More on the cancer in your water

If you use chlorine to keep your swimming pool clean, you are exposing yourself to massive amounts of government-approved cancer-causing agents.

I told you last week that the government is mandating your drinking/bathing water be contaminated with fluoride and chlorine, and that one shower exposes you to the same amount of carcinogens as drinking a week’s worth of tap water. Just think what a long dip in your pool will do.

Actually, it’s not the chlorine itself that’s harmful, but the reaction from chlorine’s exposure to natural organic matter like decaying vegetation in the source water. Scientists have determined that disinfection byproducts (DBPs) created by this reaction are the carcinogens trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).

These DBPs have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Studies have shown exposure to DBPs increase the risk of bladder and rectal cancers, particularly in smokers. Studies have also shown that DBPs have been linked to asthma. Another study found that after 40 minutes of swimming, people showed a large rise in markers of DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Concentrations of four of the most common byproducts were seven times higher after people swam.

Author and researcher Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D., found in her studies that all cancer patients studied over a five-year period had traces of common household bleach (chlorine) in their tumors and in their drinking water.

Researchers have also determined that drinking five glasses of cold chlorinated water a day increases the risk of spontaneous abortions. Chlorine is a definite causative factor in atherosclerosis.

So what to do? There are alternatives to using chlorine in pools. One is hydrogen peroxide 35 percent (food grade) from chemical distributors. In the heat of the summer you can use 3 to 4 gallons per 20,000 gallons of pool water, every few days as needed.

You can get the 35 percent hydrogen peroxide in drums that you can pump out into a bucket. Mix about a quart of hydrogen peroxide with a gallon of pool water and disperse into the pool. Repeat until all of the hydrogen peroxide is in the pool. Use peroxide testing strips regularly to check the levels.

If you pour the concentrated hydrogen peroxide in without diluting, you will bleach the pool liner. It will also bleach your clothes if you get it on you.

Hydrogen peroxide 35 percent food grade costs approximately $450 per 55-gallon drum. You may have to order through a business or a farm, as they probably won’t sell to an individual homeowner. It’s more expensive to purchase in smaller quantities (about $45 per gallon) available through natural health product distributors.

Hydrogen peroxide is toxic in concentrate but very healthful in weak dilution. It’s very healthy to swim in as opposed to chlorine. Be careful with it and lock away from children. Hydrogen peroxide may damage natural rubber or silver components in the pool’s filtration system.

Another alternative is an ionizer system that uses copper and silver ionization, a UV system or a saltwater system, but these still require the use of some chlorine.

If you feel you must use chlorine, shower — and have everyone who plans to swim do so — before entering the pool in order to remove bacteria and chemicals from you skin. This will cut down on DBPs.

Government is theft

Government creates nothing and government has nothing except that which it has stolen from the people. And it steals it in myriad ways.

But government and politicians have invented just as many ways to convince the people that it is not theft when it compels people to surrender half or more of their earnings under penalty of fines and imprisonment. In fact, government and politicians are so adept at theft and deception that most people have no idea of the expanse of the government theft system and the criminal Mafioso gang that runs it.

For 100 years or more, Americans have been victimized by a state-sponsored socialist, altruistic, collectivist social and educational system that has produced a popular mentality of diminishing the individual and independent thinker to a collectivist mind (mentality), which can be esoterically swayed, directed and channeled against his own best interest. The virtue and sanctity of the individual person and ego are no more, and anathema to the state.

What does it all mean? It means government has created a state of mind that makes it honorable and necessary to give oneself and one’s production over to the state. Each individual, in order to be a good citizen of the state, must contribute most of his means and be grateful for the services the state returns — whether they are necessary or useful or not. There is never any consideration that perhaps some of the services or programs are neither desirable nor desired, or that someone or something other than the state can provide some or all necessary services more efficiently than can government.

The first and most obvious means of government theft is the income tax system. It is a known fact that at this time in the U.S., 50 percent of the population supports the other 50 percent with their income taxes. The producers support the nonproducers, including the ultimate in nonproducers, the elected and government bureaucrat class. The political class and their propaganda machine push the notions that the producers must “pay their fair share” and “give back” to the community. And then there is that subtle economic class war syndrome that implies that the accumulation of wealth makes one dirty.

“Pay your fair share” is a control phrase created to condition the public mind to a perverted “fairness” that uses an altruistic public to feel obligated morally to pay taxes. It tells the conscious mind to “do the right thing.” This phrase helps extract tax money without allowance for logic or legality.

But the income tax does not fund government — at least not the federal government. Taxes are necessary to fund state and local governments; but with a central bank and the ability to create money at will, they are not necessary to fund federal government. Remember that the U.S. government functioned and was fully funded for more than 100 years without an income tax — except for the period 1861-1872, when Lincoln instituted one to pay for the War Against Separation.

But what about the national debt, you ask? The crowd believes that there is a “national debt.” They believe this for good reason. There is a whole industry of deception in America that is promoting the national debt myth.

What does the national debt really mean? Since U.S. “money” (and the whole world’s money) is bank credit and since bank credit is created by government and commercial banks, then the “national debt” represents bank credit passed or “lent” upon an unsuspecting public for their real assets and labor. Translated, modern money (bank credit) expropriates wealth. In truth, then, the huge reported “national debt” is how much wealth the government has stolen from the American people — not how much the government owes.

The “national debt” propaganda covers the fraud that our real assets and real wealth are flowing to the government in exchange for government created credit.

Yes, indeed, this is witchcraft that reverses our thought processes. And, yes, the national debt is an asset to the government, not a liability. Real assets stolen with bank credit are assets to the government, not debt. Proof: When the local commercial bank “lends” you money (credit) that it creates with a bookkeeping entry, this transaction appears on the bank’s books as an asset (a deposit) to the bank and a liability (debt) to the borrower, who pledged real assets as collateral.

Yes, your debt is the bank’s asset. This same system works with the U.S. monetary system. Do you think that the government and the politicians want to keep this a secret? For some reason, the Federal Reserve spilled the beans in its publication “Keeping Our Money Healthy,” published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in which it said: “(O)ur system works only with credit.” All we have to know then is who creates credit and how is it used?

Wealth always flows to the creators of credit. Government and banks create money (credit) for one purpose, and that is to expropriate wealth. The expropriation of wealth is stealing with no payment intended.

Not only has the government stolen the national wealth and called it the national debt, but it has the people believing that it still owes a national debt. In other words, after being robbed with credit, the “national debt” implies that we owe the amount stolen from us. An entity that creates credit out of nothing and “pays” it for real assets and production is not assuming a debt by any definition. It is stealing and calling the theft debt. The creation and control of all credit in the hands of a central bank (government) is the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto. Look honestly at the American monetary system, and you are looking tyranny and slavery in the face.

So what is the purpose of the income tax? The federal government uses the income tax to control consumption, redistribute wealth, hand out special favors to certain classes and corporations to buy votes and campaign cash, and to compile a dossier on all Americans.

Finally, let’s consider Social Security. Social Security was ostensibly created to fund the retirement of America’s workers. But the Social Security system is the same system as the income tax. Social Security is paid out of created credit money. It is not in any sort of “trust,” and it is not “funded.”

Although your money is taken from you without your consent and promised to you when you retire, government agents do all they can to make sure you get as little back as possible. This has been so since the beginning. Why do you think they keep raising the age at which full benefits begin and jiggling the numbers to decide that some are too “rich” to deserve to get their money back?

In 1935, when Social Security was first instituted, the full benefit age was 65, and the benefits went only to the primary worker. It was four years later that the law was changed to include survivor benefits for the retiree’s spouse and children. Those who did receive benefits in the early years sometimes got back far more than they paid in.

But most people never received benefits or did so only a few years because the average U.S. life expectancy in 1935 was 59.9 for men. By the time spouses began receiving benefits, their life expectancy was only 65, and for men it was still just 60.

New American workers paying into the system today will get far less in payments than they pay in, even if they reach the average life expectancy of upper 70s for men and low 80s for women. The increased life expectancy of Americans is behind the constant move to raise the age for full benefits. The idea for raising the minimum age is not about “saving the system” as you are told. It’s about getting it to an age where as few people as possible will receive a payout.

For those actually receiving some of their money back that was stolen from them during the course of their working life, government has found another way to make sure you get as little as possible. Government creates inflation (which dilutes the value of your dollars) and hides the inflation with phony measurements. Social Security is indexed to inflation. By keeping the official inflation numbers artificially low, the government gives back as little as possible to Social Security recipients. And the money they receive is worth far less than it was when it was stolen from them.

