bacteria can indeed travel to other sites in the body, and that bacteria in root canal teeth and the surrounding bone release potent toxins, then the patient can decide to have a root canal or not,” he says.
Many dentists believe they can sterilize a root canal tooth and that the act of instrumenting and irrigating the canal will eliminate all the bacteria, but that’s not the case.
“I’ve done biopsies on every root canal tooth that I have extracted. Almost all of them have remnants of necrotic debris still in that canal meaning that they were not thoroughly cleaned. Microbiological cultures of the surrounding bone showed infection almost 100% of the time.” Dr. Kulacz says.
According to the ADA, any remaining bacteria will be “entombed” within that tooth, but that’s not true either. The gutta-percha, the filling material used to seal the canal, is not getting into the tiny lateral canals that branch off the main canal, so leakage is almost always possible, especially since the tooth is porous.
And even a perfectly sealed root canal cannot prevent the small molecule exotoxins produced by the bacteria inside the root canal tooth from easily migrating out of the tooth and into the body.
The bulk of the tooth structure is composed of dentinal tubules, hollow structures that run from the main canal outward. If you were to put these tubules end to end from just a single rooted tooth, they would stretch for about three miles.
But they’re big enough to harbor bacteria three across, which you can never remove or sterilize. A tooth is more like a sponge than a solid structure.
“If you had a solid tooth structure that was like steel or a metal, you were able to clear out the main canal of that tooth, there were no tributaries, and you can perfectly seal it, and eliminate the residual infection in the surrounding jaw bone a root canal would be great. But we can’t do that,”he says.
“Now, it doesn’t mean that all root canal teeth are going to cause disease. It depends upon the type of bacteria that are in there, what kind of toxins they produce, and the immune system health of the individual.
But with 25 to 30 million root canals done per year, multiply that by how many years a person is alive, there’s a lot of root canals out there. And a lot of them are not good.”
Bacteria from Root Canals May Worsen Other Diseases
Since root canal teeth are chronically infected, they may contribute to a number of different health problems, including heart disease. While the ADA insists bacteria from root canal teeth can never travel to distant sites in your body, Dr. Kulacz disagrees, explaining:
“Heart disease is caused by the damage to the inside lining of the blood vessel (the cholesterol is a secondary byproduct). The primary cause of heart disease is the damage of the intima lining of the blood vessel and migration of macrophages and cholesterol inside that artery.
Inflammation causes plaque to rupture into the lumen, into the space of the blood vessel, causing a blood clot and a heart attack. [A] study done in 2013… compared the bacterial DNA in blood clots and arterial plaque in heart attack patients to the DNA of the bacteria in the mouth.
The same bacteria found in the root canal teeth and in gum disease are found in the plaques in coronary arteries and in the blood clots that caused the heart attack.
These bacteria move from the mouth into other sites of the body like the arterial plaques. They’ve also found the same bacteria in the pericardial fluid or the fluid that surrounds the heart… In heart disease you don’twant infection and inflammation in an arterial plaque.
The presence of oral bacteria from root canal teeth and gum disease in the arterial plaque and blood clots of heart attack patients points to direct causation, rather than correlation between oral infection and cardiovascular disease.”
All Root Canal Teeth Will Become More Infected Over Time
Because root canal teeth no longer have a blood supply, the bacteria remaining inside all root canal teeth are effectively “hidden” from the immune system. To make matters worse, the root canal tooth becomes more infected over time due to the influx of bacteria from the gum tissue surrounding the tooth.
Other research has shown pathogenic bacteria from infected root canals destroy or kill the white blood cells designed to eliminate them, which is why the surrounding jaw bone can harbor such chronic infection. The bacteria can also evade your immune system by:
- Bacterial mimicry; mimicking your body’s own bacteria, which your white blood cells will not attack
- Disabling your antibodies and white blood cells
- Forming sticky biofilms
The video above was recorded about four years ago. In it, I discuss some of the health effects I suffered from an infected tooth, which were resolved after having the tooth extracted. It’s important to recognize that the reason you get cavities and/or infected teeth in the first place is related to your diet—primarily eating too much sugar.
If your diet is inadequate, your immune function will be compromised, and if your immune system is weakened, the bacteria’s ability to wreak havoc is magnified. So does this mean you have to extract all of your root canal teeth? No, Dr. Kulacz says.
“We can’t become so closed-minded that we ignore mainstream dentistry or mainstream medicine just because we don’t believe one part of it. Just saying that we’re going to extract all root canal teeth and we’re going to cure all disease is not valid. That’s as bad as saying that root canal teeth can’t cause any problems. We have to find the balance… we have to evaluate objectively and then come to a reasonable conclusion and protocol on what to do with these root canal teeth.”
If you’re considering having a root canal done, evaluate the data and your personal situation, such as your health risks, before making your decision. I would also suggest considering ozone therapy prior to root canal or tooth extraction. Ozone therapy is typically administered through a syringe, right into or around to the base of the tooth. Multiple visits are usually needed to address the infection. Ozone is directly toxic to infectious material, and it also stimulates your immune system.
I was able to prevent a root canal by using ozone therapy not too long ago. However if the pulp tissue has completely died due to infection, nothing, including ozone, will bring the tooth back to life. It took about five treatments. It’s safe, non-toxic, and relatively inexpensive, so it may be worth considering before taking more drastic measures. If you decide to have the tooth extracted rather than doing a root canal, there are several options on how to restore that missing tooth. The first and least expensive option is with a removable appliance or partial denture. You need to take it out at night, put it back in in the morning, and keep it clean. It’s the least invasive way to restore missing teeth.
The second and considerably more expensive alternative is to do a bridge. The teeth on either side of the missing tooth are prepared for caps or crowns, and the missing tooth is attached to those two abutment teeth. The bridge is permanently put in as one unit. The problem is you have to cut down a lot of the enamel on the adjacent teeth, which causes trauma to those teeth, potentially risking the need for another root canal over time.
What You Need to Know About Dental Implants
The third option is a dental implant, where a screw is inserted into your jawbone after a healing time of between three and six months to ensure a base of solid, healthy bone in the jaw. Then a tooth is built upon the top of the implant. The implant functions as your root would have and you have a permanent crown that functions like your real tooth. While that may sound ideal, there potential problems to consider. First, if you use a titanium implant, you’re placing metal into your jawbone, which can cause a galvanic or battery response with other metals in your mouth. There are reports in the literature of allergy and tissue toxicity to the metal used in dental implants that can also negatively impact health. At the very least, if you are considering a titanium dental implant, have an allergy test to all the metals present in that implant. This is especially true if you have a known sensitivity to metals.
Dr. Kulacz prefers zirconium implants, as they do not have metallic ions found in titanium implants. However, if an implant is placed into the bone where a previous root canal was done, and the bone was insufficiently cleaned out when the tooth was extracted, then your bone may still be infected. In such a case, you’re placing an implant into a chronically infected bone, which is inadvisable.
“It’s critical when you extract the root canal tooth that you remove the periodontal ligament (the little sling that holds the tooth to the jawbone), the lamina dura or socket bone (the only purpose of that socket bone is to support the tooth), and then a small amount of bone outside that space. That’s done with a slow-speed, round dental bur with copious or lots of sterile sealing and irrigation to keep the bone healthy.
If you do that, you remove the infection, you induce good blood flow into the jawbone – without blood, there is no healing – and you have a non-infected, healthy, and healed bone to which you can then place your dental implant,”he says. “Bacterial cultures and tissue biopsy of the surrounding bone after thorough socket cleaning can uncover any residual infection that may remain. This is why I do not favor immediate placement of a dental implant into the socket of a root canal tooth, preferring to wait for the results of the cultures and biopsy as well as adequate bone healing.”
Gum disease is also a common problem associated with implants. An infection or an inflammation in the gums is very similar to having an infection or inflammation in the bone or the root canal tooth. Natural teeth have a barrier against the migration of bacteria into the surrounding bone.
They are full of fibers that insert from the gum into the root of the tooth and the bone, which prevents the bacteria from getting in to the bone area. Dental implants don’t have that. They rely on a sticky coating secreted by the gum around the cuff of the collar of the post that supports the crown.
That cuff of tissue has to be maintained with good oral hygiene to prevent inflammation that might otherwise loosen the tissue around the tooth. If you have gum disease and don’t clean the implant post thoroughly, the gum disease around implants will progress much more rapidly than around a natural tooth. If you have a dental implant, it’s imperative to follow strict oral hygiene, or you may quickly end up with gum problems.
A Root Canal Tooth Is Dead, and Necrotic Tissue Tends to Cause Problems
A root canal tooth is no longer alive. It’s dead tissue, which should never be left in your body. If you have appendicitis, the surgeon just doesn’t isolate it and leave it in there. He has to remove it. Yet when it comes to teeth, this rule is ignored.
According to Dr. Kulacz, many people who came to see him—often as a last resort—were able to resolve chronic health issues once their severely infected root canal teeth were extracted and/or the infection properly treated. Interestingly, Dr. Weston A. Price was even able to reproduce people’s diseases in rabbits simply by implanting the person’s root canal tooth beneath the rabbit’s skin.1
“The ADA tries to refute Price’s work, saying it lacks adequate controls and they used too much bacteria when they inoculated the bacteria into these rabbits. Well, that’s not true. They took the actual root canal tooth and they implanted the same root canal tooth with no more bacteria than would have been found in the person from which it came.
That same tooth was implanted under the skin of rabbits. Lo and behold, they would find the same disease occur in the rabbits. The ADA says they repeated Price’s work and found it to be invalid. Well, they never have. I’ve looked for it. I’ve emailed them. There is no repeat of Price’s work. Further, current research supports Price’s assertions that bacteria from root canal teeth DO travel to distant sites in the body.”
