![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_7a.gif)
Feds Spend Money for Nothing
The federal government spends nearly $1 million a year on fees for bank accounts with a balance of zero. The Washington Post calls this “one of the oddest spending habits in Washington” and explains how it works.
When federal agencies hand out grants they don’t just send out checks. Rather, they create “an account within a large, government-run depository,” and the federal agency is charged a monthly fee “which goes to the government depository and is used to cover the costs of operating it.” The money eventually runs out but the fees continue because the federal agencies fail to close out the accounts, which “takes work.” Audits and so forth are supposed to happen within 180 days, but they don’t. So the accounts stay open, with a balance of zero and the government paying fees.
By the Post’s count, the federal government has 13,712 such accounts drawing $890,000 in service fees, and about 7 percent of more than 200,000 grant accounts have a balance of zero. A grant administrator at Health and Human Services told the Post “These accounts are a normal part of the grants business cycle and will never be totally eliminated.”
Such “cost untainted by any reward,” is all part of the waste inherent in the system. The Obama administration tried to fix this problem but some agencies have the same number of zero-balance accounts as they did three years ago. So the federal bureaucracy is not only inherently wasteful but essentially reform-proof. A government that can’t close out a bank account will never eliminate an entire agency, however redundant or wasteful it may be. The Post also noted that “six federal government agencies have begun separate projects to do the same thing: build a computer program to track personnel background checks.”
View full post on MyGovCost | Government Cost Calculator
Gold and Silver • There’s NOTHING that comes close to a SILVER Bull Market!
There’s NOTHING that comes close to a SILVER Bull Market!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ_8igb0 … e=youtu.be
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:57 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Because Nothing Promotes “Social Peace” Like Favors to Special Interests
Sallie James
Big Ag’s friends in Congress are no dummies. Even they sense that farm subsidies are distinctly on the nose in these straightened fiscal times. So they are wheeling out that old chestnut about farm subsidies being essential for “national security.” With a dash of social harmony thrown in for good measure. From the Brownfield site yesterday:
In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, [Senator Charles Grassley, R, IA] said a farm bill won’t happen if the legislation is put only in the context of a subsidy to farmers. “We have to start talking in terms of a sure supply of food to make sure that we have social peace in our country,” said Grassley, during the conference call. It is also important for people to know that food is a national security issue, said Grassley, because “an army marches on its stomach.” “All you have to do is look at Germany and Japan,” he added. “Why do they protect their farmers? Because they found out during World War II that if you don’t have food, you can’t fight; and so they’re very protective of their farmers for national defense.” [emphasis added]
Don’t buy what these folks are selling, America. Appeals to national defense are often the third refuge of the scoundrel (the first being patriotism and the second “for the children”) and in any case are a red herring when it comes to farm subsidies. No-one is going to starve in this country if we get rid of farm subsidies. The Germans and Japanese subsidize their farmers for the same reason we do: because they’re a powerful political force. And as for claims that farm subsidies preserve “social peace”? What absolute rot. Favoring special interests at others’ expense fuels resentment and undermines social harmony.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Other • Western Banking: Money For Nothing — Literally
Western Banking: Money For Nothing — Literally
Written by Jeff Nielson
Sunday, 20 January 2013 14:08
For those seeking economic truths (in a world saturated with corporate propaganda), it can often be useful and revealing to follow the work of the Apologists. In attempting to “explain” the transgressions of their Masters; it is nearly inevitable that details will slip out – details which their Masters would have rather remained secret.
A classic example would be when Jeffrey Christian of the CPM Group – an ex-Goldman Sachs banker and noted banking apologist – was testifying before the CFTC regarding the issue of manipulation in bullion markets. In attempting to ‘pooh-pooh’ the glaring/relentless manipulation taking place in these markets, Christian casually mentioned that “the gold market” was about one hundred times larger than the actual amount of bullion being traded.
Let me reiterate this: the actual total of assorted “paper bullion” and “bullion derivative” products in this market has leveraged the amount of real bullion being traded by a factor of approximately 100:1. Two points follow from this slip-of-the-tongue.
First, quite obviously in attempting to cover-up the serial manipulation of bullion markets the Western financial crime syndicate would have preferred that people didn’t know that every ounce of gold and silver being traded was leveraged (in aggregate) by roughly 100:1. It’s not the sort of thing which gives the Chumps “confidence” in the bankers’ paper-bullion “products.”