Social Security benefits were once 50 percent taxable. In other words, the government stole your money through a tax with a promise to give it back, but half of what it gave back was taxed (a portion stolen back) again. Under the current formula, as much as 85 percent is taxable. So government steals your money and calls it a tax, uses your money for its own purposes rather than letting you invest it as you see fit, then gives some of it back but steals some more of what it gives back, calling it another tax — in other words, a tax on taxed money. This makes sense only in the land of government.

The Social Security system is nothing more than biggest Ponzi scheme in history — that and a bait-and-switch scam. The bait is that you’ll have something for your retirement. The switch is that you’ll likely be dead before you’re eligible to get your own money back.

And getting more people paying into the scam is one reason for the big push for amnesty. It’s a plan to get more workers paying into the system in order to offset the falling birth rate of Americans.

Politicians tell us that if we don’t “fix” Social Security, it will go broke. Technically speaking, it is “broke” already, since the funds are used as soon as they are collected, as in a Ponzi scheme. The so-called Social Security Trust Fund exists only in theory. But Social Security will not go broke. “They” can print the money so Social Security will not go broke, but the “money” paid out will go broke in purchasing power.

Yes, government can fund all its activities and programs with money printing, but there is an inherit danger in this. That is why there is a need to steal your money under so many guises.

Production has to be balanced with consumption or the system collapses. Of course, as sick people and old people die, in the last months they produce huge income to the medical establishment. Then when they expire, they come off of Social Security, Medicare and all other government “benefits.”

This represents a big reduction in consumption. Therefore, as the population gets top heavy with the sick and the seniors, more “benevolent” ways must be found to get them off the nonproducing consumption side of the population numbers.

So if you want to do what the government wants you to do, you must expire when you retire. Too many nonproducing consumers will not be allowed. Sorry!

Rubio’s snake oil

Only a lifelong member of the political class or a snake oil salesman can so comfortably look you in the face and try to convince you that he is giving you something while he’s stealing from you. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) does it so well he must be both.

The bit of sleight of hand he’s peddling as a tax cut is astonishing in its hubris. That Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) would latch onto to the plan would be disappointing were it not so predictable. After all, Lee has now inhabited the District of Corruption for four years, as has Rubio. That’s well past the expiration date for souls in DC.

While Rubio never showed evidence of having a soul, Lee’s has been shown to be disappearing for at least two years.

There is much phony talk about the plan that is irrelevant. For instance, there are charges that it raises the deficit. The idea of a deficit is specious double-think because the notion that the U.S. government has “debt” is a farcical one. There is no government debt when the government can simply print money to infinity.

But here’s the crux of the matter. It gives legitimacy to the idea that the government is entitled to your earnings and that it needs taxes to operate. It does nothing to kill the beast that is the IRS. It does nothing to shrink the leviathan government. Instead, the main concern from the talking heads (and Rubio and Lee, apparently) is that government continues to be funded at current levels.

Under the plan, the marginal rate for individuals earning $75,000 or couples filing jointly earning $150,000 jumps from 25 percent to 35 percent. Only those earning more than $400,000 see a rate cut: from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. It provides incentives to make babies by raising the per child tax credit by $2,500.

There’s a reason behind incentivizing children, and it’s not helping families. If the Rubio and Lee plan were about helping families, they would incentivize achievement, not punish it. More children mean more contributors to Social Security. Politicians use the Social Security money as a slush fund and to control consumption (more on this Monday).

Corporations get a tax cut on their income: from 35 percent to 25 percent. But the corporate tax rate should be zero. Corporations don’t pay taxes, and the idea that they do is more double-speak. They pass all taxes to consumers.

But in a sop to the corporatists the tax plan gives a 100 percent deduction on capital equipment. That simply creates malinvestment by encouraging the businesses to purchase equipment they do not need while penalizing small businesses trying to obtain financing from banks to purchase equipment they do need.

The plan is a dream deal for the corporatists, the redistributionists and the social engineers. It punishes achievement, rewards corporations, plays favorites and expands bureaucracy.

And despite Rubio’s and Lee’s claims, there is nothing “conservative” about it.

Mr. President — not His Highness

On April 16, 1789, newly elected President George Washington reluctantly left his home in Mt. Vernon, Virginia, for New York and the fledgling nation’s capital for his inauguration.

Washington didn’t seek the presidency. It sought him, and he had to be convinced with the encouragement from many of his fellow Founding Fathers, his former troops and letters from Americans across the new states. He later wrote in his memoirs that on the eve of his departure to New York, he felt “very much like a man who is condemned to death does when the time of his execution draws nigh.”

No popular election was held that year. But, as constitutionally stipulated, the electors from 10 of the 13 states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution, and New York failed to choose electors in time) voted overwhelmingly to select Washington over John Adams.

When the Senate proposed that he be called by the official title “His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of Their Liberties,” Washington chose to instead be addressed simply as Mr. President.

Fearing any resemblance to European monarchy, Washington instructed his tailor to make his inauguration suit from simple broadcloth. He established many of the traditions of office we see today, including the precedent that later became a constitutional amendment of serving only two terms.

Over the years, particularly since the middle of the last century, politicians have sought to turn the presidency into a pseudo-monarchy. They adore and expand upon the trappings of office rather than eschew them. They grovel for great sums of money, sell their souls to the banksters and corporatists, and lie to the people in order to obtain the office.

Washington was far from perfect. His most egregious sin was relying too heavily on his friend Alexander Hamilton, who was a British mercantilist and advocate of high taxes and a central bank, and allowing Hamilton to convince him it was a good idea to make war on Pennsylvanians resisting the insidious “whiskey tax.”

But he would certainly make a better role model for our next president to follow than the past several presidents have been.

The police and culture problem

There has been much attention placed of late on police abuses in America, and it’s being treated as if it’s a new phenomenon. It is not. Technology has just provided new unassailable witnesses.

For many years, people have complained of abuses similar to those that today are making headlines. But those who complained were usually dismissed by the masses because conventional wisdom, as propagandized in the media, was that the police were always honorable and interested only in “protecting” and “serving” the greater good of the community. Add to that the fact that those who complained were usually minorities or “criminals,” and you had a perfect storm for a coverup.

The veneer that all police were honorable began to be peeled back a bit in the early 1970s when New York police officer Frank Serpico and detective David Durk exposed widespread corruption in the New York Police Department. Similar corruption existed/exists in many departments today. But the blue wall of silence still managed to keep most of the complaints against police abuses contained.

Few abuse complaints actually made it to court as cases against police, and fewer still resulted in a positive outcome for the victims of actual police abuse. Those that did make it to trial generally hinged on the perceived character of the police officers involved versus the character of the witness. Typically, lawyers were able to convince juries that police interacted only with “bad people,” so the people accusing police of misconduct were obviously of questionable character. Once that seed was planted in the heads of jurors, it grew so that the victims of real abuse were denied justice.

The system itself, which places police, prosecutors and judges on the same side, also stacked the deck against real victims.

Thanks to the advent of cellphone camera technology, abuse cases no longer hinge solely on whether attorneys can destroy the character of the abuse victims. Some police are being filmed being what some police have always been: abusive and egotistical thugs who cover their misdeeds with dropped weapons, trumped up charges, phony reports and the silence of their comrades.

Not all police are abusive and dishonest. Whether it is a majority who are is impossible to say. But any who cover up the misdeeds of their comrades out of fear of persecution from other members of the force or loss of employment are just as guilty as those who did the deed in the first place.

Police departments across the country have a serious problem. They have come to believe they are the law or they are bigger than the law. But rather than acknowledging and tackling it, they instead try and get new laws passed against filming them in the course of their work.

But there is a societal problem at work as well. I want to relate an anecdote I heard that shows it.

A man who runs a home for underprivileged and abused youths was recently working in his office when a police car pulled into the driveway. Several of the children ran to his office and told him the police were there and he should escape out the back door.

He told them he had nothing to fear from the police and went out and spoke to the officer who was there on a routine matter.

Later, he inquired of the children why they had urged him to attempt to flee the police. He learned that the only encounter those children had ever had with police were when officers barged into their homes to take away their parents. They viewed the police as a sect who could drag away their parents with impunity.

All of this is symptom and a sign of the breakdown of morality in our culture, a breakdown that has been ongoing for decades. If God’s laws can be dismissed out of hand, man’s laws become irrelevant.

Police have turned Christ’s notion of what it is to be a servant on its ear. Families are broken because the parents have rejected God’s teaching on what family is supposed to be and have turned instead to earthly pleasures and earthly wisdom.

Woe unto all of us. We are all reaping the consequences.

There’s cancer in your water

There’s cancer in your water, and the government mandates it be put there. So much for the idea government bureaucrats are concerned about your health.

The additives sodium fluoride and chlorine are both cancer-causing agents, as numerous studies have shown.

Sodium fluoride is added to most American drinking water under government fiat. American dentists recommend using fluoride toothpaste. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls fluoride one of the “ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century.”