To learn more about root canals, and/or to help educate your dentist, I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Dr. Kulacz’ book, The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick. If your dentist is honest and sincere, he or she will likely come to the same rational conclusion as Dr. Kulacz. Granted, in many cases, you’re likely to meet with resistance. This seems to be the norm before changes in thinking finally shift to the majority. In some cases the resistance can be severe.
Dr. Kulacz ended up losing his practice after the New York State dental board drummed up a series of charges against him, including “gross misconduct” for extracting root canal treated teeth. The dental board initially wanted to pull his dental license, but backed off when the prosecuting attorney admitted no dentist had actually reviewed the reams of data he’d sent in defense of his treatment—a case of misconduct on behalf of the dental board.
“I called the chancellor of the board of regents in New York State and said, ‘Your dental board is corrupt. The prosecutor admitted to me that my case was not about justice. It was not about the truth. The dental board had an agenda. They already dismissed this patient’s file as a cause of action.’
Now, I’m not a conspiracy guy. I never thought that this kind of thing could happen. In fact, if somebody would have told me in the years prior that this could happen, I would’ve thought they were crazy. But it did happen to me,” Dr. Kulacz says. “The next day, the attorney from New York State called and said, ‘The dental board is going to drop all charges if you will accept a records violation.’ They had to have something, otherwise I could go after them for false prosecution.”
Considering it would have taken several years and a quarter of a million dollars to continue fighting, he accepted the records violation—not realizing this would effectively put him out of business… He kept his dental license, but he never realized accepting the violation would increase his malpractice premium ten-fold—from $8,000 a year to $80,000. After being shut down for a year because of the board’s action, he made the painful decision not to reopen. Dr. Kulacz’ story is yet another example of what can happen to a professional who bucks the trend.
It’s not very different from the case of Ignaz Semmelweis, an ob-gyn and surgeon who, about 150 years ago, was vilified for his theory that microbes cause infection. Semmelweis was labeled “insane” by his colleagues for having the audacity to suggest they should wash their hands between deliveries, and they fired him.
He tried to continue his research but was ostracized by the medical community. His mental health eventually did deteriorate, leading to his death in an insane asylum.
Fortunately for us, Dr. Kulacz wrote a book instead of mulling on the pain and frustration of losing a two decades long career. It’s a great resource, with the details necessary to convince most rational individuals that root canals are not in the best interest of your health. And, if you have a root canal tooth, to be cautious and consider having it extracted if indicated. You can also learn more on his website, coletrex.com, or contact him via email at: email@example.com.
Resources to Help You Find a Biological Dentist
The following organizations can help you to find a biological dentist specializing in mercury-free dentistry and other holistic approaches:
- Consumers for Dental Choice
- Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions(DAMS). E-mail them at: firstname.lastname@example.org or call 651-644-4572 for an information packet
- Holistic Dental Association
- International Academy of Biological Dentistry & Medicine (IABDM)
- International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)
- International Association of Mercury Safe Dentists
- Talk International
Sources and References
Probably the most interesting thing about the (can’t help myself) exploding Takata air bag scandal is the doublethink it exposes.
On the one hand, we are told – in the literal/parental sense – that we will have air bags in our cars (like it or not) because not to have them is an unacceptable risk and “unsafe.”
Notwithstanding that when air bags were being developed back in the ’70s (and rejected by consumers, when consumers still had the freedom to choose) the manufacturers of air bags told the government of the very real risks to people’s safety that air bags posed.
Nothing is perfect in this world – and that includes technology, which includes air bags. They can save – and take – lives.
And have done both of those things.
The manufacturers of air bags warned the government of the risks, of the pros and cons. Specifically, of the risk to unbuckled and smaller stature/older people and young children posed by these explosive projectiles. The manufacturers urged caution – which the government in its usual way ignored. It was not government’s “safety” that was being put at risk, after all.
It was yours and mine.
With the predictability of the tide coming in, people were hurt – and some killed. Their lives were, of course, mere statistics – as Stalin liked to style it. No one in the government – none of the you-will-do-this-our-way- period – bureaucrats within the DOT/NHTSA regulatory apparat were ever so much as fined for their deliberate, knowing (and thus, by definition) criminal recklessness and negligence with other people’s lives. Joan Claybrook – to name just one name. She was head of NHTSA from 1977-1981 and one of the chief “nudgers” of air bags, knowing full well the risks involved (having been told all about them).
She retired on a full government pension. Have a nice day!
Which brings us back to Takata – the supplier of the defective air bags that sometimes spew shrapnel at high velocity into the faces of hapless motorists who were never given the freedom to say “no thanks” to these Claymores in the dashboard.
Takata is to be raked over the coals – and possibly, company officials actually held responsible – for the harm caused by its products.
This is fabulous. It’s a sound idea to hold people responsible for the harm they cause, especially when the harm is caused with knowledge beforehand, as seems to be the case with regard to the defective air bags. Takata – people within the company (as well as people within the car companies that bought the bags and installed them in their vehicles) apparently knew there was a problem – a big problem – but did the shove-it-under-the-rug thing and let’s hope no one notices. They deserve to have their feet held to the fire.
But why does that never happen when it comes to the reckless/criminal negligence of the government? Why are government incompetents and worse allowed to destroy innocent people’s lives with such impunity?
These charts help us understand that a top is not just price, but a reversal in extremes of margin debt, valuation and sentiment.
In blow-off tops, extremes of valuation, complacency and margin debt can always shoot beyond previous extremes to new extremes. This is why guessing when the blow-off top implodes is so hazardous: extreme can always get more extreme.
Nonetheless, extremes eventually reverse, and generally in rough symmetry with their explosive rise. Exhibit 1 is margin debt: NYSE Margin Debt Hits a New Record High (Doug Short)
Note the explosive rise in margin debt in the past few months:
At tops, soaring margin debt no longer pushes stocks higher. I’ve marked up an excellent chart by Doug Short to highlight the diminishing returns of more margin debt at tops.
It’s clear this same dynamic of diminishing returns is in play now, as margin debt has skyrocketed while the S&P 500 has remained range-bound, with each new high being increasingly marginal.
And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it (Micah 4:3-4).
This is a prophecy regarding “the last days” (v. 1). The description of peace — swords into pruninghooks — is one of the most familiar in Western culture. It is a day that men say they dream of.
Let us assume that the day comes to pass. Can you imagine a group of economists calling for the continuation of the sword industry? They would invoke this argument: “If we get out of sword production prematurely, there will be unemployment. This would bring the post-war economy to a screeching halt. What we need is a program of sequential reduction of weapons production that does not disrupt the job market.”
As for letting the troops return home, the suggestion would bring this response: “The rise in unemployment would be devastating to the post-war economy. The bulk of our troops must be kept on active duty until such time as the economy makes the transformation back to peacetime production.”
How long would it take to turn swords into pruninghooks under these post-war conditions? How long would the troops wait to be demobilized in order to return home? The answer would be open-ended. No one would know. Politics would decide.
If the definition of “peace” is “keeping the troops in uniform until it is clear that they can get good jobs in the private sector,” then peace sounds suspiciously like preparation for the next war.
This was what the United States economy was facing in late 1945. Japan surrendered in August. Germany had surrendered the previous May. By the time that President Truman delivered his State of the Union address in January 1946, he had disbanded half of the 12 million troops who had been on active duty when Japan surrendered. In his address, he promised that most of the remainder would be demobilized by June. Hazlitt was writing this chapter about the time when Truman delivered his speech.
America’s families wanted the troops disbanded. They wanted their sons and husbands out of uniform and back in the country. Truman understood this. Concerns over unemployment were not sufficient to keep him from bringing them home and demobilizing them. They came home. They hung their uniforms in a closet. Soon, they folded them, and packed them in trunks. The uniforms were mothballed. So were their owners’ wartime jobs.
The troops were rapidly integrated back into the private sector. Unemployment in 1946 was low: 3.9%. It remained in this range for the remainder of the decade. Hazlitt’s prediction in early 1946 was accurate:
The soldiers previously supported by civilians will not become merely civilians supported by other civilians. They will become self-supporting civilians. If we assume that the men who would otherwise have been retained in the armed forces are no longer needed for defense, then their retention would have been sheer waste. They would have been unproductive. The taxpayers, in return for supporting them, would have got nothing. But now the taxpayers turn over this part of their funds to them as fellow civilians in return for equivalent goods or services. Total national production, the wealth of everybody, is higher.
But what about wartime bureaucrats? Here was the question: “Can the private sector absorb them?” Hazlitt said it would. Here was a second question: “Is it a good idea to dismiss them?” Hazlitt argued that it was a good idea.
But the vast majority of these employees remained on the payroll. In fact, more were hired, year by year. The argument that almost everyone applied to the troops was not applied to the wartime bureaucrats: “Bring the boys home. Let them get on with their lives.” The politicians, the bureaucrats, and the voters concluded that the logic that applied to men in uniform did not apply to non-combatant bureaucrats who had not gone off to war.
With this as background, let us consider the economics of keeping wartime bureaucrats on the federal government’s payroll.
War is a matter of coercion. It is a non-market phenomenon. Ludwig von Mises wrote this in 1944: “History has witnessed the failure of many endeavors to impose peace by war, coöperation by coercion, unanimity by slaughtering dissidents.”
Before a war begins, citizens are owners. Their primary asset is their lives. They are stewards of their lives under God.
Except for a handful of government employees, citizens earn their livings through voluntary exchange. They have jobs. They do not own their jobs. Jobs are temporary products of competitive bidding. But the bidders own the skills they possess. In a free market social order, they own the right to make bids to others. They buy and sell. Among the things that they buy and sell are employment skills.