Secondly, given that this admission came from one of the bankers’ “friends”, and is now several years old; that 100:1 ballpark estimate must now be regarded as a very conservative figure. However, Jeffrey Christian is not the only one of the bankers’ friends to have been damning them with faint praise.
The legendary banking apologists of Bloomberg were recently attempting to stamp-out any fears that an imminent downgrade of the U.S.’s (farcical) Triple-A credit rating would lead to a plunge in U.S. bond prices – and soaring interest rates. They did this by pointing out that the credit ratings (on government bonds) made by the banking analysts at these ratings agencies are totally irrelevant. Said Bloomberg:
…Bond investors needn’t worry that a rating cut will hurt returns. About half the time, government yields move in the opposite direction suggested by new ratings, according to data compiled by Bloomberg on 314 upgrades, downgrades and outlook changes going back to 1974.
Thus according to Bloomberg, investors in government bonds could have gotten equally good “advice” on the direction of bond prices and interest rates for the past 40 years by flipping a coin – meaning that the services provided by these bankers were/are worthless (as a tautology of logic).
Of course here is where it gets interesting: credit ratings (i.e. the creditworthiness of nations) should matter in determining bond prices and interest rates. There are only two possible explanations as to how/why the credit ratings of Western sovereign debt have been totally worthless for (at least) 40 years:
1) The bankers working for the credit ratings agencies are utterly incompetent (or corrupt).
2) Western bond markets are so heavily manipulated that they simply do not respond to economic fundamentals.
Readers can choose the explanation which they find most plausible. Note that (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive.
However, such revelations pale in comparison to the recent work of German propaganda-outlet, Der Spiegel. While Bloomberg’s apologist was merely trying to explain/defend the absurdly corrupt U.S. bond market; Der Spiegel was attempting to defend/justify “investment banking” as a whole.
Obviously even the propagandists know it is impossible to defend the psychopathic gamblers generally lumped under the category of “traders”; who spend half their time making extremely risky/insanely leveraged bets and the other half of their time scamming clients with the banksters’ notorious fraud scams.
Thus Der Spiegel acknowledges that these people are nothing but psychopath-gamblers, and then presents us with a myopic, tip-of-the-iceberg look at their litany of crime. However, it then attempts to differentiate these bad bankers with the good bankers: the “M&A consultants and IPO specialists”.
Out come the rose-coloured glasses, as Der Spiegel proclaims:
…All of this [insane gambling and scamming clients] has little to do with traditional investment banking, say so-called M&A consultants and IPO specialists. They arrange mergers and acquisitions, plan initial public offerings and embody a completely different kind of banker. They come complete with a broad job profile and multiple foreign languages, and they’ve often had years of training in management consulting firms. In fact, the people working in the trading rooms are about as foreign to them as car salesmen are to professors. [emphasis mine]
However, as frequently takes place with these serial-apologists, the writers were unable to maintain their Grand Illusion through to the end. A little later on, the truth comes out about these “professors”:
…It only gradually emerged that the bankers, with their murky forecasts, were often wrong. In fact studies now show that every other merger was a failure. Nevertheless, the volume of such transactions increased tenfold from 1990 and 2007, to almost $4 trillion worldwide. Investment bankers, it would seem, can be very convincing – especially when they’re banking on high fees. [emphasis mine]
Again, what is presented here is completely unequivocal: half of all the mergers put together by the Western banking cabal were/are failures. As with credit ratings, corporate clients could have obtained equally competent “merger advice” by flipping a coin – meaning that as with credit ratings M&A banking is (in aggregate) a 100% worthless service.
What is unclear from Der Spiegel’s more-realistic characterization of investment banking is whether (like the “traders”) the M&A consultants were deliberately scamming their clients (for their gigantic fees) or whether they were merely recklessly fleecing their clients with their gigantic fees.
Presumably the same also applies to the “IPO specialists” (since Der Spiegel made a point of grouping them closely with the M&A consultants); however we could always seek a second opinion on this topic from Facebook shareholders.
The more general point made here by Der Spiegel – and much, much more damning – is clear. The services of the “good bankers”, the M&A consultants (and IPO specialists?) are totally worthless; in that equally competent “advice” can be obtained from a coin-toss.
