Personal Liberty Sign Up Information

Eugenics and population control are long time hobbies of the financial elites. In the early 1900s, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute were deeply involved in promoting Eugenics laws in the U.S. These laws led to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 American citizens in states like California and thousands of rejected marriage licenses. The Eugenics programs in the U.S. were only a beta test though, as the Rockefellers then transferred their programs over to Germany under Hitler and the Third Riech in the 1930s, where a true widespread eugenics-based population control program was introduced.

The targets of population reduction were based on ethnic background, but also "mental intelligence" and economic status. The Carnegie Institute even established a "Eugenics Records Office" in 1904, which collected genetic data on millions of Americans and their families with the intent of controlling their numbers and erasing certain traits from the U.S. population. The Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory still exists today and presents itself as a kind of philanthropic endeavor to help humanity.

Public knowledge of the globalists and their population control agenda was carefully swept under the rug in the U.S. after the exposure of Nazi programs post-WWII. The word "eugenics" became a very ugly one and all the effort the elites put into promoting it as a legitimate science was ruined. However, they were not going to give up on their precious ideology.

In the late 1960s into the 1970s there was a resurgence of population control rhetoric coming out of globalist circles. Under the supervision of the U.N. and some related scientific groups, the Club Of Rome was formed. A prominent part of the Club of Rome's agenda was population reduction. In 1972 the group of "scientists" under the U.N.'s direction published a paper called 'The Limits Of Growth', which called for greatly reduced human population in the name of "saving the environment." This effort was directly linked to another agenda — the institution of a global government that could handle and enforce population controls on a wide scale.

The elites had found a new scientific front for their eugenics obsession: Climate science. In the early 1900s the Club of Rome published a book called 'The First Global Revolution.' In it they state:

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

The statement comes from Chapter 5 — The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator. It also outlines the perfect rationale for population control — mankind is the enemy, therefore, mankind as a species must be kept under strict supervision and his proliferation must be restricted.

The Club of Rome and the U.N. agendas have always been intimately connected. In the 1900s at the same time 'The First Global Revolution' was being published, U.N. Assistant Secretary General Robert Muller was publishing his manifesto which is now collected on a website called 'Good Morning World.' Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of "protecting the Earth" and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself.

In a paper titled 'Proper Earth Government: A Framework And Ways To Create It' Robert Muller outlines how climate change could be used to convince the masses of the need for global government. Integral to his plan were the introduction of a new "global religion," and population controls.

It should come as no surprise that the U.N. established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and that this panel and it's offshoots are now at the forefront of the argument for population reduction. As we close in on the end date for the U.N.'s Agenda 2030, which calls for a radical and total shift of human production from oil and other large scale energy sources into small scale "renewable energies," there is only 10 years left for the globalists to achieve their goals if they hope to meet their announced deadline. This would require a violent change in human society and most of all industrialized nations.

The human population would have to be reduced dramatically in order to survive on the meager energy output of renewables alone. A disaster of epic proportions would have to take place soon, so that the globalists could then spend the next decade using the resulting fear to convince the surviving population that global governance is necessary. Without aggressive crisis and change, most people would never go along with the U.N.'s agenda out of simple desire for self-preservation. Even many leftists, once exposed to the true nature of carbon controls and population reduction, might have second thoughts when they realize they could be affected.

In 2019, the population agenda is being ramped into high gear and the public is being carefully conditioned over time to accept the idea that man-made climate change is real, and population is the source of the problem.

Recently, a groups of scientists partially funded by something called the "Worthy Garden Club" claimed 11,000 signatures on a statement for the need for population reduction in the name of saving the Earth from global warming.

The statement cites all the same long debunked IPCC and U.N. climate change propaganda as the reasons why the Earth is on the verge of annihilation. The fact of the matter is, climate scientists have been consistently caught red handed manipulating their own data to show the intended outcome of global warming. They have even been caught trying to adjust their own data from 20 years ago in order to match it more closely to the rigged data they publish today.

The Worthy Garden Club is a strangely sterile group and there doesn't seem to be any list their patrons and who funds them. However, the mainstream media was quick to pick up on the statement from the "11,000 scientists" and tie it to statements made by the U.N.'s IPCC.

Population control has also been brought up consistently as an issue in the 2020 presidential election race. Bernie Sanders argued for birth control measures in poor countries. Elizabeth Warren said abortion was as safe as "getting your tonsils removed." She has consistently promoted the carbon control agenda of the U.N. and was, interestingly, a member of the University of Texas Population research Center in the 1980s. And Green New Deal politicians are throwing their support behind the statements from the Worthy Garden Club on population reduction.

This is the first time I have seen the argument for population reduction used so blatantly and widespread in the mainstream media, and it suggest to me that a trend is forming. For years I have warned my readers that they will know when the globalists are about to pull the plug on the current system when they start talking about their criminality openly. When they admit to their agenda in a free way, this means they are close to a global reset and do not care anymore who knows about it. The openness of the plan to cut world population is becoming apparent.

Strangely, there has been little mention of the fact that the world population, in the west most of all, is in decline. Far from exploding beyond the Earth's capacity, people are barely having enough children to keep the current population stable. It would appear that the globalist agenda is already in motion. Through engineered economic disintegration, the population is already being reduced.

But the primary issue here beyond the moral horror show of eugenics is, who gets cut? And furthermore, who gets to decide who gets cut? Who gets to decide if you can have children or not? Who gets to decide if you are allowed to access resources to produce and make a living or not? Who gets to decide if the global economy will sustain the population or not? Who pulls the trigger on the culling of the population?

As history has shown us, it is always the elites that end up in the position of deciding the fates of millions or billions. From the Rockefeller Foundation sterilization programs in the U.S. in the early 1900s to the U.N. today, the globalists, a veritable death cult, are desperate to conjure a rationalization as to why they should be the ones to allow or deny human life based on lies like man-made climate change. My theory — they are psychopaths looking for a socially justifiable way to kill as many people as possible. Why? because they enjoy it.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friends at The Oxford Club. They have some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

The least substantial, most ahistorical, duplicitous, whiplashiest, and factless fact-checky fakeries in the week's fake news.

It's not 11,000 scientists

Last week we learned, thanks to blanket and breathless coverage by the propaganda media, "A global team of more than 11,000 scientists from over 150 countries officially declared that the world is in a "climate emergency," according to a new paper released Tuesday. The "paper" was published in the journal Bioscience.

NBC News noted that an "international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists is backing a study with a dire warning: Earth is facing a climate emergency." Ominously, the McPaper (USA Today) proclaimed in coverage of the "study," "This is the first time a group of scientists have come together to use the word "emergency" in regards to climate change."