They also own that portion of their income that is not extracted by taxes, including the losses imposed by monetary inflation and government regulations of the economy.
Unlike the other chapters in Hazlitt’s book, the window here is pre-war. The window is peace. It is the right of people to make voluntary arrangements with each other in order to attain their goals as owners of their lives, talents, and money.
In peacetime, individuals decide where to work and at what compensation. Employers compete against employers. Employees compete against employees. Out of this competition comes an array of wages. At some price, a labor market clears: no unemployed people willing to work at that wage, and no employers unable to hire workers at this wage.
This is not the case in wartime.
The stone is the war. Civil governments seek to impose coercion on foreign citizens and also on domestic citizens. This disrupts citizens’ pre-war priorities. It therefore disrupts pre-war labor markets.
During the war, voters consent to higher levels of taxation, government borrowing, and central bank monetary inflation. They also consent to price and wage controls.
The labor markets adjust to the new conditions of the supply and demand for labor. This adjustment is invariably administered by bureaucrats, who impose price and wage ceilings. The phrase “price and wage controls” really means this: people controls. The state’s bureaucrats threaten violence against people who buy or sell at prices above the legal maximums. This intervention always produces shortages. The government then introduces non-price rationing. This system of the mobilization of labor may also be accompanied by military conscription: the draft. The labor markets during wartime are not free markets. State coercion is basic to clearing the labor markets in wartime. This domestic coercion is justified by invoking the war. This is said to be the price of victory. This was the universal phrase in the United States in response to shortages: “Don’t you know there’s a war on?”
Here is the economic question raised in this chapter: “Should the national civil government stop throwing stones into the labor markets after the war is over?” In the market for military service, the state is likely to reduce the number and size of these stones. But this is not true of the labor market for wartime bureaucrats. The politicians offer new justifications for keeping wartime bureaucrats on the payroll.
Men who were forced by the threat of violence to join the armed forces — conscription — did not own their jobs. They probably did not want these jobs. They had refused to volunteer, so they were drafted. Most men in World War II were drafted into the armed services. But some volunteered. The threat of conscription always backed up the system of volunteering.
In contrast, wartime bureaucrats were all volunteers. They remained safely stateside. Most bureaucrats remain stateside in every war. There is no organization known as the BFW: Bureaucrats of Foreign Wars.
The legal justification for the massive shift away from pre-war employment patterns is based on the moral foundation of the war. When the war ends, the moral justification for the continuation of these jobs also ends. The surviving owners of their lives are allowed by the state to reclaim possession. The national government demobilizes the troops.
In contrast, stateside bureaucrats are reassigned to new positions, or at least newly defined positions. The moral and legal justifications for their original employment disappear. An economic justification is substituted: “If we fire them, they will stop spending. This will depress the economy.” This is a Keynesian argument.
Taxpayers must therefore continue to be taxed in order to keep these bureaucrats on the payroll. Their ownership of their income is reduced by taxes.
There are a lot of things your car can get stuck in: mud, snow, even a ditch. While every situation is different, there are some principles you can follow that may help you become unstuck without needing to call for a tow. So, we enlisted Wyatt Knox from Team O’Neil Rally School to help us put this guide together should you ever find yourself in one of these sticky situations.
Reprinted from The Art of Manliness.
The most striking thing following the Irish referendum on gay marriage is how few people are talking about gay marriage. Amid the near-global cheering that greeted the vote in favour of instituting gay marriage, there was barely any commentary on the institution of gay marriage. Sure, there was a handful of on-air marriage proposals in Dublin as the news cameras rolled, and the tailend of a BBC TV report informed us when the first gay marriages in Ireland would take place (Autumn). But given that this referendum was all about opening up a social institution to which gays had apparently been brutally denied entry, the lack of post-referendum talk about actual marriage was remarkable.
Instead of saying ‘We can finally get married’, the most common response to the referendum result from both the leaders of the Yes campaign and their considerable army of supporters in the media and political classes has been: ‘Gays have finally been validated.’ Across the spectrum, from the drag queens who led the Yes lobby to the right-wing politicians who backed them, all the talk was of ‘recognition’, not marriage. Ireland’s deputy PM Joan Burton said the Yes vote was about ‘acceptance in your own country’. Writing in the Irish Examiner, a psychotherapist said ‘the referendum was about more than marriage equality… it was about validation and full acceptance [of gay people]’. (Tellingly, Ireland’s psychotherapy industry played a key role in backing the Yes campaign.) PM Enda Kenny also said the referendum was about more than marriage — it was a question of gay people’s ‘fragile and deeply personal hopes [being] realised’. Or in the words of novelist Joseph O’Connor, the Yes vote was an act of ‘societal empathy’ with a section of the population.
The official Yes campaign went so far as to describe the Yes victory as a boost for the health and wellbeing of all Irish citizens, especially gay ones. A spokespersonsaid ‘the effect of legal equality goes beyond the letter of the law… it enters our daily lives and our interaction with others’. In ‘embracing’ gay people, Ireland had ‘improv[ed] the health and wellbeing of all our citizens’. In short, the Yes result made people feel good. A writer for the Irish Times described his gay friends’ pre-referendum ‘nagging shadow’, a ‘feeling that [they are] less somehow’, and he claimed the Yes victory finally confirmed for them that they now enjoy society’s ‘support, kindness and respect’. Fintan O’Toole said the Yes victory was about making gays feel ‘fully acknowledged’.
And you thought it was about marriage? How wrong you were. All the commentary on how the referendum was ‘about more than marriage’, how it went ‘beyond the letter of the law’ to touch on something deeper, something psychic, confirms that the campaign for gay marriage is not about achieving social equality — no, it’s about securing parity of esteem, which is very different. The march of gay marriage has a stronger relationship with the new culture of therapy, and the need for recognition, than it does with the more longstanding ideal of legal equality and the need for rights. What is being sought here is not really the right to marry but rather social and cultural validation of one’s lifestyle — ‘societal empathy’ — particularly from the state. What we have witnessed in Ireland is not a new dawn of social equality but the further entrenchment of the value of cultural equality, and this is far from positive.
Ireland’s focus on recognition rather than rights, and the celebration of gay marriage as a means of validating gay people’s sense of worth, echoes the discussion about gay marriage in nations across the West. Time and again, the language used has been that of therapy rather than autonomy. In her excellent 2004 essay ‘The liberal case against gay marriage’, Susan M Shell noted the way that early agitators for gay marriage seemed to be primarily concerned with ‘relieving adult anxiety’, what some of them referred to as their ‘elemental fear’ of not being ‘valued’ (1). Activists spoke of how ‘the lack of legal recognition [for our relationships] rankled more and more’. In the words of the authors of The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage(2007), activists primarily want ‘the sanction of the state for our intimate relationships’. This search for state sanction, for external recognition, has been echoed in the response to the Irish referendum. ‘My country has acknowledged that we exist’, said a gay Irish businessman.
Beijing’s disclosure earlier this week of its latest military white paper, outlining a new doctrine moving beyond offshore defense to “open seas” defense, predictably rattled every exceptionalist’s skull and bone.
Almost simultaneously, in Guangzhou, the annual Stockholm China Forum, hosted by the German Marshall Fund and the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, was mired in deep thought examining the vast Eurasian integration project known in China as “One Road, One Belt”.
What is also known as the New Silk Road project – displaying all the romantic connotations of a remix of a golden era – is not only about new roads, high-speed railways, pipelines and fiber optics, but also about a naval network from East Asia all the way to the Middle East and Europe.
So Chinese maritime expansion in the “open seas” – from the South China Sea to the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean – had to be intimately tied to protection of the Maritime Silk Road.
Got deal, will travel
As the maddeningly complex One Road, One Belt network takes form, not a week passes without China clinching pipeline/power station/fiber optic/ manufacturing plant deals to accelerate Eurasian integration – from Pakistan to the Central Asian “stans”, and including everything from a road/railway linking Western China to the Arabian Sea to naval hubs on the way to the Horn of Africa.
The business logic behind this flurry of infrastructure deals is sound: to absorb China’s enormous excess industrial capacity. This process is of course enmeshed with Beijing’s complex energy strategy, whose main mantra is the famous “escape from Malacca”; to obtain a maximum of oil and gas bypassing waters patrolled by the US.
As Beijing “goes West” – the natural consequence of an official policy launched in 1999, but at the time mostly concerning Xinjiang – it becomes increasingly more open to the world. Just check the array of East and West nations that joined the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
Close cooperation between BRICS members China and India will be absolutely key for the success of Eurasia integration. It’s already happening via the BRICS bank – the New Development Bank – that will be based in Shanghai and headed by an Indian banker. It’s not by accident that India is also a founding member of the AIIB.
AIIB’s first president will be Jin Liqun, a former deputy finance minister and former vice-president of the Japanese/American-led Asian Development Bank (ADB). Complaints by the usual suspects that AIIB will be a secret Chinese club are nonsense; the board making decisions includes several developed and developing world powers.
Across Eurasia, AIIB is bound to be the place to go. No wonder the Japanese, feeling excluded, were forced to raise the bar, announcing Tokyo is willing to commit a whopping $110 billion to finance infrastructure projects across Asia until 2020. The talk of the town – actually many mega-towns – across Asia is now all about the “infrastructure wars”.
Dreaming of going West
It’s fascinating to remember that what I called the Go West Young Han story of China’s expanding its trade/commercial clout actually started back in 1999. The first stage was a wave of factories moving from Guangdong province to the inward provinces. After a few years, in the Guangdong Triangle Area – which is now much wealthier than many an industrialized nation – product life-cycle timeline entrepreneurs embarked on frantic technology acceleration. Within the megalopolis of Shenzhen, the authorities actually push lower tech companies to move out of the downtown core area.