They don’t tell you it is a poisonous pesticide and industrial waste product. Just a half tube of the flavored toothpastes marketed to children contains enough fluoride to kill them. It also causes brain damage.

But today we focus on chlorine. It’s actually not the chlorine itself that’s harmful, but the reaction from chlorine’s exposure to natural organic matter like decaying vegetation in the source water.

Scientists have determined that disinfection byproducts (DBPs) created by this reaction are carcinogens. They are trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).

They have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Studies have shown exposure to DBPs increase the risk of bladder and rectal cancers, particularly in smokers.

Author and researcher Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D., found in her studies that all cancer patients studied over a five-year period had traces of common household bleach (chlorine) in their tumors and in their drinking water.

But it’s not just through drinking chlorinated water that THM exposure comes. In fact, the greatest exposure comes through skin exposure by bathing in chlorinated water. One shower exposes you to THMs in the equivalent of a week’s worth of drinking tap water.

To prevent exposure to THMs, fluoride and a host of other heavy metals, toxins and contaminates, use a reverse osmosis filtration system. But don’t just filter your drinking water. You need a whole home system.

Nonsensical wordplay

Mr. Bob Livingston,

In trying to take your survey, you keep referring to “Open Carry”. By that do you mean Open Display, or “Concealed Carry”. It makes a big difference. I do not like “Open Carry”, but approve of “Concealed Carry”.

Would you please reply, Thank you,

W.p. Thiel

Dear W.p.,

Your question is nonsensical wordplay. Open carry is what it sounds like. Concealed carry is what it sounds like.

Best wishes,
Bob

The freedom to discriminate is essential to liberty

You discriminate every day of your life.

You discriminated when you chose your neighborhood and your house. You discriminated when you chose your job. You discriminated when you chose your church — or when you made the decision to not attend church at all.

You discriminate when you choose your friends. You discriminate when you choose your doctor (or did before Obamacare), your barber, your travel agent. You discriminate when you choose your insurance agent, your auto repair shop, your in-home security monitor, your pest-control service.

You discriminate when you choose which movie to watch, which book to read, which electronic device to buy, which show to watch, which sporting team to follow. You discriminate in your choice of beer. You discriminate in your choice of car: American or foreign.

Life in a free country is about being free to make choices, choices based on your own criteria rather than one mandated by the state. Don’t like fried chicken? Stay out of KFC. Don’t like pizza? Avoid Pizza Hut. Don’t care for seafood? Red Lobster isn’t the only restaurant in town. Denny’s gave you lousy service? Stay away… and tell your friends.

Don’t like how Wal-Mart compensates its workers? Buy your cheap Chinese junk from Target or Kmart — or the local mom and pop store — and your groceries from Publix or Kroger.

Don’t like it that Chick-fil-A’s president supports traditional marriage? Buy your chicken sandwich from Burger King. They’ve gone all in on “gay pride.” Don’t like that Phil Robertson defends traditional marriage? Change your channel. There are probably 175 more on your dial.

Don’t like Muslims? Stay out of the Middle East, mosques, Louis Farrakhan rallies and U.S. prisons — and Deerbornistan, Michigan. Don’t like Jews? Stay out of Israel, New York, Massachusetts, California, synagogues and jewelry stores.

Don’t like kids? Avoid day cares, schools and playgrounds… and sexual intercourse.

Don’t like blacks? Move to Montana, Vermont or Idaho. There aren’t many there.

Don’t like whites? Move to Detroit; Jackson, Mississippi; Miami Gardens, Florida; Birmingham, Alabama; Baltimore; or Memphis, Tennessee. You will see some, but they’ll be the minority.

That’s discrimination. It’s also called liberty, freedom of choice and, in the concept of natural law, freedom of association as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Of course, America’s no longer free… especially if you are a business owner; especially a Christian business owner.

There’s a lot of manufactured outrage over alleged “discrimination” of gays. Yes, it’s quite manufactured — by the bullying homosexual lobby and progressive agitators. Some of the most high-profile cases were begun by homosexuals “shopping around” for someone to turn down their request for services related to a gay “wedding” so they could feign offense and sue for compensatory damages or, in the case of the Indiana pizzeria, by a reporter with an agenda who blindsided a naïve store owner with a nonsensical question and then in her reporting twisted the response to promote a meme.

And if you are denied service by a business, what of it? Wouldn’t you rather shop a store that values you as a customer? Certainly, the service or product would be better. And only someone with a mental illness or a progressive or someone in government (pardon the redundancy) would consciously and continually force himself on others against their will.

But rather than go to another business that coveted their services, the bullying homosexual lobby sought to bring to bear the heavy hand of government to enforce their will on others. It’s an old tried-and-true practice.

But businesses are property; and as such, the property owner has all the rights under natural law to provide service or not based on whatever criteria he sees fit — even if one or the majority finds the criteria bigoted, shortsighted or just plain dumb. Opening a business doesn’t require one to surrender his natural rights. That’s found nowhere in the Constitution. And in fact, the magical (and not legally ratified) 14th Amendment that progressives and activists judges love to cite to create all manner of “rights” bestowed personhood on corporations (see Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. and Citizens United v. FEC), giving them rights under the 1st Amendment.

Progressives would have you believe — and some have stated as much on Personal Liberty — that allowing business owners to operate in a discriminatory fashion would lead to wholesale discrimination against certain classes. To prevent such wholesale discrimination, progressives created laws — not the least of which is the 14th Amendment — to force businesses to operate in a manner contrary to their owner’s beliefs or conscience, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment’s “free exercise” and “freedom of assembly” clauses and state religious liberty laws.

Jim Crow is the cudgel progressives love pull out to beat about the head and shoulders of liberty lovers and supporters of laissez-faire capitalism. But Jim Crow laws were not societal or free market constructs. Instead, they were rooted in statism and efforts by racist progressives to restrict the free market from the period beginning in the early 1890s into the 1920s.

In his review of David W. Southern’s “The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917,” Reason’s Damon Root wrote:

[T]he Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917, the very worst of it — disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching — ‘went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism.’ Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today’s activist left…

Take the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that has rightly come to symbolize the South’s Jim Crow regime. In Plessy, the Court considered a Louisiana statute forbidding railroads from selling first-class tickets to blacks, a clear violation of economic liberty. In its 7-1 ruling, the Court upheld segregation in public accommodations so long as “separate but equal” facilities were provided for each race, setting off an orgy of legislation throughout the old Confederacy. South Carolina, for example, segregated trains two years after Plessy. Streetcars followed in 1905, train depots and restaurants in 1906, textile plants in 1915-16, circuses in 1917, pool halls in 1924, and beaches in 1934.

No doubt many of those businesses would have excluded or mistreated black customers whatever the law. But in a market free from Jim Crow regulations, other businesses would have welcomed blacks, or at least black dollars, forcing racist enterprises to bear the full cost of excluding or mistreating all those potential paying customers. (This was one of the chief reasons the segregationists pushed for those laws in the first place.) The state, in the eloquent words of the historian C. Vann Woodward, granted “free rein and the majesty of the law to mass aggressions that might otherwise have been curbed, blunted, or deflected.”

Christian business owners are clearly being singled out for attack by the progressives and their mainstream media propaganda machine in their current war to foist their homosexual perversion on Americans. Evidence of this is found in the fact that there is no media or progressive outrage over “gay-owned” bakeries refusing to provide “traditional marriage cakes” nor over Muslim-owned bakeries refusing to provide gay “marriage” cakes. These facts are not just glossed over. They are ignored entirely because they don’t promote the current progressive attack on Christianity.

For a Christian business owner, the idea of participating — even tangentially — in something the Holy Scriptures describes as sinful and perverse is committing sin. When the state forces a Christian business owner — or anyone for that matter — to provide labor or services against his will, it is nothing less than state-coerced slavery. When the state forces a Christian business owner to ignore his religious conscience, it’s a violation of his religious liberty.

The Christian florist, baker, photographer or restaurateur does not go seeking people to discriminate against. And in fact, evidence has shown they have not discriminated against anyone in the regular course of business. They simply want to be left free to avoid participating in so-called gay “weddings.”

One business denying service to a potential customer, whether because the business owner cannot fulfill the order due to workload, because the business owner doesn’t like the color of the customer’s hair or skin, because the person is a known adulterer, because the person is a homosexual, or because the business owner is simply in a contrary mood harms no one but the business owner. The customer denied service is free to take his business to any of a number of other shops nearby.

Left to its own devices and without government intervention, the free market will compensate.

However, when government uses force to require the business owner to provide a service against his will, government has become totalitarian. The answer to individual discrimination is not government-sponsored discrimination.

The freedom to discriminate is essential to liberty. It is not the role of government to determine which discrimination is acceptable and which is not — or to enforce its own form of discrimination to correct another. Though, historically, that is precisely what’s occurred.