By implication, this means the “services” (for lack of a better word) provided by the bad bankers are, on aggregate, worth much less than zero – meaning that the (massive) overt harm committed by these serial criminals makes their work much worse than merely “worthless.”
Even more generally, we have an entire industry (investment banking) which extracts exorbitant fees for its services (the largest in the history of human commerce); but where even the friends of this industry explicitly point out (via long-term data) that these services are absolutely worthless.
There is an identical parallel in nature. Creatures which relentlessly blood-suck other creatures (while providing nothing in return) are known as parasites. Those are the “good” bankers.
For an appropriate analogy for the bad bankers (i.e. the traders) who relentlessly blood-suck their “clients” while simultaneously doing massive/catastrophic harm; we need to look to the supernatural: the Vampire
http://bullionbullscanada.com/intl-comm … -literally
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:02 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Ron Paul Tells it Like it Really is: The “Fiscal Cliff” Deal Solves Nothing
Sometimes admitting the truth is just too painful.
The current debt dance in Washington reminds me very much of the housing bubble. Back in 2003/2004 I became aware of the impending disaster heading toward us. But for years the housing “experts” denied that there was anything wrong. Up until the bitter end these people clung to the highly leveraged dream they had constructed over the prior decade. It couldn’t be coming to an end. It just couldn’t! If we all say that housing is healthy it is, right? It’s all animal spirits. Let’s keep those spirits up at all cost!
Very similar to what we see now in Washington.
Now, a political class clings to power as the economic tide continues to go out, but they have no sense of perspective. They are immersed in Washington-think, it’s all many of them have ever known or ever want to know. We aren’t out of money so long as we can keep printing it! See there’s no depression! Ha ha, the peasants won’t come for us with pitchforks so long as we keep throwing them bread. We owe this debt to ourselves anyway! Must – keep – bond rating – up. Must – print. Must – lie. Must – keep – big government – dream – going, at – all – costs!
The post Ron Paul Tells it Like it Really is: The “Fiscal Cliff” Deal Solves Nothing appeared first on AgainstCronyCapitalism.org.
View full post on AgainstCronyCapitalism.org
On Digital Privacy, Congress’ Offer Is This: Nothing
Julian Sanchez
It had the makings of a shockingly reasonable legislative bargain: Two outdated federal privacy statutes would be reformed together, removing some unnecessarily stringent restrictions on sharing video records while finally imposing a clear warrant requirement for government searches of e-mail and other private files stored in the “cloud.” Then Congress, perhaps in homage to Darth Vader, decided to alter the deal: A bill weakening the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 has been sent to the president for his signature, but without the corresponding badly-needed reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
On the merits, the changes to the Video Privacy Protection Act actually make sense. Passed in the wake of Robert Bork’s unsuccessful Supreme Court confirmation hearings, during which a newspaper published a list of videos rented by the nominee, the VPPA barred any disclosure of video rental records without the explicit and specific consent of the customer on each and every occasion. That seemed reasonable enough at the time, but has proved an annoyance to video streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, which would like to make it easy for users to automatically post the movies and TV shows they’ve watched to social media services like Twitter or Facebook without having to click an extra “I consent” box every time—something that’s not required when users similarly share the music they’re listening to on services like Spotify or Pandora. So those companies wanted to let users give up-front, blanket consent for automatic sharing of videos.
Only the most hardcore privacy watchdogs had a serious substantive problem with such a change, but many nevertheless disliked the idea of diluting one of the stronger privacy statutes on the books when, in so many other areas, changing technologies had rendered existing privacy protections far too weak. Perhaps the most glaring example of this was the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which established a confusing crazy-quilt of standards for government searches of remotely stored e-mail and other files, often allowing them to be obtained without a search warrant—standards that several appeals courts have already held to fall short of what the Fourth Amendment requires.
So Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) had proposed an eminently logical compromise: Bundle together updates to the two statutes, easing the excessively stringent privacy rules for video records while simultaneously requiring the government to obtain a probable cause search warrant in order to look through a person’s e-mail and cloud-stored files, just as they must when they search a personal computer or wiretap a phone conversation. The bundling ensured that privacy advocates—even the hardcore ones who disapproved of the change to the video privacy law—wouldn’t raise too much fuss about it. Few expected Leahy’s package, which had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to be acted on until the next session of Congress.