In terms of container ports, of the top 10 largest global ports no less than seven are based in China. That’s a graphic indication of China’s overwhelming predominance in maritime trade.
In terms of management, the 125 plan – that is, the 12th Chinese 5-year plan – expires in 2015. Few in the West know that most of the goals encompassing the seven technology areas China wanted to be leading have been achieved and in some cases even superseded. That technology leap explains why China can now build infrastructure networks that previously were considered almost impossible.
The next five-year plan is bound to be even more ambitious. It will focus, among other items, on Beijing’s drive to build a wave of huge new cities, a by-product of China’s restructuring of its economic model.
The China Dream, a new book by Professor General Liu Mingfu – a top military analyst – offers the Big Picture as China’s infrastructure drive across Eurasia gathers pace. A clash with the US is all but inevitable.
The Pentagon’s non-stop rumblings about the South China Sea are just the tip of the (lethal) iceberg; after all Washington considers it an American lake.
Li, as well as other leading Chinese analysts, would like to think Washington eventually finds a modus vivendi with the emerging superpower – as in relinquishing sovereignty, much as the British Empire did to the United States in the early 20th century.
That’s not going to happen. For the foreseeable future, according to the Obama administration’s own “pivoting to Asia”, announced in 2011 at the Pentagon, it will be hardcore containment. That might work only if BRICS member India is totally on board. And that’s quite unlikely.
In the meantime, Washington will continue to be submerged by this type of paranoid analytics, perpetrated by a former strategic adviser to the top US/NATO commander in Afghanistan.
Check that sphere
The crucial point, already absorbed by the overwhelming majority of the Global South, is that China’s One Belt, One Road strategy is all about trade/commerce/”win-win” business; nothing remotely similar to the Empire of Bases, the never-ending “war on terra”, “kill lists”, and bombing recalcitrant nations (usually secular Arab republics) into “democracy.”
The immensely ambitious One Belt, One Road project, coupled with the Chinese Navy protecting its national interests in the “open seas”, fit into President Xi Jinping’s Chinese Dream in terms of a business master plan. The best way to build a “moderately prosperous society” is by building modern infrastructure internally and by reaching out to the world externally.
Once again, China will be exporting its massive surplus industrial capacity, will keep diversifying its energy sources and will extend its commercial influence from Central Asia all the way to Europe via Iran, Turkey and Greece.
China has the funds to solve one of India’s absolutely intractable problems – the rebuilding of its creaky infrastructure. The optimal scenario sees these two BRICS nations involved in deal after (infrastructure) deal, side by side with BRICS member Russia and “rehabilitated by the West” Iran. This means everything revolving around the New Silk Road(s) directly affecting no less than one-third of the world’s population. Talk about a “sphere of influence.”
There has been many a rumbling in Washington, ruling no one is entitled to a “sphere of influence” – except the US, of course. And yet Beijing’s economic, financial, diplomatic and geopolitical drive to unite Eurasia is the ultimate bid for a global sphere of influence. Against it, the usual Western, Roman-based Divide et Impera tactic may finally not work.
Reprinted from Russia Today.
In September of last year, I was pulled over by a quota-driven cop and given a ticket for speeding. The ticket carried with it a significant fine and the addition of 4-points onto my license. This past Thursday (May 28, 2015), I successfully defended myself in court, and had the charges dismissed. Leaving aside the fact that I had committed no real crime (there was no victim), the financial ramifications of this “crime” would have hurt me significantly, and I felt a strong urge to fight the charges and pursue true justice.
Just a month prior, I had received and was eventually convicted of a separate traffic “crime” which also carried a significant fine and was a 2-point violation. Had I been convicted of the second September “crime,” I would have not only had a significant increase in the cost of my insurance, but because the “crimes” took place within an arbitrary time limit, I also would have been labeled as a Super-Duper-Violator-of-Arbitrary-Traffic-Laws-and-Limits-on-Velocity-of-Travel (or something like that) offender. This carried with it an additional $750 fine.
When I first went to the courthouse, I was told to speak with the prosecutor. He informed me that I had two options, plead guilty to the charges as they were, or plead guilty to a lesser “crime” that would have had a much more significant fine, but would add 0-points to my license. He looked at me waiting for an answer. I was somewhat surprised because he never indicated that I had the option to plead not guilty and proceed to trial. I said to him, “well, actually I’d like to do neither, plead not guilty, and proceed to a trial.” He looked at me as if I had three heads. Apparently not enough people pursue this route.
I sat around in the courthouse for what seemed like an eternity waiting for my chance to appear in front of the judge. In the meantime, the prosecutor had called in the cop who had written me the ticket to discuss the matter with me (intimidate me into pleading guilty). The cop essentially said that it was going to be his word against mine, and that the judge would always take his word over mine. I asked why that was. His explanation was less than satisfactory. We went back and forth a little while (probably a mistake on my part because you should never talk to the police), and eventually I made a statement along the lines of “this seems to be all about revenue generation and not about safety.” With that, he huffed, rolled his eyes, and walked away saying sarcastically, “have a nice day.” I got a small amount of satisfaction from this encounter.
Finally, the prosecutor and I appeared in front of the judge. I informed the judge that I was pleading not guilty, and that I wished to proceed to a trial. I also indicated to him that I would be requesting all of the documents that the state had associated with my case and any proof of guilt they had. At this time, I learned that the legal term for this is ‘discovery.’ The judge was fair and said that this was all within my rights. He then instructed the prosecutor to send me a letter with instructions on how to attain that discovery. He instructed me to wait for that letter.
Instead of receiving this letter, I received a notification from the court that I had been scheduled for another court date. I wrote a letter to the court saying that this was out of order, that I had not yet received the judge’s ordered letter, and stated that I would not be appearing until I received the prosecution’s letter. A few weeks passed and again, the same thing happened. No letter, but a notification of a new court date. I proceeded with the same type of letter, only this time more strongly worded, and I insisted upon dismissal of the charges on the grounds that I was being denied my 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. More than a month passed, and I thought maybe the court had agreed with me and that this had been the end of it. This proved to be naïve on my part.
Two new notifications from the court arrived on the same date. They indicated that my court date had again been re-set, and that if I did not show up, there would be a warrant issued for my arrest (see how quickly a minor traffic “crime” gets escalated into violence?).
Because of this threat of violence, I opted to go to the courthouse and argue my case before the judge instead of writing another letter. Nearly seven hours, and another meeting with the prosecutor later, I was finally before the judge again. I stated my case, that I had been before the court several months prior, opted for a trial and made a request for discovery, and that the judge then had instructed the prosecutor to send me a letter. I also explained how I had never received that letter, had written letters to the court requesting the letter, and still had not received it. I then requested that he dismiss the charges as per my 6th Amendment rights.
The judge took his time looking through my file, examining the letters I had written; I came prepared with copies of my letters along with proof that the court had received my letters, as I had sent them certified and had documents with court representative signatures indicating they had been received. Being as how I had been sitting in the courthouse for almost a whole day’s proceedings, I had become familiar with the judge’s actions. After reviewing my file, he picked up a stamp which I had come to identify as the ‘dismissal’ stamp. I almost couldn’t contain my excitement. He proceeded to go into an oration of his decision, that I had been within my rights as per all of my requests, and that it was obvious that I had gone above and beyond in my attempts to receive discovery and defend myself in trial. He concluded that he had no choice but to dismiss my charges on the grounds I had argued. “You are free to go, have a nice day,” were his last words to me.
To add icing to the cake, the judge also informed me that my file indicated I had paid $150 bail previously in association with this case, and that since the charges were now dismissed, I was entitled to reimbursement! As I left the courtroom, I unleashed an epic Tiger Woods-style fist pump, and walked out with my arms raised in the air. I got a few chuckles from the courtroom audience. More people should pursue this route. Even if not victorious, the time added to the courts would force them to change the laws, and as I’ve said before, these laws are making all of us poorer, and are keeping the most poor among us from rising out of poverty. It could be considered a technicality, but I felt like I had won true justice for myself. Victory tastes so sweet.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
One of America’s best-loved presidents, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, is born into a politically and socially prominent family in Brookline, Massachusetts, on this day in 1917. He was the first American president to be born in the 20th century.
Because John F. Kennedy’s life was snuffed out and the first term of his presidency terminated after just three years, we don’t know how the Kennedy Presidency would have played out. Jack Kennedy himself is in fact an enigma onto which everyone can project their own politics. Progressives like Oliver Stone believe he was a liberal who would have ended U.S. participation in the Vietnam war. Supply-siders like Larry Kudlow believe JFK was a tax cutter and our most pro-growth President. Author Ira Stoll argues persuasively that Kennedy was a pro-defense conservative and anti-Communist. Libertarians believe JFK would have tamed the Federal Reserve and maintained a strong dollar backed by gold. In fact, in the mosaic that we can piece together about the real John F. Kennedy, all of these are true.
There is no denying that John and Jacqueline Kennedy brought a sense of style and culture to the White House. Despite his extreme physical debilities caused by his heroic war service and his epic philandering, the Madison Avenue campaign that his one time bootlegger father Joseph P. Kennedy paid for projected a wholesome image of a vigorous, athletic, family man. Kennedy himself was charming, self-possessed, good natured and graceful. His banter in Presidential press conferences were love-fests, particularly after you listened to the charged atmosphere and tension of his eventual successor Richard Nixon’s Presidential press conferences.