Another backdoor gun grab

The proposal by Congressweasel Rosa DeLauro (Gun-grabber-Conn.) to provide two $1,000 tax credits to people who turn their “assault weapons” over to law enforcement was met with everything from indifference to guffaws by gun owners.

After all, DeLauro displayed typical gun-grabber “idiocy” and prevarication with the pronouncement on her website that: “Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense. There is no reason on Earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield. These weapons were used in Newtown, Aurora and countless other mass shootings across America. And they have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty. They have no place on the streets or in our homes.”

Gun owners have even gone so far as to state in some forums that as long as the bill is voluntary, it is harmless. Reason’s J.D. Tuccille suggested that the law would/should lead to people purchasing a stripped-down sporting rifle for about $600 and turn it in for the “credit” and then turn around and use the $2,000 to buy a better rifle with accessories and some ammo.

But not to worry, he opined, such a bill “has about zero chance of getting through the current Congress.”

Such dismissal of DeLauro’s gun grab is dangerously shortsighted. With Michael Bloomberg’s money behind the effort and indifference to it from the gun lobby, such a bill could easily be slipped into and hidden in some other legislation and enough Republicans convinced to look the other way as it slid through the process. Most politicians would sell their mothers into slavery for campaign donations. And once gun legislation becomes part of the tax code, IRS bureaucrats can massage it to mean almost anything.

Gun grabbers are not “idiots” when it comes to stealing liberty. They are nefarious, determined, disingenuous and patient. They are masters at employing gradualism to achieve their ultimate goal of disarming law-abiding citizens.

Magnesium deficiency can be deadly; know the signs

Magnesium deficiency is one of the major contributors to cardiac arrhythmia, angina, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and sudden death from heart attack.

Magnesium is required by all the body’s major organs in order for them to function properly. It regulates the body’s enzyme reactions, transports essential ions across cell membranes and helps the body in producing adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a coenzyme necessary for cell metabolism.

A deficiency of magnesium is dangerous for the nervous system, heart and kidneys. Unfortunately, almost everyone is low in magnesium. But there are several telltale signs that serve to indicate low magnesium levels:

  • Muscle cramping and twitching.
  • Abnormal heart contractions.
  • Depression and low moods.
  • Ringing in the ears.
  • Kidney stones.

There is no fear of overload of magnesium in the diet. Any excess is excreted harmlessly. Taking magnesium can bring on diarrhea in some people the first few days, but it does not last long.

Magnesium can be used in the form of a topical salve or in an inhaler when necessary to relieve acute bronchial spasm. Magnesium liquids rubbed on penetrate the skin, making it possible to get much more magnesium into children — especially small children — without the risk of diarrhea.

Vitamin B6 helps magnesium work and helps on its own to reduce asthma. Vitamin B12 is far and away the most useful nutrient to eliminate asthmatic wheezing, for children as well as adults up to about age 50. However, for seniors it is best to take B12 shots, because their intrinsic factor is usually gone and there can be little or no absorption of B12.

H/T: Spiritfoods

The politicians and the manipulated crowd

Life and happiness in this life under any political system directly depend upon how much our individuality (versus the crowd) is retained and to what extent we throw off manipulated illusions.

The more we are immersed into the mass mind (the crowd), the more we are manipulated and the more dependent on authority (government) we become. Every thrust of this nebulous thing called society is calculated to drive us into the dependent, mindless herd with automatic response to authority.

Often, we ponder why we get closer and closer to total authoritarianism, regardless of whom we vote for. The simple, but unrecognizable, answer is that we are unconsciously manipulated. We are born into a system that prescribes our thought processes, beginning with the first words we learn. As we grow into adults, we reach a state of existence and mental evolvement where we are shackled with a subtle and invisible system of myth and counter-myth.

We can be and are incarcerated with our minds. We imagine happiness as we exist within the confines of our prescribed mental parameters. In fact, we live out our physical lives and never come close to freedom of choice. It is impossible to make choices when all options are prescribed by the system — options that channel us into the service of the state.

Not one American in a million discovers that he lives under deception and illusion and that he is victimized by the power of repeated words and phrases. Our lives and property are plundered simply because we don’t know that we don’t know. Our thought system enslaves us far more than would a conquering army.

I have wondered for years why only a few people have escaped the net, while millions never do. There is apparently some gene or filter that allows a few people to see truths and overcome their conditioning. It grants them the courage to stand up to the crowd and to resist the ridicule and oppression that comes with opposing conventional wisdom.

The creation of the mass mind and/or mass consciousness is the secret weapon of the ruling elite. The more one’s mind is immersed into the crowd, of course, the more one loses his individuality and independence of thought. The more we become a part of the crowd, the more dependent we become on authority. And the more dependent we become, the more defensive we are when presented with new information contrary to “conventional wisdom.” Simply stated, the crowd syndrome inoculates us against reality. Yes, I believe that the psychological phenomenon of group consciousness is a created strategy for population control. It certainly appears to be an ironclad protection system for the elite, who by all definitions are the natural enemies of the people.

What exactly is group consciousness? Group consciousness is all the teachings of “brotherhood” in all of its forms and expressions. When our dominant thoughts center on the group rather than our own ego or individuality, we have been psychologically integrated into the mass mind. Therefore, we are necessarily dependent on the system. This is a subtle and sophisticated people-control strategy that allows unseen authority to manipulate the masses at will. It is, on the other hand, hyper-individualism that escapes the mental system along with authoritarian control.

Why are the elite natural enemies of the people? The elite are a parasite class ruling through manipulation propaganda. They are nonproducers, and they pay nothing for what they get. They create imaginary money (numbers), and use it to make pretend payment for goods and services. They camouflage their fraud with “income taxes” and double speak about national debt and balanced budgets.

Police power is in the hands of the elite so that modern governments can be defined as one word: force.

By virtue of the fact that the elite (government and the banksters) has the power to create money, all wealth flows away from the producers to the nonproducers. Modern money (nonsubstance) expropriates wealth. Translated, this simply means that one class of people perpetually steals from the other class. This makes them natural enemies.

If you “buy” my labor and my goods and services with money that you create (get for nothing), you are stealing from me. This system is the cause of all political and social evil in America, but it is hidden with political oratory and hypocritical welfare benevolence.

Common sense tells any sober mind that the political establishment cannot give you anything except that which it steals from you. This is clearly a fact of reality, but the mesmerized crowd has no sense of cause and effect. This can be explained only by the fact that the crowd (the people) are in a state of hypnosis and, therefore, do not possess conscious control of their minds.

Mass hypnosis is not just a state of stupor, but a well-defined system of behavior modification and absolute control. People in an altered state of consciousness will act against their best interests and dissipate their mental and physical energy on political myths and counter-myths. While in a state of hypnosis or learned behavior, obvious stupidity and self-denial becomes “politically correct.” To the conscious mind, this is madness and confounds communication between the hypnotized and the conscious person. Most of you have experienced this breakdown in trying to communicate with people around you. What is obvious to you is invisible to those under hypnosis.

Fewer and fewer people have any cognitive imperative to question the system because hypnosis and learned behavior are transferred from one generation to another. False beliefs are self-perpetuating and feed upon one another. The more generations accepting myths, the more reinforcing they become. Religion in the generic sense is a very classic example of this. Religion is a manipulative psychic system (phenomenon).

Just as magnetism and electricity have a positive and a negative, amorality needs morality. Amorality is dependent upon morality. Politicians and governments are amoral. They could not exist without the self-sacrificing morality of the people.

In other words, crooks and politicians do not feed upon each other. They feed upon honest people or people with morality. For example, when you go into a “court of law” and swear to tell the truth, the system is using your morality to convict you and entangle you. That explains why there are laws against lying to government agents investigating crimes real and perceived.

All of this is a reminder that the next political election will bring no benefits to the people — regardless of which party holds power — any more than the past political election or political elections have for several generations past.

Blame it on the birth rate

(I began publishing my monthly newsletter The Bob Livingston Letter™ in 1969. The following is an excerpt from the April 2007 issue in which I warned readers about what’s behind the nation’s immigration policy.)

Illegal Aliens

Many Americans have anxiety over the influx of Mexicans into the U.S. Let me explain: To boost a country’s production there must be a younger population all the time being born or coming in. The U.S. population is getting top-heavy with not enough producers and workers to offset the aging population, the same as in Japan.

I in no way agree with this, but I can tell you that this is U.S. policy, unannounced but being carried out.

Next year’s flu vaccine already expected to be as ineffective as this year’s

Flu vaccine propaganda is ludicrous to the extreme.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention constantly chides people to get their flu vaccine. Doctors and pharmacies get kickbacks to peddle the shot.