Then came the Vader move: The House of Representatives passed its own bill amending the VPPA, but without the provisions enhancing protections for e-mail, and that legislation was quickly approved by the House. Again, this is not a bad thing in itself. But it’s a disturbing sign that, as technology changes, Congress is willing to water down privacy protections that have been rendered unnecessary or overly restrictive, but not to strengthen them even when they’ve clearly fallen badly out of sync with the way Americans communicate in the 21st century.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Learning Nothing, Forgetting Nothing: The Useless Laments About Allies’ Contributions to Defense
By Justin Logan
Today in the Los Angeles Times, Gary Schmitt argues that America’s Western allies are not spending enough on their militaries. This is not news. But Schmitt offers no solution to the problem.
Smaller countries free ride on larger countries’ security guarantees because it is the rational thing to do. Almost two years ago, Schmitt authored a very similar piece in the Wall Street Journal. If he was concerned then, or is concerned now, with the inadequate spending of our allies, the best way to change that is to revoke our commitment to defend them. As I wrote in response to Schmitt’s Wall Street Journal article:
In their 1966 article “Economic Theory of Alliances,” Mancur Olson Jr. and Richard Zeckhauser solved this puzzle. Olson and Zeckhauser explained the disproportionate contributions of NATO members with a model that showed that in the provision of collective goods (like security) in organizations (like the NATO alliance), the larger nations will tend to bear a “disproportionately large share of the common burden.” Due in part to these dynamics, Kenneth Waltz concluded by 1979 that “in fact if not in form, NATO consists of guarantees given by the United States to its European allies and to Canada.” As Waltz pointed out, France’s withdrawal in 1966 from NATO’s integrated military command failed to “noticeably change the bipolar balance” between NATO and the Soviet-sponsored WTO.
The implication of the Olson-Zeckhauser model, which has held up remarkably well over time, is that the only way to force Europe to spend more would be to make clear that the United States views European security as a private, not a collective, good, and that consequently its provision was rightly Europe’s responsibility. Given U.S. policymakers’ extreme reticence to adopt this conclusion, likely because a more independent Europe would be more independent, we should expect European defense spending to stay low and U.S. defense intellectuals to keep complaining about European free-riding, all to no avail. (I have previously written about this subject here and here.)
If we maintain a commitment to defend our European wards, they’ll keep free riding and Uncle Sucker will keep paying. Think tankers writing earnest op-eds and policymakers giving stern speeches isn’t going to change this dynamic.
Learning Nothing, Forgetting Nothing: The Useless Laments About Allies’ Contributions to Defense is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Negative Home Equity Is Nothing New
By Mark A. Calabria
With the near constant calls for mortgage restructuring and the proposals to reduce mortgages via eminent domain, you would think that no homeowner in America has ever before had negative equity (i.e., a situation where a homeowner owes more on his mortgage than what his house is worth). If you did think that, you’d be wrong. A recent article published in the HUD journal Cityscape examines the trend in negative equity from 1997 to 2009 (incorporating the most recent American Housing Survey data). A nice summary table of the data is below the jump.
Without a doubt, the percent of underwater housing units jumped significantly since the housing bubble burst. But even during the peak of the bubble, say 2005, around 5 percent of units were underwater.
Interestingly enough, the biggest driver seems to be among mobile or manufactured homes, with over a fourth underwater even at the peak of the bubble. Many mobile home owners do not own the land their house sits on, which likely explains this trend. The lack of political concern over their situation (I don’t recall anyone in 2005 calling for write-downs) is likely due to the fact that mobile home owners are mostly rural, white and working class, which don’t generally get the sympathy of the readers of, say, the New York Times.
But it isn’t just a rural issue. In 2002, before the housing bubble started, about 7 percent of owners with a mortgage living in Buffalo, N.Y. were underwater.
I’ve written elsewhere that I don’t see a convincing or compelling economic justification for write-downs. The more honest proponents of forced write-downs and re-financing argue it is ultimately about “fairness,” not economics. I appreciate the honesty of such a position. If, in general, you hold a position because you feel it is “just” or “fair,” you only undermine your case by trying to use shoddy economics to justify it.
But those who believe that write-downs would be ”fair” need to explain why they didn’t argue for write-downs when it was just the residents of Buffalo or rural Mississippi who were underwater. Suddenly, when residents of swings states like Florida, Nevada, and Arizona are underwater, it becomes an issue of fairness.