The realities of John F Kennedy are far more harsh and lurid. It is important to recognize that JFK skillfully ran to Vice President Nixon’s right in the 1960 cliffhanger. Kennedy attacked the Eisenhower-Nixon administration for not doing enough to oust Fidel Castro from his island gulag ninety miles from our shore and called for a military defense boost to close what he claimed was a “missile gap” between the US and the USSR. This left Nixon flat footed because he knew about and could not divulge the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Nixon knew that asking for a defense spending increase would be an implicit criticism of Eisenhower and would bring Ike’s rebuke.
Kennedy’s cold war, anti-Communism, and tough talk in the 1960 race reassured the Ivy Leaguers at the CIA, the Generals at the Pentagon and the defense contractors that the young candidate would green light their plans to invade Cuba and support their increasing interest in expanding the U.S. role in Vietnam. They were wrong.
Attorney General Robert Kennedy told an oral history in 1964 after his brother’s murder that JFK had no plans to withdraw from Vietnam and would have “won the war against Communist aggression.”
The evidence however is somewhat contradictory. While Kennedy signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 which would appear to authorize the beginning of withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, Attorney General Robert Kennedy told an oral history in 1964 after his brother’s murder that JFK had no plans to withdraw from Vietnam and would have “won the war against Communist aggression.” It is true however that Kennedy’s NSAM 263 was reversed in a new National Security Action Memorandum 273 ramping up the war and, not coincidentally, signed by Lyndon Baines Johnson seventy two hours after JFK’s murder in Dallas.
Kennedy’s real intentions in Cuba are also contradictory. Even after the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco John and Robert Kennedy would attempt repeatedly to assassinate Castro. At the same time JFK used his one time Princeton roommate Ambassador William Atwood to pass the word to the island dictator that he wanted to talk. Not trusting the diplomatic channels that might leak to the CIA, JFK also had his wife pass the message to Castro through friendly French journalist Jean Daniel. Kennedy’s real intentions toward Cuba are unknown.
Kennedy’s real record on civil rights presents another stark contradiction. As a US Senator Kennedy voted for the poison pill Amendment to the 1958 Civil Rights Act put forward by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, which gutted the new act by allowing violators to be tried before state rather than federal juries. Liberal organizer Joseph Rauh said this was “worse than no civil right act at all”. In 1960, Kennedy courted African American voters, pledging support for expanded civil rights laws that would include voting rights and fair housing acts. Upon his election, however, Kennedy would drag his feet, fearful of offending the southern Democratic barons who ran the most powerful committees in the US Congress. LBJ, who had plans of his own, continued to advise the young President that “the time was not right” and that the President should submerge this agenda thus leaving it for Lyndon Baines Johnson (despite his history as a life long segregationist) as his greatest legacy.
There is a much darker side to the Kennedy Presidency. Due to his constant pain, general weakness and lethargy, JFK would come under the care of the notorious Dr. Max Jacobson, also known as “Dr. Feelgood.” Jacobson was treating many of the celebrities, artists and beautiful people of the 1960s with a proprietary blend of methamphetamines. JFK’s regular doctors, Dr. Janet Travell and Dr. Eugene J. Cohen both registered their concern about the drugs being administered to their patient, the President. JFK would arrange for Jacobson to also inject Jackie Kennedy. This explains JFK’s voracious sexual appetite despite his physical ailments and disabilities. Kennedy was serviced by a never-ending trail of secretaries, actresses, models, prostitutes and movie stars. Because of his back he required his sex partners to mount him. “He had a quick trigger,” the stunning East German call girl Ellen Rometsch said.
Like his successor Bill Clinton, JFK would have sexual relations with a White House intern. Nineteen-year-old Mimi Beardsley had sex with the President in the family quarters when Jackie was out of town and according to her memoir, Kennedy persuaded her to have oral sex with his body man Kenny O’Donnell while the President watched. Mimi drew the line at servicing Teddy.
Even today Americans are interested and baffled about who really assassinated John F. Kennedy.
In my New York Times bestselling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, I make the case that Kennedy was killed in a plot that included the CIA, the mob and big Texas oil but the drum major and point man was Lyndon Johnson. Each of those involved in the conspiracy to murder the President had their own motive. LBJ was facing political disgrace from being dropped from the 1964 ticket and Federal prosecution for corruption that would have landed him in the penitentiary. He knew Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department was boring in on his taking bribes through his henchman and Secretary of the Senate Bobby Baker as well as the Federal contracts he had delivered to Texas con- man Billie Sol Estes.
The CIA was furious about Kennedy’s failure to provide air support for the Cuban exiles storming the beach in the Bay of Pigs as well as Kennedy’s secret deal to remove US missiles from Turkey and Italy in return for a pledge from Khrushchev to remove Russian missiles from Cuba. The secret deal included no agreement for on-site inspections and many experts believe the Soviet missiles were never removed. This agreement to remove our missiles from Europe remained classified for forty years.
The mob’s motive is clear; they provided over one million dollars towards his election and stole votes for him first in West Virginia and later in Mayor Daley’s Chicago in return for a pledge to end the US Governments efforts to deport mob chieftains Santo Trafficante and Carlos Marcelo brokered by Ambassador Joe Kennedy. After the senior Kennedy’s stroke, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy would go after these mobsters with a vengeance sealing his brother’s fate.
Big Texas oil’s interest is simple; JFK was trying to repeal the Oil Depletion Allowance, which would have cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
The bankers were also concerned about Kennedy’s intention to tame the Federal Reserve and change US monetary policy. By crossing all of these entities simultaneously John and Robert Kennedy provided the critical mass for the murder of the President.
There is no doubt that the dashing John F. Kennedy inspired an entire generation of Americans and provided an important generational shift from the dowdy and stolid days of Dwight Eisenhower. He brought wit, elegance, style and a sense of balance to the Presidency. The symbol therefore of John Kennedy remains more important but less interesting than the harsh realities.
The world focus on CO2 is simply the end objective of a much larger political agenda. The Club of Rome (COR) and then UNEP’s Agenda 21 under Maurice Strong created a political agenda based on certain assumptions all related to overpopulation.
1. The world and all nations are overpopulated.2. All population growth is at an unsustainable rate.3. All nations are using up resources at an unsustainable rate.4. Developed Nations use resources at a much greater rate than Developing Nations.5. Developed Nations achieved wealth using fossil fuel driven industries.6. Developed Nations must pay compensation to Developing Nations for benefits gained at their expense and for hardships and adaptation costs involved in dealing with climate change created by CO2.7. Reducing activities of Developed Nations and slowing growth of Developing Nations requires a world government.8. Once a world government is established population control can progress.
Global warming and climate change are simply the emotional threats used to confront overpopulation. The problem is the world is not overpopulated nor warming.
The current attack on Developed Nations includes punishment for their success, and for the redistribution of their ill-gotten wealth. It is ironic that they chose Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) and his ideas as the basis for their agenda because he argued that increased prosperity was hampered not by inequality of wealth but too many people unable or unwilling to create wealth. He didn’t want across the spectrum population reduction, just a reduction of those who were holding society back. His views and proposals are markedly different than the socialist solutions of Agenda 21. His major work, An Essay on the Principle of Population, proposed what today’s socialists would consider completely unacceptable reasoning and solutions. He wanted the government to end policies that encouraged people to have more children. Instead of reducing the population totally and taking from the wealthy to give to the poor, he wanted fewer poor people born.
The Club of Rome, under the facade of saving the planet, adopted and expanded the work of Thomas Malthus as an agenda for population control. As one group explain,
Malthus was a political economist who was concerned about, what he saw as, the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England. He blamed this decline on three elements: The overproduction of young; the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. To combat this, Malthus suggested the family size of the lower class ought to be regulated such that poor families do not produce more children than they can support.
This is important for the modern debate because overpopulation is still central and the driving force behind the use of climate change as a political vehicle.
Malthus blamed government social policy and charity for exacerbating the overpopulation problem by encouraging people to have more children. As he explained,
I entirely acquit Mr Pitt of any sinister intention in that clause of his Poor Bill which allows a shilling a week to every labourer for each child he has above three. I confess, that before the bill was brought into Parliament, and for some time after, I thought that such a regulation would be highly beneficial, but further reflection on the subject has convinced me that if its object be to better the condition of the poor, it is calculated to defeat the very purpose which it has in view. It has no tendency that I can discover to increase the produce of the country, and if it tend to increase the population, without increasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequence appears to be that the same produce must be divided among a greater number, and consequently that a day’s labour will purchase a smaller quantity of provisions, and the poor therefore in general must be more distressed.
Malthus’ objective was to reform or eliminate the Poor Laws and curtail charity. Unfortunately, his argument lacked hard evidence, and the examples he used were not relevant. For example, he used US population increase that more than doubled from 2 million in 1775 to 4.3 million in 1800. He failed to identify immigration as the major reason for the increase.
Malthus had a crucial influence on the theory of evolution, as Darwin acknowledged in his 1876 autobiography.
“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work”.
Darwin demanded evidence to support any theory but somehow overlooked or didn’t realize what Malthus used was wrong. However, he clearly liked the idea of “favourable” (desirable) or “unfavourable” undesirable traits. It suited his acceptance and inclusion in the sixth edition of Origins of Species of Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest”. The problem is Malthus
Malthus and Darwin also ignored technology apparently because they were only interested in biological evolution. They didn’t include the Agricultural Revolution that preceded the Industrial Revolution. This omission still pervades society today as many assume evolution has stopped. It is also central to the underlying theme of environmentalism that technology is a dangerous anomaly in human development. It underscores creation of the meaningless term sustainable development.