The CDC tells us that every year an estimated 5 percent to 20 percent of Americans come down with the flu, leading to 200,000 hospitalizations. That percentage range is a huge discrepancy. Five percent of 310 million is 15.5 million, whereas 20 percent is 62 million.

Although the CDC is unable to tell us definitively within 45 million people how many Americans annually contract the flu, it can tell us how many are hospitalized for it each year. But according to the CDC, whether 15 million people or 62 million people catch the flu, it’s always about 200,000 who are hospitalized. Odd.

Also odd, there are more than 200,000 iatrogenic deaths each year. That’s more than are hospitalized by the flu. These are deaths caused by medical errors, unnecessary surgeries, infections and adverse reactions to prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, there’s no vaccine for that, nor is the medical-industrial complex seeking one.

The CDC can also tell us that annual deaths from the flu range from 3,000 to 49,000. That would seem on the surface to make sense. You have a broad range contracting the disease and you have a broad range dying from it year to year. But what you aren’t told is that those numbers are guesses, pulled from thin air.

According to a report by researcher Peter Doshi, Ph.D., published in the British Medical Journal in 2013, of the hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples taken each year from patients diagnosed with the flu in the United States and tested in labs, only 16 percent test positive for the influenza virus. It turns out that most flu cases are actually caused by bacteria or fungus or any of a number of other things except the influenza virus being blamed.

Doshi wrote:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

In a good year, according to the CDC’s own estimates, the flu vaccine prevents flu about 70 percent of the time. But this flu season, the flu vaccine makers missed the mark. The vaccine has not been effective for the most common stain of flu — H3N2 — that circulated in the U.S. The CDC claims it has been about 33 percent effect, or about half as effective as usual. But that’s quite different from the number reported by Public Health England, which claimed 3 percent to 4 percent effectiveness.

The CDC’s numbers are grossly exaggerated. The truth is flu vaccines are essentially worthless at preventing the flu and are shown to have harmful side effects. According a report by The Cochrane Library, 10 people have to be vaccinated to prevent one case of the flu. According to a report published in The Lancet, flu vaccines prevent the flu in only 1.5 percent of cases.

And then there’s this: According to a report published in the British Medical Journal in 2005, actual annual flu deaths are measured in the dozens, not the tens of thousands as reported by the CDC. When researcher Doshi studied actual flu deaths, he learned, “'[I] nfluenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 — 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.” In other words, the influenza virus was actually present in only 18 of 62,034 deaths attributed to both influenza and pneumonia.

We’re already being warned that next year’s flu vaccine may be as ineffective as this year’s. In other words, it will hardly be effective at all. That’s because its manufacture began in late February. And, once again, researchers are taking a wild guess as to what strain will appear next fall.

The Guardian reported last month: “This time last year, (Dr. John) McCauley and colleagues at (World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Influenza) were mulling over what to include in this winter’s flu vaccine. ‘We didn’t even know at the time we were recommending that this virus (H3N2) had started to appear out there.’”

Bottom line: Don’t buy the lie. The flu vaccine is ineffective at preventing the flu and can be quite harmful. Flu vaccines contain aluminum and mercury — both toxins, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The amount of mercury found in the GlaxoSmithKline Flulaval vaccine was 51 parts per million, more than 25,000 times the contaminant level established by the EPA.

Vitamin D3 and other natural supplements to help you reach peak immunity are much more effective and don’t cause toxic poisoning, Guillain-Barre syndrome and other afflictions.

There is nothing conservative about the Republican ‘War’ Party

Neocons have so corrupted the Republican Party that in order to be considered a viable national presidential candidate and to be embraced by the rank and file and Tea Party right, one must openly advocate for an open-ended continuation of the war on terror and a de facto war against Iran.

Of course, the Republican Party was born of corporatism and nurtured on bloodshed, so it’s no surprise that the masses, programmed as they are and conned into an unreasoning fear of U.S.-created Islamic booger bears, are eager to embrace a candidate who pledges unwavering support to Israel and who wants to continue slaughtering Middle Easterners armed, trained, funded and inspired by America and its allies — including Israel.

As historian Bruce Catton wrote in “The Civil War,” in 1860 Abraham Lincoln wanted to be the nominee of the new Republican Party — a party that consisted of an amalgam of former members of the defunct Whig Party, Free-soilers (those who believed all new territories should be slave-free), business leaders who wanted a central government that would protect industry and ordinary folk who wanted a homestead act that would provide free farms in the West.

Catton wrote: “The Republicans nominated Lincoln partly because he was considered less of an extremist than either (Senator William H.) Seward or (Salmon P.) Chase; he was moderate on the slavery question, and agreed that the Federal government lacked power to interfere with the peculiar institution in the states. The Republican platform, however, did represent a threat to Southern interests. It embodied the political and economic program of the North — upward revision of the tariff, free farms in the West, railroad subsidies, and all the rest.”

When seven lower-South states decided that Lincoln’s election ushered in what they believed would be a reign of unacceptable Republicanesque despotism, they terminated their relationship with the federal government, a relationship into which they had voluntarily joined and which politicians of the several New England states had for years rightly believed could be voluntarily terminated (and in fact that advocated for separation often, fearing what they considered a despotism of Southern agrarianism). When Lincoln proved himself duplicitous by going back on his word and sending a fleet to resupply federal troops at Fort Sumter, prompting the firing on those fleets by batteries from South Carolina, four upper-South states quickly followed suit.

From there Lincoln embarked on series of decidedly unconstitutional and unconservative steps, including conscripting men to fight his battles, raising taxes, printing greenbacks, sending federal troops to arrest state legislators, arresting contrarian editors and shutting down newspapers, and sending his army to invade the South in order to “preserve” the union.

The party promptly consolidated its power on the ruins and destruction of the South during the Northern War of Aggression and its aftermath. And destroying the South once wasn’t enough. Republicans were quickly advocating a second full-scale attack when Southern States declined to ratify the 14th Amendment — an amendment that has acquired such magical powers since its adoption (it was never constitutionally ratified) that it has granted federal judges the power to create and change state and federal law on their whim and invent all manner of “rights” once unimaginable. It is upon this amendment that the “right” of women to murder their babies, the “right” of gay people to be married and the “right” of corporations to contribute vast sums to purchase politicians are cobbled. It is upon this amendment that federal judges strike down state-passed referenda and force people to give up their right of religious conscious in order to placate homosexuals who want to purchase wedding cakes or wedding flowers or wedding photography services.

Thanks to Lincoln’s war and his Republican coterie, federalism is dead; and the nation, once a republican union of states, is now nothing more than a corporatist- and bankster-driven nation-state controlled by the District of Criminals and a handful of oligarchs.

This is certainly not the view of Lincoln to which most Republican voters — nay, most Americans — subscribe. To them, anything and everything Lincoln did — however evil or unconstitutional it might have been — was necessary and, therefore, acceptable to “save the union.”

Robert E. Lee recognized in the early days of reconstruction the danger inherit in the destruction of federalism and the federal government’s actions toward the South. Writing to Lord Acton in 1866, Lee said, “[T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

And that’s exactly the path American government policy has followed since.

Conservative Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who fought the New Deal, labor unions and America’s entry into World War II, said: “[T]he principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people. … Its purpose is not to reform the entire world or spread sweetness and light and economic prosperity to peoples who have lived and worked out their own salvation for centuries, according to their customs, and to the best of their abilities.”

Most Americans who consider themselves conservative have never heard of Russell Kirk. That’s a shame. He’s one of the great thinkers of the 20th century and considered the father of modern American conservativism. In his writings he created a number of principles of conservatism. One of them is: “In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else — even above its own life — its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization.”

Of course, that’s not the policy of the neocons, who see it as the duty of America to police the world and “spread democracy” even when the people it’s being spread to don’t want or need it. If the people decide they don’t want or need it, American government just deposes that regime and installs another… or not, as in the case of Libya, which has become a hellish cauldron of anarchy, bloodshed and terror for the poor inhabitants who enjoyed a prosperous and relatively free and safe existence before American drones and NATO bombs were unleashed in order to take out Moammar Gadhafi. The Republican rank and file embraces this policy of military adventurism, thanks to Bush the Second and his policy of “kill them over there so we don’t have to kill them here.”

And just who or what are necons? The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and ’70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left’s social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union’s fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America’s defense spending and its role in the world.

They are included in the Zionists and Israel-firsters I have been writing to you about the past two weeks in “Why do Americans love war?” and “Israel, ISIS and the end of days.”