Negative Home Equity Is Nothing New is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
Other • 70% chance your credit score will go up for doing nothing
Sovereign Man on JULY 11, 2012
Anyone who has ever taken out a loan for a car or a house understands the importance of having a high credit score. Peoples’ entire lively hoods hang in the balance of having a good number, but recent economic hardships have caused many people to default on loans and wreck their credit scores. However, according to the credit ranking agency FICO, they way they calculate your score could change in the near future. Go Banking Rates reports on the change and the effects it will have on your credit score:
The Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO) and data firm, CoreLogic, plan to release a new credit score that would change what affects credit score rankings for consumers by accounting for new information.
The companies evaluated the current factors of the FICO score, and decided that including short-term loans and rental information into the FICO score calculation will likely help borrowers appear less risky to lenders.
Together, FICO and CoreLogic have worked together to pull consumer data, including property records and liens, short-term installment loans for used cars and rental information, to develop a new credit score.
Vice President of CoreLogic, Tim Grace, estimated that 70 percent of people will end up with better credit scores due to the updated FICO score calculation.
Even more astounding is that about 44 percent of the U.S. landed into the 800 to 850 FICO score range — the highest possible bracket — under the new score, as opposed to about 18 percent under the current system. The number of people in the 700 to 799 bracket dropped some, but this was due to the rapid increase in Americans with even better credit under the new method.
http://www.sovereignman.com/news-feed/7 … g-nothing/
70 Percent of Credit Scores to Improve with New FICO Calculation
By Stacey Bumpus
Posted in Credit , Financial News
July 11, 2012
The Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO) and data firm, CoreLogic, plan to release a new credit score that would change what affects credit score rankings for consumers by accounting for new information.
The companies evaluated the current factors of the FICO score, and decided that including short-term loans and rental information into the FICO score calculation will likely help borrowers appear less risky to lenders.
New Credit Score Factors
In the standard FICO score system, specific data about consumers is calculated to determine their credit scores, including credit card history, traditional mortgage and auto loans, credit defaults and collection accounts.
However, many have argued for years that this FICO score calculation method doesn’t account for individuals who are underbanked, or don’t have access to banks in their areas and therefore aren’t taking out loans. Also, the existing factors of what affects credit score outcomes does not consider people who rent their homes, sidestep mortgage loans to buy homes in cash and don’t want credit cards.
Together, FICO and CoreLogic have worked together to pull consumer data, including property records and liens, short-term installment loans for used cars and rental information, to develop a new credit score.
CoreLogic said that the new system offers a more accurate depiction of borrowers with a more precise score.
70 Percent of Scores Improve with New FICO Score Calculation
Vice President of CoreLogic, Tim Grace, estimated that 70 percent of people will end up with better credit scores due to the updated FICO score calculation.
Even more astounding is that about 44 percent of the U.S. landed into the 800 to 850 FICO score range — the highest possible bracket — under the new score, as opposed to about 18 percent under the current system. The number of people in the 700 to 799 bracket dropped some, but this was due to the rapid increase in Americans with even better credit under the new method.
The benefit of the new score is that more borrowers could qualify for various types of loans and credit cards as well as lower interest rates. Unfortunately, the new FICO score will not replace the traditional score anytime soon, since many lenders require the use of FICO scores.
CoreLogic predicts, however, that some banks may begin utilizing the new score as a supplement to the regular score. Currently, 25 lenders are already testing the product.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:49 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Other • Now Nothing Is Off The Table
Now Nothing Is Off The Table
By Eric Peters Jul 3rd, 2012
Tomorrow – the Fourth of July – should be considered a national day of mourning.
Having affirmed the constitutionality of Obamacare – that is, of the federal government’s asserted authority not merely to force each of us to purchase the “services” of a private, government-backed cartel (the insurance mafia) but also implicitly its asserted authority over our very selves (because what could be more fundamental to “our health” than our selves?) — there is now no line the government may not, in principle (and so, inevitably, in practice) cross.
The gauntlet has been thrown down. The idea of the Constitution as a check on what the federal government may not do is as absurd as the Soviet Bill of Rights. There is nothing the federal government may not do. No area of our lives that remains off limits. Consider this as you celebrate your “freedoms” tomorrow… .