Alarmism over population growth was central to the ideas of the Club of Rome. It received momentum through Paul Ehrlich’s even more egregious and incorrect book, “The Population Bomb.” The fact that every single prediction Ehrlich and John Holdren, President Obama’s Science and Technology advisor made, have proved completely wrong doesn’t stop extremists seeing the need for total control. Some believe people should not exist. Holdren thinks they should be limited and controlled as detailed in a list of his totalitarian proposals.
– Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;– The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;– Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;– People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.– A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Crucial to all alarmism is a mechanism to bypass public resistance to draconian controls, especially in the US with its Constitutional guarantees. Holdren proposed a method for bypassing the Constitution by using the Constitution. He wrote,
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
It sounds very official, legal and plausible until you realize how it cedes control. He is the person who concludes how the Constitution could be used for this purpose. He is the one who decides when the crisis is sufficiently severe to endanger the society. This technique is applicable to any perceived threat, including climate change.
Holdren told his Senate confirmation hearing that he no longer held his views and refused to answer media questions about the views expressed in Human Ecology. His actions and support of global warming and climate change contradict the assertion. Certainly de-development, which is achieved by eliminating fossil fuels, is central. In a 2010 interview, he was asked to explain the thinking behind views expressed in Human Ecology.
CNSNews.com asked: “You wrote ‘a massive campaign must be launched to restore a high quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States’ in your book Human Ecology. Could you explain what you meant by de-develop the United States?”Holdren responded: “What we meant by that was stopping the kinds of activities that are destroying the environment and replacing them with activities that would produce both prosperity and environmental quality. Thanks a lot.”
Sir John Houghton, the first co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of the first three IPCC Reports, confronted the overpopulation issue differently. In an article for the Global Conversation in Lausanne in 2010 he wrote;
“First let me write a few words about God and science. A few prominent scientists are telling us that God does not exist and science is the only story there is to tell. To argue like that, however, is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is about. At the basis of all scientific work are the ‘laws’ of nature – for instance, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and electromagnetism, and the puzzling concepts and mathematics of quantum mechanics. Where do these laws come from? Scientists don’t invent them; they are there to be discovered. With God as Creator, they are God’s laws and the science we do is God’s science.”
The Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Psalm 24), and Jesus is the agent and redeemer of all creation (John 1:2; Colossians 1:16-20; Ephesians 1:16). As we, made in God’s image, explore the structure of the universe that God has made with all its fascination, wonder and potential, we are engaging in a God given activity. Many of the founders of modern science three or four hundred years ago were Christians pursuing science for the glory of God. I and many other scientists today are privileged to follow in their footsteps.
A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15). Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to face – all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.
The COR and its manifestation Agenda 21’s arguments are considered neo-Malthusian because they expand his hypothesis to say that the population will outgrow all resources. The threat was laid out in the COR book Limits To Growth. It became the format for all subsequent claims, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Based on totally inadequate data including on population and resource reserves, it was subjected to analysis using very restricted development mechanisms and forced through a computer model to a predetermined result. Economist Julian Simon challenged the hypothesis of The Limits with a bet that resulted in an empirical study. Simon won the battle but lost the war. It is 35 years since Simon made the bet, but still most believe the world is running out of resources.
So the resource and population predictions are wrong, which is not surprising because Malthus was wrong about both. However, many still want to control and limit population. A summary of their proposals is revealing.Malthus wants population reduction, but he decides which group must decline, but he is a church minister.As an atheist Darwin says nature will limit numbers, but that’s confusing because humans are natural.
Houghton wants numbers to decline but claims God gave him the authority to decide.Holdren wants numbers to decline but since he or the political party he supports is superior to everybody, they will decide.
The insanity of it all is that none of what they think matters because there is no overpopulation, no shortage of resources or any connection between CO2 and climate change. It is a story of science without evidence or at best-concocted evidence from Malthus through the COR to the IPCC.
Reprinted with the permission from Dr. Tim Ball.
According to studies, over 10,000 water immersion auto accidents occur each year and over 300 people on average, perish before getting out. How many of you know what to do? Do you wait until the car has filled up with water so the car is pressurized and you can escape more easily? This is s common answer, but could get you killed. Many die because they have received the wrong information on how to escape a sinking vehicle. Breathing from a bubble of trapped air, kicking out a window or waiting until the car touched bottom all yields a less than 10 per cent survival rate.
Here’s the Facts:
Stay Calm: When an emergency arises and no plan is in place, things get tricky pretty fast. Stress or anxiety, especially after an unexpected event, leads to a short term imbalance of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine, and inevitably leads to physical and emotional reactions to stress such as disorientation, increased breathing, panic and heart palpitations. Knowing how to curb these natural reactions can reduce the emotional and physical reactions.
Have a Plan: In a one minute period, a car will completely fill with water. Having a plan in place is the best way to improve your chances of survival and those with you. If the water if filling the car, quickly talk to your occupants and let them know what needs to happen. It is paramount that you keep as calm as possible because you have very little time to act. Survival Systems USA, has found that it takes about 20 seconds to escape through the door of a submerged car. A calm, relaxed person can hold their breath for 30 to 45 seconds underwater. So, if your pulse is pounding, you don’t have much room for error.
Make Your Escape: In many cases, a vehicle will actually float on top of the water for 30-120 seconds before sinking. Use this time to first undo your own seat belt and then, undo older children first so that they can help you with others or at least help themselves to safety. Once seat belts have been undone or cut, open the driver-side window and escape, first pushing children out ahead of you. If you have children with you, help the
Do not wait until the car has completely filled with water. As well, do not open the door and try to escape. While you might be able to get out, the car will quickly fill with water and sink more rapidly, possibly trapping your passengers. Breaking a window is your best bet in making a quick exit. Because the windows are made of strong, tempered glass, it is important to have an accessible tool, like car safety hammer or the Tactical Auto Rescue tool, to easily cut through seat belt materials and break the window. If you have no tools or heavy objects to break the window with, use your feet.
Many in Spain are starting to figure out that the only way to survive is to get your money out of the bank. Accounts can just be frozen as they did to the Russians living in Spain, demanding they prove the source of their funds. Banco Madrid has had its funds frozen while the government tries to figure out if it will rescue the bank or not. Meanwhile, people who saved their money cannot get access to it. People are starting to wise up here and are looking at taking their money out of the banks and placing it in alternatives, such as real estate and stocks, or investments outside of the country.
Europe has routinely cancelled currencies in the past, and they will use that option again if they suddenly decide to move to electronic, perhaps in October. I highly recommend that the cash you hoard not be euros – use U.S. dollars instead. The U.S. has never cancelled its currency, and it may be much harder for the U.S. to cancel currency overnight given the huge amount of U.S. dollars that circulate around the world.
So try to look at alternatives here. If you use U.S. shares, you may want to take possession of the share certificates. The blue chips will be the most liquid, but naturally other aspects of the market may start to outperform the blue chips. You can hoard U.S. dollars and coins, but you cannot leave them in a bank’s safety deposit box.
Reprinted from Armstrong Economics.
When interest rates are zero and it costs a bank to look after your money it becomes an unattractive asset. Banks in some jurisdictions (such as Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden) are even charging customers interest on cash and deposits. And if you go to your bank and withdraw large amounts in the form of folding notes to avoid these charges you will be lucky if you are not treated as a sort of pariah. For the moment, at least, these problems do not extend to sound money, in other words gold.
There are two distinct issues involved with government-issued currency: zero-to-negative interest rates, which all but eliminate any interest turn on deposits for the banks, and a systemic issue that arises if too many people withdraw their money from the banking system. The problems with the latter would become significant if enough people decide to effectively opt out of holding money in the banks.
Conversion of bank deposits into physical cash increases reserve ratios, restricting the banks’ ability to create credit. However, while the banks are contractually obliged to supply physical cash to anyone who wants it, a drawdown on bank deposits is a bad thing from a central bank’s point of view. A desire for physical cash is, therefore, discouraged. Instead, if the option of owning physical cash was removed and there was only electronic money, deposits would simply be transferred from one bank to another and any imbalances between the banks resolved through the money markets, with or without the assistance of a central bank. The destabilising effects of bank runs would be eliminated entirely.
In the current financial climate demand for cash does not originate so much from loss of confidence in banks, with some notable exceptions such as in Greece. Instead it is a consequence of ultra-low or even negative interest rates. The desire for cash is therefore an unintended consequence of central banks attempting to inject confidence into the economy. The rights of ordinary individuals to turn deposits into physical cash are therefore resisted by central banks, which are focused instead on managing zero interest rate policies and supressing any side effects.
Central banks can take this logic one step further. Monetary policy is primarily intended to foster investor confidence, so any tendency for investors to liquidate investments is, therefore, to be discouraged. However, with financial markets getting progressively more expensive central bankers will suspect the relative attraction of cash balances are increasing. And because banks are making cash deposits more costly, this is bound to increase demand for physical notes.
Monetary policy has now become like a pressure cooker with a defective safety-valve. Central bankers realise it and investors are slowly beginning to as well. Add into this mix a faltering global economy, a fact that is becoming impossible to ignore, and a dash-for-cash becomes a serious potential risk to both monetary policy and the banking system.
There is an obvious alternative to cash, and that is to buy physical gold. This does not constitute a run on the banking system, because a buyer of gold uses electronic money that transfers to the seller. The problem with physical gold is a separate issue: it challenges the raison d’être of the banking system and of government currencies as well.
This is why we can still buy gold instead of encashing our deposits, for the moment at least. It can only be a matter of time before people realise that with the cash option closing this is the only way to escape an increasingly dysfunctional financial system.
Reprinted with permission from GoldMoney.
The CIA retains two secret files on New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, the crusading prosecutor who inspired Oliver Stone’s hit movie “JFK.”