The trouble for rank and file conservatives who embrace this neocon foreign policy is one of cognitive dissonance. They are willing and eager to send their money and, worse, their sons and daughters and other people’s sons and daughters into foreign lands on behalf of Christians caught in the millennial-long civil war between Islamic thugs and being slaughtered by U.S.-backed ISIS criminals, to send their money and their sons and daughters and other people’s sons and daughters to back “rebels” seeking to overthrow regimes deemed unacceptable (Iraq, Libya, Syria and, if they get their wish, Iran) by the Council on Foreign Relations-controlled U.S. State Department and/or propaganda ministry, or to send their money and their sons and daughters and other people’s sons and daughters to back rebels (either overtly or covertly) in the U.S.-inspired Ukrainian coup, because they believe in “ freedom.” Yet they applaud Lincoln’s efforts to quash a secession (it wasn’t even a rebellion, as the Confederacy sought to live as a peaceful neighbor) that led to the death — directly and indirectly — of close to 1 million Americans because he preserved the Union.

When Bush the First launched the first grand Middle East excursion, Kirk said in a speech opposing the war:

Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous, but so are nearly all the masters of the “emergent” African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?

And what would be the outcome of Bush’s war? Kirk predicted:

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems.

Bush the Second and his regime assured us that we would be made safer by “fighting them over there.” But 14 years later, and were still being told there’s a radical Muslim somewhere nearby seeking to cause us harm. So whose prediction turned out right: Kirk’s or Bush’s?

No nation ever engages in foreign wars without at the same time initiating subtle and silent war on its own people. The war on terror has given us trillions of dollars in debt, reduced liberty, increased government spying and created a government even more hostile to its own people.

Finally, conservatives — true conservatives — are about small government. There is nothing conservative about a war party because wars are predicated on big government and fiat money, especially multiple wars on multiple continents. Yet a war party is apparently what Republicans have become because all of the presumptive candidates for the party’s next presidential election back an interventionist, wartime foreign policy… and that seems to be exactly what “conservatives” want.

Where is the information?

Subject: Article, “The IRS and the propaganda that perpetuates it”

In this article the writer states that after the IRS was formed in 1913 that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Can you please tell me where I can find this information because the 16th Amendment says that it was ratified February 3, 1913?

I would really appreciate any information you might have.

K.G. Sensenig

Dear K.G.,

This information is readily available. Bill Benson and M J “Red” Beckman wrote an excellent book on the subject.  A short article on the key points by Benson can be read here. Here’s an interview with Beckman on the Alex Jones show.

Best wishes,

Bob

Resurrecting the spirit of Patrick Henry

Two hundred and forty years ago this week, Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech to the Second Virginia Convention, which was meeting at St. John’s Church to avoid interference from Virginia Governor John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, and his Royal Marines.

On March 23, 1775, in proposing to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county, Henry addressed the assembly with these words:

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Now read it again and substitute the words “British” and “Great Britain” with federal government and the words “armies,” “fleets” and “navies” with federal agencies and their armed enforcers and reckon whether our situation is eerily similar.

Requiring a concealed carry permit is the definition of ‘infringed’

Gun rights activists are applauding the actions of the Iowa Legislature, which recently voted to repeal a measure requiring the state’s residents to obtain a permit prior to purchasing a handgun.

And while requiring a permit to purchase a handgun in addition to a concealed carry permit to carry the purchased weapon is certainly an onerous burden and an obvious 2nd Amendment violation, so is Iowa’s — and any other state’s — requirement to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. All states have different requirements for obtaining permits. Some are more obtrusive than others. But Iowans, even though it’s a “shall-issue” state, must pay $50 and complete an approved training course to be eligible.

Requiring a permit is essentially the government’s taking away your right and then forcing you to purchase it back. Yet Americans accept this “in the public interest.”

Governments always use altruistic code words to get the people to surrender their rights.

Ditch the diabetes villain that lurks in your diet

Diabetes and blood sugar problems are killing millions of people. A new report shows that much of the blame comes from an item you eat every day.

Researchers writing in Mayo Clinic Proceedings pointed out that a large body of research now shows that our penchant for eating foods with added sugar are a leading cause of diabetes and prediabetes. The main culprit: fructose, an added form of sugar we usually swallow in the form of high fructose corn syrup. This lethal form of sugar is added to shocking number of foods, including soft drinks, spaghetti sauces, ketchup, bread and salad dressing.

According to this report, the dietary guidelines that assert it is OK to take in up to 25 percent of daily calories as added sugar is a big health mistake. There needs to be a “drastic” reduction in added sugar. In particular, we need to eliminate most of the added fructose from processed foods.

If we don’t take care of this problem, warn the scientists, the diabetes epidemic will continue to grow. Right now, about 10 percent of adults globally have type 2 diabetes. That total has more than doubled since 1980. In the U.S., almost 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes and 86 million have prediabetes.

“At current levels, added-sugar consumption, and added-fructose consumption in particular, are fueling a worsening epidemic of type 2 diabetes,” warned researcher James J. DiNicolantonio, a cardiovascular research scientist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. “Approximately 40 percent of U.S. adults already have some degree of insulin resistance with projections that nearly the same percentage will eventually develop frank diabetes.”

Although fruits and vegetables contain fructose, the amounts are usually too small to be a problem. Plus, those foods contain natural chemicals that help the body defend itself against diabetes. According to the researchers, eating more fruits and vegetables while eliminating processed foods with added fructose “may be one of the single most effective strategies for ensuring one’s robust future health.”

How will we purchase food post-collapse?

Dear Bob,

You suggest taking the money from my IRA account and buy gold. But how do I buy groceries with gold coins or even real silver coins? Buying non-perishable goods (I already do that on some things) but one will need real cash for the perishable food. Should one buy lots of present day coins and stash them for shopping in the future?

Marilyn F.

Dear Marilyn F.,

Presumably your IRA is for your use down the road — in your retirement — and is not necessary for purchasing groceries right now. Since I believe that the District of Criminals has its eyes on our retirement accounts, I decided long ago to cash in my IRA and purchase both gold and silver to keep it out of the government’s hands. (By the way, I think right now that silver is a better buy than gold at current prices.) However, you should not tie up all your liquid assets in only gold and silver. Keep some cash on hand for now and for the beginning of the financial collapse. I recommend you keep on hand enough cash to cover at least one month’s worth of bills. This will help you survive during bank runs and the initial chaotic period.

As for using gold and silver, think of them as commodities for barter. As the dollar gets lower on the dollar index, people will begin thinking about their silver and gold. The use of silver as money is sure to come before gold, because silver coins predated 1965 are still legal tender. This means they look like our clacker coins do now but are 90 percent silver. They are still legal tender and are more valuable than their face value (proving the devaluation of the dollar) because of their silver content. One of the best ways to buy these is in bags with $1,000 face value of dimes, quarters, half-dollars and silver dollars.

After the collapse, you will be swapping a silver dime for a loaf of bread, a silver dollar for a bag of groceries; those with fiat money will be spending sacks full of “dollars” for groceries. There is precedent for this. In Weimar Germany during the collapse, there is the story of a person who would order a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. “If you want to save money,” he was told, “and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time.” I believe this type of inflation is what we have in store.

Gold coins are available in 1-ounce, 1/2-ounce, 1/4-ounce and 1/10-ounce sizes. For survival purposes, you may want to have some of the smaller sizes on hand because they would be easier to use than larger sizes.

For more information, here is an article I wrote several years ago on how to buy gold. The values in the article have changed, but the information is still relevant.

Best wishes,

Bob

Israel, ISIS and the end of days

This is the second of a two-part series. “Why do Americans love war?” was the first installment of the series.

Apocalypticism or apocalyptic thinking seems to dominate most discussions revolving around the rise of ISIS/ISIL and the United States’ policy toward the Middle East generally and Israel specifically.

According to Merriam-Webster, apocalypticism is a doctrine concerning an imminent end of the world and an ensuing general resurrection and final judgment. The old “American Heritage Dictionary” I have kept at my desk for dozens of years defines it as a general belief in the imminent destruction of the world.

Christian eschatology (prophetic interpretation concerning the last days) is associated with the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation and the apocalypse have come to have a synonymous meaning. Almost all Christians today believe that the “fulfillment” of the Book of Revelation is in the future, with emphasis on the near future, and the second coming of Christ. Most people, especially Americans, have over the entirety of our nations’ history been saturated with apocalyptic writings mostly based on biblical prophecies with futurist interpretations.

The rise of ISIS/ISIL in the Middle East has only served to increase such conversations. Fundamentalist Christians expecting the rise of an antichrist, the rapture and 1,000 years of Christ rule are looking at the Middle East and wondering whether ISIS and its proclaimed caliphate is it.

An apocalyptic conversation or discussion will draw blood in a few seconds. Somehow, people by nature are attracted to end time apocalypticism. They seem to love tragedy and horror and to be obsessed with predictions of the future.