As is the case with climate alarmism, this is fake news. As PowerLineBlog.com notes, there was no study published. What was published in the journal BioScience was a press release. And the 11,000 "scientists" weren't all scientists. They were just random people who added their name to support the press release published on a climate alarmism website set up by a guy in the forestry department at the University of Oregon.

The total signatories on the site now exceeds 15,000. But anyone who wanted could sign at the website until the collection of signatures closed in recent days.

Not only were most of the signatories not scientists, some of them weren't even real people. Among the "scientists" who signed on were Mouse, Micky, of the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind in Nambia; Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts; and Araminta Aardvark from the University of Neasden (which doesn't exist). Real "scientists" included people who claimed to be teachers, students, economists, technicians, therapists, doctors and psychologists.

The site and its declaration is remarkably similar to one produced in 2017 that was spearheaded by OSU forestry professor William J. Ripple. That one garnered 15,000 signatures, according to The Washington Times.

As for the McPaper's claim that it's the first time a group of scientists have come together to use the word "emergency," that is sophistry. Just last year, scientists participating in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that "urgent and unprecedented changes" had to made in order to "prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic" and avoid "significantly" worse "risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people."

The IPCC warned that "we have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe.

"It's a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now," said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. "This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises (sic) people and dents the mood of complacency."

If scientists really believe those things are true, "catastrophe" would seem to qualify as an emergency.

But it's not only sophistry to claim it's the first time the word "emergency" was used, it's a bald-faced lie. In September a group of 500 climate scientists and professionals in climate and related fields sent a letter to the U.N. stating, "there is no climate emergency."

Funny how 11,000 fake scientists got more media attention than 500 real ones because the message from the real ones didn't fit the climate alarmism narrative.

Climate alarmism is the biggest scam in the history of the world.

New York experiences its first storm ever and it's because of climate change

New York's idiot governor, Mario Cuomo, has apparently never seen a storm before a recent torrent left one town's streets flowing like rivers, and neither has the state of New York, to hear him tell it. While speaking with MSNBC talking head Ali Velshi after a heavy storm flooded streets, Cuomo claimed that before "global warming" there were no hurricanes, super storms or tornadoes in the state.

"Ali, anyone who questions extreme weather and climate change is just delusional at this point," Cuomo sniffed. "We have seen in the State of New York what everyone has seen, we have seen these weather patterns that we never had before. We didn't have hurricanes, we didn't have super storms, we didn't have tornadoes. This is a storm that came up just over night and dropped about five inches of rain. It was literally a matter of life and death for people. I was at one of the sites this morning, the river overcame its banks with five inches of water, run through a residential neighborhood. The streets looked like rivers themselves. People were trapped in their homes. The one home you were mentioning, people were afraid the house itself was going to be swept away and luckily we train with the swift water rescue teams and they literally took five people out of the home including an infant, but it was a very dangerous and precarious situation. Thank God we have the best first responders I believe in the United States and everyone got off safely. But this is a recurrent pattern and anyone who is still in denial is making a serious mistake."

Like most leftists, for Cuomo, history started yesterday. Fortunately, we have real history on our side... and the search engine Duck Duck Go.

For instance, Wikipedia notes that there have been 84 tropical or subtropical cyclones to affect the state of New York since the 1600s. The first one known about, according to GeoScienceWorld, citing "overwash deposits" and "stratigraphic evidence" actually occurred sometime between 1278 and 1438.

I wasn't around back then, but I'm quite sure there weren't any automobiles, factories or cows spewing out greenhouse gasses in the 13th to the 15th centuries in the New World.

Cuomo apparently believes that a few thousand colonists cooking their venison, squirrels, rabbits, beans, cabbage and squashes over open fires created enough global warming to cause the first recorded hurricane to hit New York on August 25, 1653.

The New York hurricane that caused the most casualties hit in 1938. It killed 60 people. Hurricane Edna hit in 1954 and killed 29. It ranked third behind Storm Sandy and the 1938 unnamed storm.

According to the Tornado History Project, 438 tornadoes hit New York state from 1952 through 2017. Those storms killed 30 people, with one storm killing nine. The strongest New York tornado ever recorded hit Brooklyn in 2007. No serious injuries or fatalities were recorded, but the storm damaged 40 buildings and 100 cars and flooded streets.

Floods have also been fairly regular occurrences in the state, as the National Weather Service explains on its site. They were occurring long before "global warming" became a thing.

Have I mentioned that climate alarmism is a scam and fake news?

Attenborough's falling walruses again

Regular readers may recall that back in April we told you about the great walrus plunge hoax that ran on the Netflix/BBC documentary narrated by climate alarmist Sir David Attenborough titled, Our Planet.

In one episode, with footage running of walruses falling off a cliff to their deaths, Attenborough claimed the poor beasts were dying because they had been forced ashore by declining sea-ice levels caused by global warming. Their poor eyesight, Attenborough alleged prevented them from seeing well enough to know they were about fall off a cliff.

After the episode, Canadian zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford called the episode fake news, claiming that walruses have always gone ashore and there are many historical reports of them falling off cliffs when they did so. And Crockford claimed the footage Attenborough used was from a well-documented incident in which a pack of polar bears were chasing the walruses over the cliff so they could feed on the corpses.

Attenborough has since made another documentary for BBC titled, Seven Worlds, One Planet, in which he used what appears to be the same footage. This time, however, he stated that polar bears were driving the walruses to their deaths.

Have we told you that climate alarmism is a scam?

Reading Politico can give you whiplash

During recent closed-door impeachment hearings, two officials who served on Trump's National Security Council staff were said to have testified that they had seen no evidence that the Ukraine government interfered in the 2016 election.

Their testimony, Polico's Natasha Bertrand and Andrew Desiderio wrote, undercut a "conspiracy theory" that was being pushed by Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Giuliani has long claimed that Ukrainian officials conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to beat Trump.

"No evidence has emerged to support that idea," Bertrand and Desiderio claimed.

Well that undercuts Politico's own reporting. On January 11, 2017, Politico's Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern wrote:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Last May, The Hill's Jon Solomon communicated in writing with Ukrainian Ambassador Valeriy Chaly. According to Solomon's reporting:

DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.

Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.

"The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We've learned about her DNC involvement later," Chaly said in a statement issued by his embassy. "We were surprised to see Alexandra's interest in Mr. Paul Manafort's case. It was her own cause. The Embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter."

"All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.," the ambassador explained.