The files–whose existence is reported here for the first time– are among the 3,600 secret U.S. government records related to JFK’s assassination that are scheduled to be released in October 2017. Earlier this week, Politico and NOLA,com reported on the existence of the 3,600 records, which was first disclosed on May 12 by JFK Facts.
The Garrison files contain 16 pages of undated and unclassified material, according to the National Archives’ online database of JFK assassination records
One file– labelled “CIA File on Garrison, James”–contains ten pages of material. The other–described as “Illegible Document, Garrison Investigation”–has six pages.
The CIA says that both files are “Not Believed Relevant” to the JFK’s assassination.
How a CIA file on Jim Garrison could not be relevant to the JFK story is one of those questions that only the metaphysicians of Langley can answer.
‘Highly-paid CIA source’ on trial
In the early 1960s Jim Garrison was a crusading local prosecutor dedicated to the Sisyphean task of stamping out the engrained vices of the city they call “The Big Easy.” His law enforcement work was of no conceivable interest to the CIA–until February 1967. That’s when Garrison made headlines around the world by announcing he was investigating a possible conspiracy behind JFK’s assassination,
Until that point no one had ever charged with the murder of the 35th American president, who was shot dead in front of a friendly crowd in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Top CIA officials worried about what Garrison might find as he started his probe.
On April 1, 1967, CIA director Richard Helms launched a secret world-wide campaign, entitled “Countering Warren Commission critics,” which sought to discredit JFK ‘conspiracy theorists” with newspaper editors and reporters.
At the same time, James Angleton, chief of the agency’s Counterintelligence Staff, established a secret committee, which monitored Garrison’s investigation for the next two years. Declassified documents show that Angleton’s “Garrison Group” identified scores of CIA assets and sources who figured in the New Orleans investigation.
While intensely suspicious of the CIA, Garrison actually underestimated the extent of the agency’s interest in accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK was killed.
Angeton’s staff had monitored Oswald for four years after his defection to the Soviet Union in November 1959, according to declassified records released in 1990s. Jane Roman, an aide to to Angleton, told the Washington Post that certain CIA officials had “keen interest” in Oswald in late 1963.
Six senior CIA officers reporting to Helms and Angleton in the fall of 1963 were informed about Oswald’s travels, political activities, and foreign contacts six weeks before JFK was killed. (The names of these officers are found on the last page of this pre-assassination cable on Oswald, dated October 10, 1963.)
Another undercover officer reporting to Helms, George Joannides, the chief of psychological warfare operations in Miami, maintained a residence in New Orleans un 1963-1964, according to a sworn 2013 affidavit filed in federal court by Ron Machen, U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.
While CBS News, the Washington Post and other national news organizations scoffed at Garrison’s investigation in the late 1960s, the high-level CIA interest in his investigation went undetected and unreported.
So did the agency’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald.
When the DEA is seen in a negative light by Americans, it is due almost entirely to the agency’s relatively small relationship to the domestic war on drugs.
But, the reason for this agency coming into being was much broader than to knight a batch of domestic “narcs.” The domestic aspect represented only one tentacle; the one that Americans see. Actually, the lion’s share of investigative and “enforcement” work done in the domestic war on drugs is conducted by state and local officers. They often act with federal funding and equipment and occasionally access federal prosecution with accompanying federal minimum mandatory sentencing rules. These state and local officers also often make use of less restrictive federal asset forfeiture mechanisms via federal “adoptions” of their seizures. But they are not DEA agents.
What then, other than the domestic war on drugs, is the DEA’s purpose? The DEA, while a relatively small federal law enforcement agency, has many more foreign offices than any other. The FBI dwarfs the DEA in overall number of agents, but has few foreign offices. The DEA can get into places, obtain diplomatic cover, and run networks of confidential spies that the CIA, the military, and the FBI cannot because the DEA has no stated political mission, regime toppling imperative, or anti-corruption mandate as do its sister agencies. The FBI has relatively few foreign posts and even fewer that are staffed with active investigative personnel; the main exceptions being occasional showy importations to “hotspots” that have the potential for media headlines. FBI foreign assignments consist mostly of single-man suit-adorned supervisory “Legal Attaché” assignments in a relatively small number of U.S. embassies. These negligible foreign FBI posts don’t have teams of investigative agents assigned with the paramilitary infrastructure (aircraft, weapons, and dedicated teams of foreign officials) and imbedded sources needed to carry out covert or overt missions in those places.
Foreign governments don’t want to work with the FBI or even allow its operational agents in since it has a known political, espionage, and public-corruption function and is potentially working in that role to undermine the sovereignty of the regime while on the soil of the host nation. The same goes for the CIA. Foreign governments don’t want to work with an agency that is known to have a state surveillance, regime-toppling, political, and propaganda mission.
The U.S. military has the same limitations and political baggage attached to its mission. Long term U.S. military insertions beyond the token officer-grade embassy advisory staff to man the cocktail circuit are hard to pull off while keeping the foreigners happy. There is little ability to quietly establish, maintain, and utilize operational military intelligence, action, and infrastructure networks in the foreign environment without attracting foreign government scrutiny and negative media publicity. The operational presence, once known, would risk a backlash from the foreign society that may believe it is the focus of a foreign military plot or invasion deserving of a response. Worry about the perception of U.S. military belligerence caused by insertions of troops into foreign countries hasn’t always stopped American policy makers, but it does present a public relations problem.
DEA can deal with all of these problems. It is not seen as a threat by foreign regimes. The other brandishers of force in the Executive Branch are aware of this. The military, FBI, and CIA know this, so they occasionally go to DEA to obtain interrogation, targeting, and overt / covert action services. DEA Agents can walk through the country and into high level foreign government offices and meet directly with cabinet members, supreme court justices, attorney generals, military generals, and foreign legislators, as themselves, while at the same time meeting and negotiating with the seediest operatives and provocateurs in that same foreign environment posing as whoever they want. The CIA has good reason to be jealous. If DEA wants to do an otherwise illegal undercover operation in a foreign country, it has the option of either walking into the offices of the highest levels of foreign government and greasing the skids to get it approved in a closed-door session or merely ignoring the foreign laws and obtaining an exemption from Washington to go ahead with unilateral U.S. activity in that country without informing any foreign officials. DEA also works with dedicated foreign police and military units whose pay is supplemented and expenses paid for the purpose of requiting with action when called upon by their paymasters. Paid networks of non-government provocateurs complete the picture.
U.S. provisions to “certify” or “de-certify” cooperation in the war on drugs also encourage foreign governments to keep DEA on their soil. The economic incentives to foreign officials for allowing the “apolitical” U.S. agents in their countries are also large.
DEA, by intent and design, exists almost entirely outside the world of classified information in its day-to-day operations, which is another reason for jealousy on behalf of the CIA and military. Practically everything the CIA does is constrained by classified rules concerning talking and writing protocols; creating an almost nonfunctional work environment. In the electronic age, practically no normal means of communication, writing, or information transfer is allowed to the CIA because its whole world is classified by their own rules. DEA agents live on their cell phones both inside and outside their office spaces. CIA agents turn in their cell phones at the door to their offices and can’t use them for work anyway when out in the world because they aren’t approved for classified use; and once again, practically everything for them is classified.
A DEA Agent in Istanbul can go to the business center in his hotel lobby and send a fax to his boss since his work is not classified; not the CIA Agent. While CIA agents carry around highly controlled classified-approved electronic devices trying to get everyone to sync up or “turn the key” at the same time so they can talk, email, or fax, DEA Agents are chatting, faxing, and emailing away on normal devices with a wider variety of persons about the same topics discussed by the CIA, but in a purposely unclassified world. DEA can talk to a lot more people because of this. Foreign government officials and other underworld figures who are not cleared for U.S. classified material (but are the source of it), are not allowed to communicate their tips to U.S. agents utilizing U.S. classified systems anyway. DEA will talk to them on a normal cell phone about those very topics which are classified by other agencies. The CIA won’t. The classification often happens in other agencies after DEA gets the information through open communications networks and shares it with its security-constrained brethren.
DEA agents laugh about the restrictions the CIA lives under and smile when they see their own DEA reports now marked as classified when in the hands of the CIA, severely restricting their dissemination and use by that agency. If CIA and DEA co-case agents are working together on an investigation, the DEA guy makes all the work-related phone calls, makes all the in-person contacts, and puts together and implements the action response because the CIA guy can do very little directly in the post-Watergate era. The DEA agent has the best of both worlds. He has the security clearance allowing him to read other agency classified material and use classified systems, but he is not obliged to mark his own work product as classified or send it through classified conduits.
The DEA has not been spotlighted and constrained by mechanisms like the Church Committee hearings in the 1970s that resulted in limitations to what the CIA could do in both the foreign and domestic environment. The DEA also has the advantage of not being precluded by law, as an agency, from conducting operations in the domestic arena. The CIA and the military do not enjoy this advantage. DEA can fly a cargo plane in from a foreign country, cross the U.S. border, land in the U.S., offload, and continue its mission on land without violating some rule about operating in the U.S. or spying on Americans. The F.A.A. air traffic controllers know the call signs of DEA pilots and wave them in, asking no questions. “Those guys are coming in. Let them through.” So, DEA can conduct seamless activity in the foreign environment and in the United States without suddenly stepping into a legally-precluded “Posse Comitatus” domestic warfare and spying quagmire.
Wow, if the CIA could only do that without worrying about who notices their international flights taking off and landing in the middle of the night with persons and cargo being hurriedly ushered on and off headed to their final destinations. Yes, they are jealous. It’s no fun to just drool while you intercept DEA reports harkening back to the good ol’ days while you reminisce and think, “If only we could have our people and planes working on both ends, in the U.S. and overseas, delivering people and stuff back and forth across the U.S. borders; and do it all right out in the open like they do.”