Most all apocalyptic teaching is presented in biblical language as if it were the direct teaching of the Bible. In fact, there are religious cults that base their entire teaching on apocalypticism. Such false teaching has on numerous occasions prompted people by the hundreds to sell their possessions, don white robes, climb to a mountaintop and await Christ’s coming based on varying interpretations of symbolic Scripture, which sadly ignores a very obvious proclamation in I Thessalonians 5:1-3:Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.” (ESV) In other words, only the Father knows the day and time, and anyone telling you anything else is a false prophet.

Apocalypticism is a type of fatalism that neutralizes human action and resistance to tyranny. It is a syndrome of inevitability which prompts us to think that there is nothing that we can do about anything.

Governments, along with organized religion, have seized upon apocalypticism to promote wars, encourage false patriotism and regiment populations because of the “divine nature” of the crisis.

The American Civil War was considered by both sides as a divine cause, and both sides claimed to have God’s backing. George W. Bush couched the Iraq war in religious terms at an Israeli-Palestinian summit at Sharm el-Sheikh four months after the invasion of Iraq began in 2003. One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said, “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God.’ God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.’ And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

Not a week goes by that I don’t get apocalyptic letters, books or other media from Personal Liberty or Bob Livingston Letter readers. Apocalypticism is ingrained so deeply that it is sacrosanct. No one dares question futuristic interpretation of the prophecies. Fundamentalist Christianity is based on it. Any profession of disbelief is tantamount to heresy, as is any notion that the U.S. doesn’t owe blind allegiance to the modern nation of Israel.

Apocalypticism supports and justifies political action and long-range planning. Most professing Christians today believe that the establishment of national Israel in modern history is the continuing fulfillment of prophecy. Whatever the U.S. government does in support of the national goals of Israel is never questioned by the American people because they believe that it is according to “divine will.” This is how organized religion came to support Zionism without suspicion on the part of the people. (Remember what I told you last week, that modern Zionism has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. Therefore, criticism of Zionism is not anti-Semitism, though Zionists have long used the claim of anti-Semitism to quell all criticism. There are Jews who are not Zionists, and there are Zionists who are not Jews.)

In Genesis 12:1-3, God gave a blessing to Abram (Abraham) saying, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (ESV)

Upon this rests the Christian’s belief that the modern-day physical nation of Israel is somehow special.

God gave Abraham three promises: a great nation, the land of Canaan and through his offspring (seed), all nations would be blessed. But the promise to Abraham and his descendants was conditional on obedience. He made the Israelites (Abraham’s descendants) a great nation, but they forfeited it through their disobedience. God scattered them to winds. He gave them the land of Canaan, but they forfeited it with disobedience (See Nehemiah 1:7-8, Hosea 8). Their lack of obedience to God caused them to lose the land forever, as Christ told them would happen when they rejected him (Matthew 21:33ff) and fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. And the seed promise was fulfilled through Christ (See Isaiah 42:1, 6-7; 43:5-7, 44:1-5; 49:6, Galatians 3, 6:13-16).

So who are Abraham’s offspring and heirs to the promise? It is those who are of Christ — God’s true Israel, not some modern-day Israel nation created by the United Nations by rooting out the area’s occupants in 1948. Nor is it some future apocalyptic physical Israel kingdom of God.

The very first reference to “Israel” in the New Testament is applied to Jesus. It is Jesus who would be the “shepherd of my people Israel” (Matthew 2:6, quoting Micah 5:2). It would be through Jesus on the cross that God would “give help to Israel his servant” (Luke 1:54; see also 1:68-79). Simeon, who was looking for the “consolation of Israel,” would find it in Jesus Christ. Jesus would save the Gentiles and “your people Israel” (Luke 2:25, 32, 34).

There are three main views of Christian eschatology and the book of Revelation: premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism. Post- (after) and pre- (before) refer to the time around a 1,000-year rule that Christ will appear to establish and rule over his earthly kingdom. Amillenialism is the view that God’s kingdom is spiritual, not physical, and that at the end of the church age (which began on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2) Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent reign in a new Heaven and new Earth. (I am a Christian who believes the amillennialism view is the correct one.)

Premillenialism was the commonly held view in the pre-Augustinian church. In the late 1600s, premillennialism gained popularity among the American Puritans. But the 18th century American theologian Jonathan Edwards was a postmillennialist, and his view attracted many followers into the mid-19th century, until it fell from vogue and was replaced among most fundamentalists by premillenialism, which is still the most popular view among Christians today.

Two of those views — premillenialism and postmellenialism — deny or pervert Scripture. God’s kingdom is spiritual, and it is the church. Paul referred to the church as the household of God in I Timothy 3:15. Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16 that the church would be built on the profession of faith, and that he (Peter) would receive the keys to the kingdom. Jesus told his disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Neither Peter nor the other disciples are still alive awaiting the kingdom. That prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2 when the kingdom was established on the Day of Pentecost. If the kingdom has not yet been established, then Christ is a liar.

As for the rise of a single antichrist to battle Christ and persecute Christians, that term is found in only four verses — and none of them is in Revelation. The antichrist or antichrists are those who deny Christ, deny He came in the flesh and deny God, according to I John 2:18-19, I John 2:22-23, I John 4:2-3 and II John 1:7. John writes in I John 2:18 that “many antichrists have arisen.” If there is one antichrist and he is yet to come, then John is a liar.

Neither ISIS/ISIL, nor Russia, nor any other entity that has been or will be named by premillenialists can rise and be the antichrist, as premellenialism proponents claim, and still be Scripturally correct. Antichrists are everywhere because anyone opposing Christ is one.

The point is that most people hold futurist beliefs about the Book of Revelation and about modern physical Israel without ever questioning the source of their beliefs. And if one dares raise questions, he or she is quickly shouted down with charges of anti-Semitism or worse.

Apocolypticism dominates conventional wisdom. Apocolypticism and Zionism dominate American foreign policy, forcing all U.S. presidential hopefuls and most prominent politicians to don a yarmulke and genuflect before Israel’s prime minister and the Jerusalem Wall if they have any desire to be considered relevant on the national political scene.

For most of the past 70 years, America’s foreign policy has been predicated on what is in Israel’s best interests. As Joe Biden said in 2007, “Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?”

It’s high time for that to change and America’s interests put first, before Israel’s, before Saudi Arabia’s and before any other nation’s, but apocalypticism keeps us rooted in the status quo.

Additional sources consulted:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html

http://brentwoodchurch.com/the-promises-to-abraham-genesis-121-7.php

http://thegoodteacher.com/Special/The%20People%20of%20God%20%28Reeves%29.pdf

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

 

Article edited to clarify Christ’s 1,000-year rule.

The cost of the Iraq war and a lesson in the failure of ‘nation building’

On March 19, 2003, U.S. and coalition military forces began a military bombardment of Iraq to “disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger,” President George W. Bush said in a televised address shortly after the military operation began.

Twelve years later, and the U.S. is now arming Iraq to help it defend itself against ISIS. Its people are becoming enslaved — or worse — by murderous jihadists who were armed, trained, funded and granted a staging point by the U.S., its allies and its foreign policy decisions. And we are told there is still a “grave danger” from terrorists who want to kill us.

One year ago, a study reported on by Reuters put the cost of the Iraq war at $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans. These expenses could top $6 trillion within 40 years.

Beyond the economic cost of the war is the even worse human cost. The Department of Defense claims 4,425 U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war and 31,949 wounded. The war has killed 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqis in total.

After 24 years of war on Iraq (the original Persian Gulf War never really ended, with U.S. troops stationed in the region continuously since and years of overflights by U.S. planes), the Middle East is in greater turmoil than ever. We have in America now a security apparatus that is quashing liberty like never before.

Oh, and those “weapons of mass destruction” that the Bush regime warned us about: Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset and his ties to that agency went as far back as 1959. U.S. State Department documents declassified several years ago showed that former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used his ties to U.S. pharmaceutical firms and helped arrange for millions of dollars in loans to help Saddam buy chemical weapons in the 1980s, and the then-CIA Director William Casey used a Chilean front company to provide Iraq with cluster bombs. Later, the CIA provided intelligence to allow Saddam to use those weapons (including the chemical weapons) on Iranian troops in order to ensure Iraq’s victory over — or at least make sure it didn’t lose to — Iran.

That Iraq possessed chemical weapons was certainly no surprise to the Bush regime, so claims that weapons of mass destruction were indeed found in Iraq are specious attempts at making history fit the Bush narrative.

No nuclear weapons were ever found. In fact, U.N. weapons inspectors repeatedly said Iraq had no nuclear weapons program; and former Secretary of State Colin Powell later admitted he knowingly gave false testimony to the U.N. Security Council regarding Iraq’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Iraq remains a failed state rocked with sectarian violence; the U.S. puppet regime failed and was proven corrupt and replaced by another; the Iraqi military that had been trained for years by U.S. troops turned tail and fled in the face of ISIS, leaving billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment and weapons behind; and U.S. troops are gradually being sent back into the region to protect U.S. interests.