Reached by phone last week, Chalupa said she was too busy to talk. She did not respond to email and phone messages seeking subsequent comment.

Chaly's written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine's government that an American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country's help in the 2016 election, and they confirm the main points of a January 2017 story by Politico on Chalupa's efforts.

So, Politico, which of these is fake news?

AP's factless fact-check

Following the first day of public testimony in the impeachment sham, the Associated Press decided to fact check the proceedings. The AP tells us:

Republican Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the panel, said, "The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling. ... Officials showed a surprising lack of interest in the indications of Ukrainian election meddling that deeply concerned the president at whose pleasure they serve."

AP's "factchecker" claimed of Nunes' charges:

The theory that Ukrainians interfered in the U.S. election and that Democrats cooperated in that effort is unsubstantiated. If U.S. officials showed a lack of interest in pursuing the matter, it's because they considered it 'fiction,' as one put it.

Unless there are two competing definitions of "unsubstantiated," AP is fake news. Just ask Politico.

-- Jay Baker

P.S. — President Donald Trump has shaken up the status quo. Everything is different, from politics to the economy. If we are to prosper in this age of Trump, we must change, too. Building wealth with a minimum-wage or middle-class income is now easier than ever. Let me show you how with my new report, The Rise of the Minimum-Wage Millionaires, available here.

Did you know back pain can shrink your brain by up to 11 percent?

That's the equivalent of aging your brain by up to 20 years.

You lose brain cells in the thalamus and prefrontal cortex because these cells are hyperactive for so long under the stress of pain that they eventually break down and die.

These brain changes may also cause patients to become less responsive to pain treatment.

My colleague and friend Mark Wiley, Ph.D., OMD, and a doctor of Chinese medicine and alternative health, says back pain is what he sees most in his practice.

Dr. Wiley recommends a clean diet in order to remove the triggers for pain, including:

• Healing through liquid cleansing: A liquid cleanse can help detoxify your body, heal your cells and quiet down your immune system.
  
  
• Eat your food as close to raw as possible: Compared to refined products, complex carbohydrates enter the blood stream slowly, helping keep your blood sugar stable.
  
  
• Eliminate refined products: Refined foods can incite a quick and excessive release of insulin from your liver. This can cause unwanted fat storage in your body. Refined foods also promote over-acidity, which is linked to osteoporosis and arthritis.

Studies prove the relationship between a healthy diet and lower inflammation, which dispels aches and pains.

An ancient technique that Dr. Wiley described to me is magnetic therapy. Modern medicine ignores magnets for healing, using them only in high-tech medical procedures like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Hippocrates, considered the father of medicine, discussed the use of magnets in his healing protocols. Why is it that we revere ancient wisdom in nearly every walk of life except medicine? Somehow if a therapy is old, it's considered outdated, wrong or useless. Doctors take the "Hippocratic Oath" named after Hippocrates himself, yet conveniently discard his teachings in favor of the teachings of standard medicine.

According to studies done at the University of Tokyo Medical School as reported in Magnet Therapy by Professor Holger Hannermann, 80 percent of patients reacted positively to magnetic therapy.

Therapeutic magnetic devices are used extensively with herniated discs, back injuries or discomfort, muscle spasms, muscle pulls, arthritic spinal conditions. Biomagnetic therapy not only gives pain relief, but it promotes rapid tissue repair by promoting resumption of normal blood flow to the injured area.

To relieve back pain and build the muscles that support the lower back, Dr. Wiley also related to me an exercise from Tema Esberg of Potentia Personal Training. Anyone can do it, and it's very simple. It's a compound movement/exercise combining a Kick Back and a Kick Out.

It really works to tone and strengthen the glutes and hips, and even stretch the hamstrings; muscles that are important for helping stabilize and support the lower back.

This exercise set is done on the floor, so get a matt or rug.

Start by getting down on "hands and knees" on the floor. This is called a Table Top position — knees under hips and hands under shoulders.

Begin by extending back the left leg, then raise it up by moving your heel toward the ceiling. This is called a "Kick Back."

Only lift the leg as far up as you can without leaning forward. Keep the Table Top position stable. Then lower your leg back to extended position parallel with the floor.

Next, kick your left leg out to the left side. This is called the "Kick Out." Move the leg as if trying to touch your shoulder with your toes. Of course, you can't do that, but the movement is along that angle.

Return the leg to the extended back position. This combination of kick back and kick out counts as one repetition. Do a count of 10 reps with each leg and progress up to as many sets as you like in order to get stronger and maintain that strength in the upper glute and lower back muscles.

I have so much respect for Dr. Wiley and his advice because he is one of us.

He became disillusioned with standard medicine's failure to help his own chronic pain and went about researching and becoming a healer himself. His studies and years of practice have led him to become one of the leading authorities in the field of healing pain.

Dr. Wiley has such a wealth of healing experience and advice for those in pain that he has written a book titled Conquering the Pain. It contains comprehensive information to help you conquer pain without drugs. Get your copy right here.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friends at Stansberry Research. They have some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

There are few people left who remember when gold and silver were money.

Prior to the 1930s, banks were required to exchange your cash for gold and vice versa. Dimes, quarters, half dollars and dollar coins were made of silver. Dollars were backed by silver and gold.

That is when money was real.

Unfortunately, the gold standard effectively ended in the 1930s. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt claimed to fear that gold imposed a straitjacket on the banking system and credit creation. And if Americans hoarded gold, the economic crisis might deepen.

On March 6, 1933, two days after his inauguration, Roosevelt barred banks from paying gold to depositors.

On April 5, he outlawed "hoarding" — Americans had to redeem all gold coins above $100. "They [the people] came with little bags, briefcases, paper bundles, boxes or bulging pockets," reported one newspaper.

Roosevelt also devalued the dollar in terms of gold. For years, it had been $20.67 an ounce; the government would buy or sell gold at that price. On Jan. 30, 1934, he set a price at $35 an ounce for foreigners. In practice, the nearly 70 percent devaluation meant that the gold backing for the paper currency was so ample that money and credit could expand without encountering legal restrictions.

Many people know about FDR's Executive Order 6102, which confiscated gold from the people and criminalized the possession of monetary gold by "any individual, partnership, association or corporation." But not as many people know about FDR's Executive Order 6814, signed on August 9, 1934, that "required all persons to deliver [their silver] to the U.S. government."

In exchange for the silver, people received a payment of $1.29 per ounce in the form of "standard silver dollars, silver certificates or any other currency of the United States." But government placed a "fee" (read tax) of 61.32 percent taken out of the $1.29 per ounce for "seigniorage, brassage, coinage, and other mint charges" that reduced the payment to about 50 cents per ounce.