Nixon Needed a Replacement for the Cold War
In the relatively prosperous times after World War II, the sinister underworld activities of the cold war were of little concern to Americans; that is until war fatigue had seriously set in during the latter years of the Vietnam War. The hidden, and sometimes not so hidden, activities of the CIA in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere were largely ignored by the Baby Boomer generation and garnered little press coverage. An occasional scary tale about the evil Ruskies was enough to keep the spy agencies and accompanying “defensive” war machine bloated with little fanfare. The CIA and their paid proxies had a fairly free hand when trying to bring about regime change and destabilize foreign entities by instigating and funding coups, conducting torture, assassinating prominent individuals, and wreaking general havoc against those it wished to take advantage of.
Little of this was known to the public until various revelations began to come out in the early 1970s.
Things then began to change in a big way. By this time, war (cold and hot) fatigue was more than a nagging sensation. It got teeth. Members of Congress were enlightened and plagued by a still somewhat functioning media. Brave journalists and editors forced them to deal with revelations of nefarious activities and the public’s reaction to those revelations. Public and media pressure eventually caused Congress to respond in a big way. The Church Committee hearings were only one of the responses.
There were also anxious planning sessions within the affected (Nixon) administration to develop responses to counter the anger-fueled barriers being erected in front of the cold and hot war gravy train. What could be done to keep the black ops status quo alive, but in a newly obscured direction?
It was an anxious time for the military, spy, and police industries that could see the public tiring of being the geese that laid the golden eggs for the world’s oppressors. A mechanism to keep the receding secret and open war networks going was desperately desired. The previous anti-commie approach was in the spotlight and was becoming no longer viable. The public response to the revelations was foretelling the collapse of the megadollar-stoked military and civilian paramilitary machine. Lots of people had been making money and there was a financial disaster looming on the horizon for the spies, warmonger politicians, contractors, and the entire previously hidden or ignored havoc-wreaking machine in general.
A new believable, or at least tolerable, tax consuming concept was needed to allow the chasing of phantom enemies proffered by the oligarchy to scare the public. Would a new system of state force work to garner tax dollars? Or, maybe a new dragon to replace the commies? Or maybe both – a new template with renamed “warriors” going against a new enemy?
A very telling timeline follows that portrays some of the events related to the escalating public and congressional opposition to the cold and hot war activities of the Executive branch. It will also show the Administration’s frantic fervor for – and eventual arrival at – a solution in a new direction that would not immediately draw the public’s ire to the extent the war against communism was now doing. Nixon pulled it off just in the nick of time.
January, 1970 – Christopher Pyle revealed to Congress that the U.S. Army was spying on civilians in the U.S. who participated in anti-war protests.
June, 1971 –Time Magazine began publishing excerpts from “The Pentagon Papers,” leaked to it by Daniel Ellsberg, revealing to the public the illegal CIA and military operations in Southeast Asia including those in Laos and Cambodia; Time’s cover proclaimed, “Pentagon Papers: The Secret War.” Nixon and his Attorney General John Mitchell obtained an injunction against Time Magazine to halt further publication of the series after three installments. However, Ellsberg also distributed “The Pentagon Papers” to others and it was soon popping up in 15 different publications causing a widespread public reaction against the previously secret anti-communist foreign operations being conducted by the U.S. government.
September, 1971 – The CIA-affiliated “White House Plumbers” broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office to look for information to be used to publically discredit this leaker of “The Pentagon Papers.”
June 17, 1972 – Personnel affiliated with the White House Plumbers were arrested breaking into the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building.
June 20, 1972 – The Washington Post, informed by government source “Deep Throat,” revealed the connection of the Watergate burglars to former CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt and Nixon’s Special Counsel, Charles Colson.
September, 1972 – White House undercover operatives – Former CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt, Former FBI Agent G. Gordon Liddy, and the Watergate burglars (four of which had CIA affiliations with one also being a former FBI Agent) – were charged in the first wave of indictments related to Nixon’s domestic black bag operations. The final number of indictees eventually reached 69.
January, 1973 – The Paris Peace Accords were signed. However, Nixon informed South Vietnam that he would continue U.S. bombing against North Vietnam if needed. U.S. troops were reduced in Vietnam, but U.S. war involvement in Laos and Cambodia was increased after the Accords were signed. The Nixon administration viewed the U.S. war action in Laos and Cambodia as not being restricted by the Vietnam-centric Paris peace agreement.
February, 1973 – Amidst the increasingly uncomfortable new focus on CIA activities and covert activities in general, CIA director Richard Helms shut down illegal operations MH-CHAOS and MH-MERRIMAC which were CIA domestic spying operations investigating “counter-cultural” groups operating in the U.S. including black rights proponents, women’s lib activists, and Vietnam War protestors. These operations used teams of CIA agents including CIA provocateurs imbedded in the mentioned groups. The existence of these operations, which violated the CIA’s charter precluding such activity in the U.S., was not known publically until 1974.
March – May, 1973 – Nixon continued making veiled and not-so-veiled threats to resume hostilities against North Vietnam if, in his determination, they were violating the Paris Peace Accords. Meanwhile, during this time of supposed “peace” and “cease fire” in Vietnam, heavy B-52 raids continued to rain death upon Cambodia.
May 17, 1973 – The Senate Watergate Committee commenced hearings and discussed, amongst other things, the black ops activities and hidden agenda of Nixon and his Executive Branch.
June, 1973 – In Congressional confirmation hearings, Nixon’s new Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, said that he would call for a renewed bombing campaign against North Vietnam (in violation of the Paris Peace Accords) if, in his determination, the North was aggressing against the South.
July 1, 1973 – Public and congressional fervor over the continuation of the U.S. war against communism in Southeast Asia, despite the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, coupled with anger over the covert actions of the Executive Branch, resulted in the passage of veto-proof legislation (the Case-Church Amendment) defunding the war by specifically prohibiting further military activity in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The legislation passed with a greater-than-two-thirds super majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives despite Nixon’s and Secretary of State Kissinger’s repeated protests demanding more time and freedom to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia. Nixon had no choice and was forced to sign the war-ending legislation into law on July 1, 1973.
July 1, 1973 – On the exact same day that a rebuffed and angry Nixon was forced by Congress to sign the veto-proof legislation ending the War and its illegal CIA and military activities in Laos and Cambodia, Nixon created the DEA out of thin air via Executive Order without Congressional authorization.
This bears repeating. Embattled Nixon, searching for a way to replace the now disgraced, emasculated, and defunded foreign and domestic anti-communist black ops and military agenda, created the DEA with the stroke of a pen, on the exact same day that he was forced by a two-thirds majority of Congress to use his pen to end the massive overt and covert war activity in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
CIA Director Richard Helms had – to his credit – previously transferred the portion of congressional funding, previously included in the CIA’s secret budget to be expended on the CIA’s massive illegal war in Laos and Cambodia, to the Defense Department budget, properly determining that it was war funding that should not stay in the normal CIA budget. The CIA had continued the activity, but using money now being funneled through the Department of Defense earmarked for that war purpose. So, when Congress shut the purse strings on military funding for the war in Southeast Asia, the CIA’s large-scale war activities in Laos and Cambodia were shut down too, leaving the previously built-up crop of foreign CIA Agents without foreign jobs and with no illegal domestic roles to fill either due to the silent shutdown of the criminally-conceived MH-CHAOS and MH-MERRIMAC.
(Read the final part of this excerpt on tomorrow’s edition of LRC. This is from a book project, “Cold War to Drug War,” being undertaken by David Hathaway.)
Wouldn’t it be easier if they just hit us all with another once-annually additional “fee” (that is, another tax) that would be due Jan. 1 and otherwise left us alone on the roads unless we actually caused an accident?
Instead of cops lurking in cutouts on the highway, radar guns at the ready, fleecing people at random – why not just cut ’em a check every year and end the dog-and-pony show that goes on countless of thousands of times every day by the side of the road – and later on, in a court?
It’d be so much easier for everyone.
Probably, more profitable, too.
The dog-and-pony show must go on. The system must assuage its vestigial guilt over the literal highway robbery that occurs every day by telling itself – and hectoring us – that it’s all about “safety.”
How do I know it’s bullshit? How can I prove it is?
Merely by pointing out that if the object of the exercise actually was “our safety,” then such a thing as unmarked cop cars would not exist. The fact that they do exist proves that what they’re after is money above all else.
Especially “our safety.”
They want us to do something actionable – so that we can be issued a piece of payin’ paper. Think about it:
Marked cop cars have what effect on drivers?
Everyone slows down to within – and often, below – the posted limit. No matter how preposterous it happens to be. Well, if what they want is for us to “slow down” – for “safety” – then, mission accomplished.
Would it not increase “safety” to increase the number of marked patrol cars in circulation rather than cammo them up? Probably, the presence of a single marked cop car has more deterrent effect than three or four – or even half a dozen – unmarked cars. The marked car has a multiplying effect. Everyone within its orbit “slows down” (for “safety”) and not only that, cars outside the immediate orbit are also effectively compelled to “slow down” by dint of the fact that the cars within visual range of the marked cop have slowed down. Which slows everyone down.
It has what the “safety” crowd likes to call a calming effect on traffic.
Unmarked cars, on the other hand, cull individual victims from the herd – and have little deterrent effect on the herd. Everyone’s driving along – usually at well above the posted limit, because the posted limit is invariable set significantly below the 85th percentile speed (more about that here). The unmarked cop picks out one of them – because he can only deal with one “speeder” at a time – and pulls that car over. Meanwhile, all the other “speeders” continue to “speed” – which is so very, very “unsafe.”
Well, so we’re told.