If that’s what the regime considers success, I’d hate to see failure.

Internet trolls have a mental disorder

An Internet troll is someone who joins an online discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it is quickly evident that their sole purpose is to upset everyone. They will lie, exaggerate, defame and vituperate just to create a response and derail a thread.

Some researchers from Canada sought to find out what type of person would do this and why. Their study, published in the September 2014 issue of Personality and Individual Differences, found that cybertrolling was an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

Researchers conducted two online studies of 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each one and surveyed their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence of what is termed the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. What they found was that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said their favorite activity was trolling.

The study authors wrote that the Dark Tetrad scores were off the charts for Internet trolls and “… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.”

Of course, this does not apply to all trolls. Some are simply government or nongovernment agency disinformation agents. Intelligence services, corporations, governments and politicians have all been outed as having disinformation trolls roaming Internet sites.

But it’s just as likely the annoying troll on your favorite site is simply mentally ill. When you respond, you’re just feeding his psychopathy.

The best advice is, if you see one, don’t feed him.

H/T: Psychology Today

Why do Americans love war?

Conventional wisdom is based on confusion and disinformation. It has a crowding-out effect in our thought processes that stifles inquiry.

In other words, conventional wisdom programs us to reject any information or thought not in harmony with our preconditioning and experience even if we realize deep down that the idea is not only plausible but possible. This is also called cognitive dissonance.

Conventional wisdom is what everybody knows. It is established by the controlled media — and, sadly, this even includes most private publications and alternative websites — and modern-day “Christianity.”

Human liberty and personal survival in our time must originate in truth, no matter how incredible it seems and how shocking it is to our conditioned minds. Governments control the public mind with disinformation and confusion. No modern government could exist for 24 hours if it told the people the truth.

Personal Liberty is dedicated to the truth no matter how unpopular or unbelievable. Those who study and read with open minds usually eventually come to our conclusions. The problem is that people are at various stages of learning, and they must advance to a point that they can break through the parameters of thought control in America. At some point, we must have a flash that maybe we don’t know what we thought we knew and maybe we have not been getting the truth. Unfortunately, many people run away or close their minds if they sense they are nearing the truth because the truth conflicts with what they “know.”

The trouble is that mind control does not discriminate between the highest intelligence quotient and the simpleton. The Philadelphia lawyer is just as off in his basic information and assumptions as the downtown parking attendant. Neither does education equal intelligence. In fact, the most educated is usually the last to come around. This fact is a monument to the science and power of mass mind control. From the highest to the lowest in America, they don’t know that they are unaware. These are they who are immune and even hostile to probes of inquiry beyond their credibility.

This is never more evident than when discussing American foreign policy in general and America’s relationship with Israel specifically.

America has been involved in a shooting war in the Middle East since Jan. 17, 1991, when the aerial bombardment of Iraq began in order to drive Saddam Hussein’s army out of Kuwait. An entire generation of Americans has become adults without ever seeing or knowing of a time when their country was at peace. And there is diminishing hope they will ever see peace in their lifetime.

Americans have not only come to accept war, they’ve come to love it. Christians, it seems, particularly love it. I shudder when I see comments from some who no doubt would consider themselves Christians advocating total war up to and including nuclear strikes on Middle East or African nations simply because:

  1. They are allegedly attempting to acquire technology to create a nuclear weapon (Iran) in order to bring themselves on par with their “enemies” (Israel and the U.S.);
  2. A few tens of thousands of Islamist bad actors (who were funded and mostly trained and equipped by the CIA, the Mossad and a number of U.S.-allied Arab nations) are engaging in an Islamic sectarian war that has gone on for more than 1,000 years;
  3. Or they are aligned with Russia and Iran (Syria), and our leaders tell us they are inherently evil.

There is little or no consideration given to the fact that the United States’ actions to destabilize Libya gave the Islamic State a launching pad. Nor is any consideration being given by the American people to the fate of the millions of innocents — average citizens, including women and children, who have no say in what their governments do; and if they do have a say, they are likely subjected to even more propaganda and mind control than even Americans are — residing in those countries or of the long-term consequences of the destabilization of established regimes. Those deaths are just chalked up to collateral damage and dismissed out of hand.

Americans rightly became angered and disgusted by stories of atrocities committed against Christians and Muslims by the Islamic State as reported in the mainstream media — the beheadings and mass executions — yet gave little or no pause to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Libya by NATO bombers and U.S. drones and the hundreds of thousands who have died there since that nation was destabilized. And the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by U.S. bombers in 20 years of attacks and two wars on that country have all but been ignored and glossed over.

There is also an astonishing lack of consideration by Americans for the fate of the American fighting men and women who would be sent to fight the wars against the Islamic State, Syria and/or Iran. We currently have untold thousands of maimed — both physically and mentally — American military members and veterans (and their families) attempting to cope with the scars they received fighting during two decades of unnecessary wars on behalf of the banksters and the military-industrial complex. And thousands more are dead.

And there is still less consideration given to the economic cost of the war that has been paid for by money printing on a scale never before conceived.

But after all those years of war and those injuries and deaths, the region is less stable than it was before; and the regime claims we’re less safe from terrorism than ever before. How will more wars not result in more of the same? What evidence is there that continuing the strategies of the last four presidents to attack other countries will end Islamist sectarian conflicts or reduce the chances of terror attacks on American interests or American soil? Those questions are not considered in the rush to war.

In his column last week, John Myers asked much the same question as he analyzed the remarks made by Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress. Myers’ central premise was to question whether we should go to war with Iran simply because it was in Israel’s best interest and based on Netanyahu’s proclaimed fears of another holocaust or whether we should first ensure a war with Iran — as being advocated for by the neocons — is in America’s best interest.

One would think that was a legitimate question. But it is apparently not, according to conventional wisdom and a number of commenters, for that question immediately drew the expected and mindless knee-jerk charges of anti-Semitism and dozens of promises to drop Personal Liberty from their reading list.

Using inflammatory code words like anti-Semitism, isolationist, racist, homophobe, conspiracy theorist, etc. to shut down debate and the spread of ideas is a common tactic used by those trapped in conventional wisdom because it gives them an excuse to avoid considering whether a concept may be true. It is a protection mechanism for them and for the establishment. Another protection mechanism is to run away from those ideas to prevent future exposure to them.

The U.S. government has as much a slavish devotion to Zionism as it does to war. And its propaganda machine, aided by the teaching of fundamentalist Christian preachers, has created a slavish devotion to it among the people. U.S. imperialism, the corporatocracy and Zionism dominate the U.S. foreign policy decisions of the past 50-plus years, hence the wars of the past quarter century.

But modern Zionism has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. Therefore, criticism of Zionism is not anti-Semitism, though Zionists have long used the claim of anti-Semitism to quell all criticism. There are Jews who are not Zionists, and there are Zionists who are not Jews.

In an interview in 2007, Joe Biden, a Catholic, claimed to be a Zionist. During the interview with the Jewish Shalom TV, Biden said, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

He presented himself as a great friend to Israel and referred to it as the United States’ greatest Middle East ally. Then he followed that with one of the most important questions he’s likely ever asked: “Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?”

Imagine indeed.

In a column last week on Mondoweiss, Lillian Rosengarten pointed out: “The Israeli Zionist ministry of propaganda has successfully blurred the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. With clever adeptness and manipulation they have succeeded in spreading a form of domestic terror to Europe and the United States. This form of terrorism as defined by the Thesaurus is ‘the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to civilians in order to attain goals that are religious or political or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.’ Use of the Holocaust as propaganda invites fear and hysteria.”

But Netanyahu need not have even played the “Holocaust” card because just questioning whether America should put its interests first makes the neocon right and fundamentalist Christians lose their minds. The neocon American right, fundamentalist Christians and most politicians have become Israel-firsters because of Zionism, propaganda and false teaching.

There are different reasons for blind support of Zionism among the people and the politicians. For the politicians, it mostly boils down to money and their devotion to the new world order. For many of the people, it comes down to a misunderstanding of or a misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

I will write more on that next week.

In the meantime, please hold off on calling me, or any of Personal Liberty’s columnists, anti-Semites. Neither I nor they harbor a grudge or hold any animus against Israel or its people or Jews wherever they may be.

I do take issue with the decisions of some of Israel’s leaders, its agencies and its foreign policy, just like I do with America’s leaders, its agencies and foreign policy. But criticizing Israel’s leaders or foreign policy is not anti-Semitic any more than criticizing U.S. foreign policy or its leaders is un-American.

I love my nation, but I fear what my government has become and where it wants to take us. My efforts are devoted to helping us all break the bonds of conventional wisdom and find the truth… no matter how uncomfortable.