The order required that all silver situated in the U.S. with a fineness of 80 percent or more; and silver held in quantities over 500 troy ounces by any one person, be turned in to government. It exempted unprocessed silver of less than 80 percent fineness, silver contained in articles fabricated and held in good faith for a specific and customary use and not for their value as silver bullion (presumably silver ornaments, jewelry and/or silverware); and silver held for industrial, professional, or artistic use in amounts less than 500 troy ounces per person.

The government "nationalized" nearly 113 million ounces with this scheme and acquired an additional 1.353 billion ounces under the Silver Purchase Act of 1934. As Bill Walker wrote for LewRockwell.com:

This Act instructed the United States Treasury to purchase silver until the world price of silver rose above $1.29 per ounce, or until the monetary value of the U.S. silver stock reached one-third the monetary value of the gold stock. This huge U.S. government expenditure occurred at the worst time in the U.S. Great Depression, when most ordinary Americans were struggling desperately to avoid bankruptcy). As a result of the U.S. manipulation, from early 1933 to the middle of 1935 the price of silver had tripled.

Like the gold confiscation — which was sold to Americans as a way to stimulate the economy but was instead a scheme to allow the Federal Reserve to print more money — the silver confiscation allowed the Fed to print more money (in this case, make coins).

Most people think that a dollar is a dollar. Not so. Today's dollars (nominal dollars) are quicksand money that financially destroys all who trust it.

Those unaware of the inflating debasing nature of nominal dollars live in a fickle and imaginary world. They believe all is well and all is safe. They are further deceived by rising stock prices in nominal dollars. One can be up 100 percent in a stock portfolio but still be losing in real dollars — very deceptive! How many investors in Warren Buffett's famous Berkshire Hathaway realize they have been losing in real dollars for years? I don't believe they mention this in their sensational annual reports.

Look at the nominal dollars in your pocket. They are nowhere near the value of the dollars you had as a child or that you have under your mattress.

We have had paper money since 1913, and most of that time it was being debased (inflated). The debasing accelerated after FDR and then again after money was totally removed from the gold standard by President Richard Nixon, who created the "Nixon shock" by ending the Bretton Woods agreement in August 1971. Now it's at a 97 percent loss. We are only as rich or as poor as the purchasing power of our money.

Have you ever wondered why banks and politicians love paper money? Because they profit from it!

All modern money is nominal dollars. Look at the money in your pocket or your savings account or your retirement. You are being deceptively impoverished, and the fact that you are unaware of it makes your eventual impoverishment certain.

What can we do? Until there is a change in the monetary regime of the United States, we must get out of U.S. dollars as much as we can. Buy farmland, buy food to store, buy gold and silver, buy precious stones.

We are often asked when recommending gold and silver for wealth protection whether a similar order will be signed to confiscate gold and silver from the people. Of course, politicians can do and will do whatever pleases them. The laws forbidding things from being done are either repealed or ignored.

But I don't believe the total amount of gold and silver in circulation is sufficient to warrant the effort. More likely, government will just steal the more than $22 trillion in private pension funds, IRAs and 401(k) accounts.

This comes under discussion from time to time.

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter^™

P.S. — You can still buy and invest in gold on the way up, if you can handle the swings. I have put my best advice on buying gold into my Ultimate End of the Dollar Defense Manual. Because gold will have wild swings as it eventually rises, and they will scare folks out of any bull market. Remember that with depreciation of the dollar, your money buys more gold now than it will in the future!

Dear Jackson, How many times have you heard that surgeries like stents and bypasses are "life saving"? It gets repeated over and over... but it’s not true. Please keep reading if you want to save your heart from a fate worse than death (yes, really!). Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

It seems like a simple and easy to identify pattern, but for some reason the public keeps falling for the same old globalist tricks. A classic tactic the money elites use to endear certain puppet political candidates to Americans is to encourage those candidates to use anti-elitist rhetoric, only to then flood their cabinets with those same elites once they get into office. The rule of politics seems to be, "Say whatever you want to get the people on your side, but once you're in office, you do as we tell you..."

Candidates will aggressively attack the banks, corporations and Wall Street, lamenting the rapid decline of the middle class or "working class." They will point out that a mere handful of ultra-rich, the top 1 percent, control more wealth than nearly half of the population combined. They will seize upon the travesties of the poor and argue for "change" to bring balance back to the system. They will pretend to expose the crimes of the banking cabal and the upper echelons of Wall Street. They will put on a grand show; and then, they will do the bidding of their masters and play the role they were groomed for...

Americans are suckers for a "people's candidate" and always have been.

But perhaps I should expand on this with some real-world examples. How about Jimmy Carter, who started out his presidential campaign with a dismal 4 percent in the Democratic polls. Carter would go on to explode in popularity after attacking what he referred to as the "Washington insiders," the elites that ran the show from behind the curtain. A widely distributed paperback book that promoted Carter during his campaign called "I'll Never Lie To You" Jimmy Carter In His Own Words quoted the candidate as saying at a Boston rally:

"The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get ... changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders."

His own top aide, Hamilton Jordan, promised:

"If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit."

Carter was portrayed as a political statesman free from connections to the globalists; a veritable white knight pure in his associations. This was viewed as an important image to maintain at the time. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the presidential candidacy of true anti-globalist Barry Goldwater and the highly questionable role of Henry Kissinger in Richard Nixon's administration, the public was growing increasingly suspicious of the nature of government and who was really in charge. Carter was initially seen as a cure for the public's distrust.

Of course, as soon as Carter entered office, he injected no less than ten members of the Trilateral Commission and numerous other elites into key positions in his administration, including Cy Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. And of course, his top aide never quit. The elites new exactly what the public wanted at that moment in history, and so they gave it to them in the form of Jimmy Carter. Carter's administration would go on to serve numerous globalist interests, but this attracted the ire of the American public, who felt betrayed.

How about another example of fake anti-globalists and anti-elites?

Enter Ronald Reagan, the anti-Carter. The conservative (and former democrat) who wasn't afraid to point out that Carter was surrounded by Trilateral Commission ghouls and question his honesty. Reagan attacked Carter while maintaining a distance from more "conspiratorial" language. Reagan stated in 1980 during his campaign:

"I don't believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don't think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction..."

Reagan, like Carter, was touted as having no affiliations with the elites. He was pure and unsullied by the globalists. But alas, Reagan also quickly picked at least 10 Trilateral Commission members for his transition team once he was elected, and he served the interests of the elites throughout his two terms in the White House (for the most part) under the watchful eye of George H.W. Bush.