Just off the top of my head:
Mandatory life insurance – or else.
Why not? Does anyone imagine the life insurance mafia will not seize the opportunity created by what the health insurance mafia has just achieved? If the government can force us to buy health insurance – to hand over money to private, for-profit businesses on the basis of the idea that “everyone must be insured against risk because of the possibility that some people might transfer their costs onto ‘society’ ” – well, why not?
Is there any argument you can think of to deflect the idea of forcing people to buy life insurance on the same basis as they will now be forced to buy health insurance – or pay a huge tax to the government?
Mandatory homeowner’s insurance – or else.
A second example. Right now, some people – who have paid off their homes – elect to skip paying a huge annual fee for homeowner’s insurance, having weighed the (small) risk of a total loss against the benefit of having money in the bank for the much more likely small things (like a tree falling against the house) which they can then just pay out of pocket.
This is exactly the same as people who are fit and healthy, lead a healthy life – and so decide to skip paying through the nose for health insurance they will probably never need, preferring to pay for the occasional incidentals out of pocket – and put the rest of the money they’d otherwise throw down the hole of “insurance” into their savings. ObamaCare has outlawed this.
Does anyone believe the law will continue to allow anyone to avoid going “uninsured” for anything? What will the opposing argument be – given the fact of the legal precedent now established?
Shouldn’t everyone have car maintenance insurance, too? After all, a major repair can be devastating if one hasn’t got the means to pay for it. Surely this is an unacceptable risk – and just as surely, the corporate cartel automakers will see the same “opportunity” that the insurance cartels have seen.
And will seize it – just as they seized the bail-out money. Only now, it’ll be a more direct transfer.
Some may say this won’t happen. But the fact is it can happen – because the essential principle is now enshrined in law. Anyone who does not grasp this does not comprehend how the law works – how the system works. Precedent becomes practice. Case law sets the bar for future laws.
So, being forced to purchase health insurance at gunpoint is just for openers.
Having affirmed ObamaCare, the court has also affirmed – in principle – the authority of the government to monitor, control, regulate and tax every and any conceivable action. Because just about anything can in some way be argued to affect “health” and thus falls under the newly minted authority of the federal government or the health-care-at-gunpoint cartels.
Own guns? You will be required by law to disclose this fact to your “health care provider” – who will narc you out to the government, which may and likely will decide that it’s “risky” for you to possess them. The state may simply decide – for health reasons – that it is “too risky” for you to be permitted to possess them.
Ride motorcycles? Very risky! If bikes are not outlawed entirely, they – or rather you, the rider – will be taxed to such an extent that almost no one will be able to ride – except of course the Praetorians (cops) who ride alongside the likes of Mittens and Barry.The same goes for anything else you like to do that some bureaucratic Clover decides constitutes an unacceptable risk to society – and “public health” – because of the potential costs it might incur.
Everything – from how much soda you drink to whether you exercise (and how) is now the business of busybodies with guns. Doubt this? It is already happening in places such as New York City (see here) where Mayor Bloomberg is doing the trial-runs for what will shortly become national policy.
Smokers are subjected to more abuse than child molesters. In Bloomberg’s Gotham – more accurately described as the Kremlin on the East River – they may not even smoke in their own damn home.
Or else.
Use supplements? Not approved! You will use the government-approved, Big Pharma provided anti-statins (and so on) instead.
They will literally force you to visit the government-approved quack – if necessary, by dragooning you out of your own home in a straightjacket. An elderly man was literally Tasered into submission and dragged out of his own home by thug cops merely because he did not wish the medical treatment they insisted he submit to.
If you don’t think this could happen to you, too – well, you’re living in a dreamworld.
Because now, nothing – absolutely nothing – is off the table. They will not leave you alone. Ever.
Historically ignorant Americans don’t see it – because it hasn’t come to their door – yet. But it’s coming. As surely as they came for the Jews after they came for the trade unionists in another place, a long time ago.
Those who have their eyes open – and their brains turned on – see (and understand) this. For the rest, only hard experience will disabuse them of the fiction that they still live in a “free” country. I suspect they won’t have long to wait.
Enjoy your fireworks (which you can’t handle yourself) and your government-approved hot dogs and officially approved beer tomorrow. It may be your last chance.
Regards,
Eric Peters
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/now-noth … the-table/
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:40 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com