If this is starting to sound familiar, you are probably more awake and aware than most. The elites use the same strategies over and over and over again, usually with minor variances to keep things fresh. As many of my readers are well aware, I have been consistently pointing out the fraudulent anti-globalist image of Donald Trump the past few years, and his administration has followed a very similar path to those described above with a few important differences.

Trump ran his campaign as a populist and opponent of the elites. His image was that of a person untouched by the influence of the establishment. In fact, the primary argument among his supporters was that Trump was "so rich" that he "could not be bought." He criticized Hillary Clinton and her deep connections with banks like Goldman Sachs and announced that once in office he would "drain the swamp" of special interests in Washington.

He also made bold accusation against the Federal Reserve, pointing out that the supposed "economic recovery" and the stock market rally was a fraud; a bubble created through stimulus and near zero interest rates that he didn't want to inherit. Trump was yet another pure white knight ready to expose and do battle with the globalist dragon.

As my readers are well aware by now, Trump is the furthest thing from an anti-globalist. Like Carter and Reagan, Trump swiftly loaded his cabinet with elites from the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. His background was also not so pure; Trump had in fact been bought a couple of decades in advance by the Rothschild banking family. Rothschild agent Wilber Ross was the man who brokered the deal to bail Trump out of his massive debts in multiple properties in Atlantic City, saving Trump's fortune and his image. Today, Wilber Ross is Trump's commerce secretary.

Trump also completely shifted his position on the economy, taking full credit for the stock market bubble as well as the fake GDP numbers and fake unemployment numbers he had attacked during his campaign. Trump has now fully tied his administration to the Everything Bubble — a bubble that has been popped and is now deflating into a hard recession.

Trump's theatrical character is different from Carter and Reagan in a couple of ways. First, in the Carter era, the public had a wider trust of the mainstream media, and so, Carter was presented as a media darling. Today, the majority of the public has a severe distaste of the media, and so, Trump was presented as their enemy; a thorn in their side. The media attacks on Trump only garnered him more attention and favor with conservatives and independents.

Second, Trump's acting role as an anti-globlist in the new world order screenplay is far more important to the elites than Carter or Reagan. Trump is meant to become a symbol of all anti-globalism, a nexus point and representative of sovereignty activism. He is meant to co-opt the entire liberty movement, and then sink it into oblivion. In other words, as the economy crumbles around Trump, conservatives and liberty proponents are made guilty by association.

Trump serves the elitist establishment by pretending to be starkly anti-establishment, and at the same time taking the blame for the collapse of the bubble the establishment created.

But what happens after Trump? Who is next in line to take the lead role in the globalist theater for the American masses? Again, it's important to remember that the elites are not very imaginative, but they do have a lot of practice with tried and true tactics. They will present us with a candidate that is decidedly anti-Trump, but who also carries on where Trump left off.

Enter Elizabeth Warren...

Warren is yet another candidate that is being groomed as unaffiliated with the elites. Her image as the "daughter of a janitor" from the American Midwest who went on to succeed as a woman in a "man's world" is heavily pushed in the media. But here is why I think Warren is the most likely political antithesis to Trump and the most likely Democratic candidate; the screenplay essentially writes itself...

Consider this — Warren grows up as in a lower middle-class family in Oklahoma, the daughter of a lowly service worker. Trump grows up rich, the son of a real estate tycoon who inherits a fortune.

Trump is a billionaire businessman whose economic policies and tax cuts have consistently favored corporations and stock markets over the middle class. Warren claims she is a "capitalist," but wants restrictions on the stock market buybacks and Wall Street in general, accusing it of being nothing more than a money generator for the super wealthy.

Trump has faced bankruptcy on numerous occasions and his administration sits at the doorstep of the highest national, consumer and corporate debt levels in American history. Warren's background is in bankruptcy and bankruptcy law.

Trump's economic policies demand ever lower interest rates and higher levels of central bank stimulus in order to work. He won't get exactly what he wants, but Elizabeth Warren is a proponent of Neoclassical Economics, which is closely tied to Keynesian economics. Warren was also on the oversight committee for the TARP bailout and can claim that she's intimately familiar with monetary stimulus measures. Real QE4 and near zero interest rates (not just repo purchases) would be more likely under Warren, after the "Trump collapse."

Trump has taken full credit for the economic bubble and boasts about his influence over markets regularly while completely ignoring the crash in fundamentals as well as his own warnings in 2016. Warren is the only democratic candidate so far to predict an economic crash in the near term.

The setup of this story is almost too perfect. Midwestern middle class girl and self-made professional takes on a boastful arrogant billionaire and the 1 percent. Democrat voters love this kind of garbage. But it doesn't stop there...

Warren's attacks on billionaires are gaining extreme media attention, and the media loves it. Her latest ad campaign criticized four rich guys by name, including Leon Cooperman, the former Ameritrade CEO Joe Ricketts, the former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and the investor Peter Thiel. Some of these men have responded publicly and angrily, and so another great farce of a wrestling match begins and propels another supposedly anti-establishment candidate into stardom.

But here's the thing — Warren's wealth tax is not so anti-establishment. Elites like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have been openly calling for higher taxes on the super-rich. And what about her image as anti-establishment? Well, this is as fake as Trump's image.

Warren has been featured multiple times in the magazine Foreign Affairs, the official magazine of the Council On Foreign Relations. On top of that they published her article "A Foreign Policy for All: Strengthening Democracy — at Home and Abroad." For those that are unaware, the CFR is the premier globalist organization and its membership roster is saturated with many of the billionaire elites Warren claims to stand against. Yet, she has courted Foreign Affairs many times and they have written about her favorably.

Another interesting little fact is that the CFR does not publish articles by presidential candidates often. In fact, candidates who do get their articles published by Foreign Affairs tend to become president or get a massive boost in their polling numbers and cash support. An example of this would be Richard Nixon, who suffered a stream of campaign failures until his article "Asia After Vietnam" was published in Foreign Affairs in October 1967, a little over a year later he entered the White House. Another example would be Barack Obama, who published articles in Foreign Affairs in the early stages of his 2008 campaign. Getting an article accepted by the CFR seems to be a signal that the candidate in question is ready to be useful to the establishment.

Warren's explosion in the polls relative to candidates like Joe Biden started a few months after her article was published in the CFR magazine. So far she is the only candidate graced with an article in Foreign Affairs.

Does this mean that the elites want Warren over Donald Trump in 2020? Not necessarily. It is still too early to identify the trend and the signals for the next election. I believe next spring will bring clarity on the matter. However, the point remains that almost every candidate that is given serious consideration within the system is controlled or is seeking favor with the elites. The election process is highly moderated. Good people are not allowed to get though the net. Those that get close are ridiculed and then ignored until their campaigns fade into obscurity.

The candidates who serve the purposes of the elites get endless attention in the media (sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but they are never ignored). And above all, the candidates that are most likely to be chosen as president are those that pretend to be anti-establishment. This is what sells with the American public, and the globalists know it. Warren is following this pattern, just as Trump did.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

P.S. — The masses ushered Donald Trump into the White House to fix our imbalances... but the elites have mechanisms to obfuscate and prolong their illusions. If you don't trust in a rising market, average into gold and gold stocks slowly instead. If you want to learn how to do this, or if you are new to the whys and hows of buying gold, the Bob Livingston Letter team spent many months putting all my best gold and silver buying advice into a special report that you can get a copy of by going to the bottom of this page. When the trend is up, corrections and consolidations don't matter. Get on the gold trend with the smart money.

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friends at Stansberry Research. They have some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Natural man fears chains more than he fears propaganda. But propaganda is the far greater despotism.

When men are in chains, they are aware of their slavery. But few understand the superior power of deception. Most people can be persuaded to do almost anything to their own detriment.

What we believe and act upon we consider our own free will. Nothing could be further from the truth. We as a people and a nation are subject to massive and continuous propaganda. So programmed are the masses that they become hostile to truth.

Democracy is a mask, a front for total power of an oligarchy ruling via forced persuasion. Such a system might be tolerable if the oligarchs had the people's best interests at heart. But the focus of forced persuasion is to channel all social, economic and moral law to the federal establishment. The stated altruistic justification is the perpetual utilitarian argument that the majority can require and force the minority to self-sacrifice for what the establishment-created majority has determined to be the greater good.

But altruism is a farce and a ruse. Altruism is the very foundation of statist propaganda and power that the individual must place his interests, including his property, beneath the "need" of the collective (state). In our time this is called "in the public interest."

The term "public interest" translates into the government interest always. Therefore, the army of federal judges and politicians claim to act in the "public interest," and they would tell you in a minute that they do everything in the "public interest." This is a deception that few unravel mainly because of the self-deception of altruism. As long as an individual believes that he is obligated to share his property and produce for the "common good," he is in reality no longer an individual but a part of the collective slaves of the state. Altruism motivates people to self-sacrifice. This is why altruism is at the root of all governments. Governments must instill self-sacrifice to solidify political power.

Unmasked, democracy is a study of power attained through persuasion instead of physical conquest. Think how many have died for this farce.

The nature of government is to perpetually grow. And the nature of politics and politicians is to seek wealth, power and aggrandizement. They represent government, not you.

Governments and politicians mask their agendas and create illusions to deceive and misrepresent. Governments, bureaucrats and politicians look upon the public as a herd that should be deceived and led for the benefit of government and the elite.

The public has been trained to think in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. The politicians and their elite bosses operate above the law and outside the law. This is contempt for the people.

---

Protect yourself from the flu (and everything else going around!) 3,000-year-old remedy called "The Pharaoh's Oil" is the health secret of Egyptian Kings... European Queens... and Religious Prophets. It claims to treat almost everything... I was convinced it was nothing but SNAKE OIL! But then it helped me with a dozen health problems I never expected... you won't believe what else...

---

Politicians, bureaucrats, judges and their friends are untouchables. Yes, occasionally one or two are sacrificed on the altar in the name of "justice," but it is nothing more than a ruse that keeps the system in place.

The saturation point is coming, and it can't be stopped. Sociopathic political behavior self-destructs over time. Satan rends himself. Ethics and decency in politics are anathema. A politician is not a statesman, and a statesman is not a politician.

Politics is power, and politics creates predators. Money has surpassed self-worth and dignity. Politics in America is incest with the government. Do we hear politicians warning Americans that the money creators are destroying their savings, their retirement and their purchasing power, as well as that of future generations?

The system is now beyond resolution. We are in the final stages of economic, social and moral collapse.

Investment banks have made billions while destroying America. They create financial products that are designed to fail, market them to the unsuspecting and then take short positions against them. They are a show-me-the-money culture, and the system protects them in their financial crimes. The great recession is their handiwork.

The word "conspiracy" is an establishment word used to imprison multitudes of nonviolent people (who are not in favor of the power structure) and confiscate their property outright without due process and under a feigned color of law. The politicians know this.

This is no different from the old Star Chamber motivated by the word "treason" (today it is "conspiracy" or even the new slander "Russian asset." Everyone who opposes forever war is a "Russian asset" today). Then came the thumbscrew and the rack to extract confession and an excuse to hang the victim. So what's the difference today?

There are clearly privileged classes in America, those in political power backed by illegal police power. They act against the people outside the law and the Constitution. My friends, it has become so obvious.

While we slept, the political regime has shifted the "burden of proof" to the defendant. One is entrapped, charged and prosecuted under hundreds of laws and statutes he didn't know existed. The "justice" system with its never-empty purse is brought to bear against the "defendant," who often has seen his assets frozen even without a conviction and has been separated from his livelihood, rendering him unable to mount a defense.

This is the new democracy. Democracy is rule of the rabble by the elite.

The possibility of reform has passed. The point of saturation of the full measure of disgust is near. Sparks can trigger revolution.

Morality has collapsed. Politicians, federal judges and prosecutors will eat their young for fiat money, power and aggrandizement. They all have a lawyer Ponzi mentality.

The soul of America has been penetrated with toxic greed. Political rigor mortis is everywhere. The state is collapsing of its own corruption.

Politicians, beware, you "elected" vipers!

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

A fundamental pillar of true free markets is the existence of choice; the availability of options from production to provider to purchase mechanism without interference from governments or corporate monopolies. Choice means competition, and competition drives progress. Choice can also drive changes within society, for if people know a better way of doing things exists, why would anyone want to stay trapped within the confines of a limited system? At the very least, people should be allowed to choose economic mechanisms that work best for their particular situation.

This is not how our society functions today, and free market do not exist anywhere in modern nations including the U.S. Whenever I hear someone (usually a socialist) blame free market "capitalism" for the oppressive ailments of the world, I have to laugh. The alliance between governments and corporate monopolies (what Mussolini called national socialism or fascism) makes free markets utterly impossible. What we have today is an amalgamation of socialist economic interference and corporatocracy. Our system is highly restrictive and micro-managed for everyone except the money elites, who do not have to follow the same rules the rest of us do.

Of course, I might be preaching to the choir when it comes to these issues. But there are some underlying developments being pushed forward by globalists hell-bent on a one world monetary system and a one world government that even many liberty activists are not fully aware of.

In alternative economic circles, the U.S. dollar is seen as the end-all-be-all of fiat currency dominance. Many activists see it as the key to the power of the global elites, and they think the Federal Reserve is the top of the globalist pyramid. This is not exactly true.

The U.S. dollar is itself just another tool of the banking cabal, and tools sometimes lose their usefulness over time. While it could be said that for the past century the dollar as the world reserve currency was the core of globalist influence, this is about to change, and we can see the signs today. The rush toward a cashless society in the past few years is startling and unfortunately too many liberty activists have been suckered into thinking that this is a good thing.

---

Dangerous Words from a Dangerous Man In 1977, Lloyd Darland did such of good job of revealing the government's most secret and frightening scam that he was arrested and jailed for writing this book. It was quickly banished, but when I found an old copy, it was clear why his lost book had been suppressed. It will certainly shock you, and could anger you. Click Here to Read Chapter 1 Now...

---

There are a number of reasons for this. As mentioned above, activists see the dollar (or Fed note) as fuel for the globalist machine, and so obviously they would like to see it go down in flames. They also are generally proponents of free markets, and the exploding trend of cryptocurrencies has given them the illusion that "choice" is returning to economy through "monetary competition." I understand the basis for this attitude, and I appreciate where it's coming from. I also have never been a proponent of the dollar or any other central bank fiat system. This article should not be misinterpreted as a defense of dollar hegemony.

That said, there is a much bigger agenda at play here, and the dollar is only one fading part of it as it is being quietly replaced by a completely digital framework. We have to once again ask ourselves — who really benefits from a sudden shift in the economic and monetary world? Who gains political and social power through a cashless society? Is it the public? Or is it the same banking elites and globalists that have always held sway over our economic structure?

In 2017 I published an article called 'The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin.' In it, I warned that the trendy marketing of cryptocurrencies to the general public by the mainstream media was extremely suspicious and contrary to the notion that the establishment was "terrified" of bitcoin and crypto putting them out of business. I also warned of the deep involvement of international banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in the progress of blockchain infrastructure and more specifically Goldman Sachs and the IMF's love affair with digital monetary systems. Goldman Sachs even referred to the blockchain as "the new technology of trust..."

Clearly, the banking elites are not worried about this technology. In fact, they have been investing in it heavily. But why?

I have long held that current popular cryptocurrencies are nothing more than a beta test for a global digital currency. This is not to say that many people are familiar with using bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. In fact, only a tiny percentage of the population ever comes into contact with or trades crypto. What I am saying is, the terminology, the idea of cryptocurrencies is now widespread.

Thanks to a vast amount of media attention, bitcoin is a household brand even though most people have never owned a bitcoin. Whale investors have hyperinflated the price of bitcoin and certain other coins to levels beyond all reason as demand by the investment world and average people for the mechanism is minimal at best. These price explosions, though brief, have spurred public curiosity. And in the minds of many if something is considered valuable, no matter how ethereal or arbitrary the measure, there must be a reason... right? Therefore, high market prices prove by default that bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are necessary and desirable and anyone who is critical or skeptical is merely "upset" that they "missed out on the opportunity."

I have always said when asked about my position on bitcoin and crypto that if you want to try to make money on one of these coins and think you can play the market, then by all means, the more power to you. But for those who thought that bitcoin was a tool for activism and fighting the central banks, all I can say is you have been duped.

Over the course of a decade, the masses have been acclimated to the idea of a digital currency system. They are now being acclimated to the idea that physical currencies should be done away with and replaced with the "more efficient" blockchain tech. Death to the dollar, death to the Fed and death to the globalists! But this is not what is really happening. The death of the dollar and physical cash is only the trigger for a new and even more invasive world order.

In the past two years the agenda for a cashless system and a one world currency has gone mainstream. The plans that liberty analysts were once called "conspiracy theorists" for talking about 10 years ago are now out in the open. The latest barrage of propaganda was launched by the governor of the Bank Of England, Mark Carney, who openly warned of the end of the dollar's world reserve status, comparing it to the end of the Pound Sterling's reserve status after WWII. He also noted that the dollar could be replaced by a new digital currency system and that this would be advantageous the banking system.

This piggybacks on comments made by globalist and PIMCO CEO Mohamed El-Erian in 2017, who stated in an op-ed that the IMF's Special Drawing Rights basket system could be used to replace the dollar as world reserve and that this would help to "fight the rise of populism."

Next, Facebook introduced the concept of the "Libra" digital currency, which Mark Carney also suggested central banks would be watching closely. Libra, in my view, is an attempt to lure wider public into using digital currency on a regular basis. As noted, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies gained exposure but not preference. Where they failed to infiltrate the daily trade of the average citizen, Libra could succeed.

So far, I think the reaction is not what the globalists hoped for. Instead, Facebook is taking it slowly by introducing an internal payment system similar to Paypal. Libra, or something like it, will likely make a reappearance in the next couple of years on Facebook.

Next, former ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet argued in favor of a digital version of the SDR basket system at the Caixin conference in Beijing, arguing that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not stable enough or "legitimate" enough to take on the role of central bank currencies. Many argue that this is proof that the globalists are afraid of cryptocurrencies. On the contrary, I see this as yet another example of the ongoing fake battle between bankers and crypto. They criticize certain aspects of the technology while at the same time investing in it and promoting it. Like the false left/right paradigm, there is a kind of false central bank/crypto paradigm as well.

Trichet's argument for an IMF dominated crytpocurrency was surely welcomed in Beijing, where the Chinese have long supported the proliferation of the SDR and have called for the SDR to replace the dollar. The Chinese are not the only ones. Russia has all but decoupled from the dollar, dumping its U.S. treasury holding, stockpiling a large supply of gold and removing the dollar in bilateral trade agreements with other nations.

Last year, Europe began establishing a new alternative to the U.S. controlled SWIFT payment system. Germany in particular criticized the U.S. system as a geopolitical weapon. Now, an association of major banks in Germany and in the EU is calling for a digital euro based on the blockchain ledger.

The IMF has been openly publishing white papers that agree with the assessment that a global digital currency is needed, and with former IMF head Christine Lagarde now in charge at the ECB, it is likely that a euro cryptocurrency system will soon make a public appearance.

In the meantime, multiple central banks are pursuing a cashless system and digital currencies of their own. China has announced a national digital currency system will be realized in the next 18 months. The Swiss central bank is exploring digital currency options, and Russia is considering launching a cryptocurrency as well.

The rhetoric coming from the mainstream media and the banking establishment is that physical methods of payment will soon disappear. This is being called the "democratization of money," and the "multipolar world order;" I'm sorry to say that it's the exact opposite.

The claim is that the end of cash and specifically the end of the dollar will result in more choice in the monetary world. But the end of physical cash is actually a removal of choice and result is more centralization. The banking elites are so excited about the digital currency model because it removes all privacy from trade. As I have outlined in past articles, cryptocurrency and blockchain tech have no anonymity whatsoever. It is also clear that central banks intend to introduce their own highly managed currencies and that bitcoin and most other coins will be buried in the process.

The multipolar meme is also a fraud. China, Russia, Europe and other nations are demanding an alternative to the dollar, but if that alternative ends up being a digitized version of the SDR basket under the IMF's control as these countries have suggested, then this means total global centralization, not decentralization.

Real decentralization would mean the removal of bureaucratic oversight and micromanagement. It would mean that physical currencies backed by gold and silver could be offered as an alternative option, not just cryptocurrencies or fiat backed by nothing. After all, gold and silver have far more individual investors worldwide than cryptocurrencies do. How about some real competition instead of price suppression of metals by the likes of JP Morgan?

It would mean localized currencies and payment system, not one worldwide currency and payment system. It would mean nations breaking from dependence not just on the dollar, but also globalist institutions like the IMF, BIS and World Bank. The globalists are attempting to sell us on slavery by packaging it as "free markets." The solution is to not use the systems they promote and be ready to fight tooth and nail for real decentralization when the time comes.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

The symptoms of "acid indigestion" will go away when your stomach acid is restored, not reduced. I believe this is an important message during this time of year when many people throw caution to the wind and overeat, and regret it later. Here, then, is a natural remedy, and a long-term solution for better health at that.

Doctors and cardiologists blow a gasket when they hear this, but they love their ignorance and dependence on drug therapy. A holistic doctor friend of mine once told me that the common cardiologist knows as much about heart health as the average person walking down the street.

Stomach acid of about pH 4 is not only critical to health, stomach acid or hydrochloric acid (HCL) is vital therapy for sickness and even terminal illness.

The little book Three Years of HCL Therapy by Roy W. Huntsman, published in 1935, is a collection of articles from the "Medical World" by Dr. Burr Ferguson and Dr. Walter B. Guy. It is a wealth of information on hydrochloric therapy, but this is now down the memory hole of modern medicine. This collection of articles is on the use of dilute hydrochloric acid intravenously, intramuscularly, orally and locally in the treatment of many diseases.

I apologize for the simplicity of this most important and vital information. I am most appreciative that today the keepers of medical orthodoxy no longer have a stranglehold on available healing products, and that an individual can get and use diluted hydrochloric acid by simply buying it online or at a health food store.

I believe it to be harmless but dynamic in healing. Very simply stated, dilute HCL therapy is a nontoxic way of stimulation of individual resistance. Isn't this most critical to health?

Pharmaceutical greed

Don't forget that we are only explaining the high curative and stimulative value of dilute HCL, which is just exactly what we have in our stomachs that pharmaceuticals seek to destroy for money.

How many millions have died because they became hooked on what they thought were harmless antacids?

HCL becomes clinically effective in dilutions of 1:500. This reminds us of homeopathy where the dose is inverse, i.e., the more the dilution, the greater the medicinal value. Needless to say this concept is anathema to allopathic (conventional) medicine.

HCL is a highly effective germicide effective against sinus infection, acne, cancer, pneumonia, malaria, spinal meningitis, typhus, liver and intestinal ailments, diabetes, tetanus, sexual impotence, etc. It also aids in wound healing.

I sense that the very low cost HCL therapy will, in the new world coming, prove to be the basis of health and longevity and medical care and Obamacare will disappear into the memory hole of a decadent age.

Common heartburn and reflux drugs pose great danger. Some names are Prilosec®, Prevacid® and other proton pump inhibitors as well as all "antacids." They all create great health danger.

The acidity of your stomach, keeping pH of the stomach down to around 4, is extremely vital for the digestion of food and the body's utilization of nutrients. Unknown to the public, any symptom of acid indigestion is a sure indication that there is not enough stomach acid.

Of course this false alarm causes people to buy and consume all sorts of pharmaceutical "antacids." It's a multibillion-dollar business built upon false advertising. This alone is tremendous support for the medical establishment. It is no less than subtle population control.

Mistaken attack

When we attack our stomach acid, we not only are literally starving our bodies of vital nutrients, we are setting ourselves up for sickness and possibly early death.

Conditions linked to antacids include dementia, irregular heartbeat, iron deficiency, pneumonia, fatigue and brittle bones.

When we suppress stomach acid with antacids to get temporary relief (a false signal), the nutrients in our food are no longer available to our bodies. The stomach may be full, but we are slowly starving to death. And we mean death!

What to do? If you have acid indigestion, you have low stomach acid. Begin at once to take Betaine Hydrochloride, six to eight tablets daily, or use dilute hydrochloric acid at the direction of a holistic medical doctor or D.O. (osteopath) who are usually quite excellent diagnosticians.

Use citrocarbonate or an aluminum-free sodium bicarbonate powder (baking soda) dissolved in water for temporary relief.

If you're leery of taking a betaine hydrochloride supplement and/or if your acid indigestion or acid reflux symptoms are minor, you can add lemon juice to your meals (I add a squeeze of lemon to every glass of water I drink).

You can also add a half to 1 teaspoon of sea salt to a glass of water for a few days. I cured my own acid indigestion problems years ago with the lemon juice and sea salt method and keep them in check with lemon juice.

Alternatively, add 1 or 2 teaspoons of apple cider vinegar to a glass of water.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

P.S. — Your stomach isn't the only target of Big Pharma. They're also going after your memory. My friend, Dr. Michael Cutler, explains how 38.6 million Americans take a single drug every day that robs their brain of an essential nutrient. Are you one of them? Click here to find out!

The most unbelievable, retracted, fact-checked, Schiffed and Facebooked fakeries in the week's fake news.

NYT laments that 'no one believes' them (or any MSM) anymore

In a remarkable example of lack of self-awareness, The New York Times laments that "No one believes anything": Voters worn out by a fog of political news.

To hear NYT tell it, Americans are tuning out the mainstream news because of — get this — "negative ads" and "doctored photos" on social media, lying politicians and attention-grabbing headlines. Or at least, that's what the people The Times interviewed claimed.

The Times longs for a days of Walter Cronkite, when three-fourths of Americans trusted the news they got from newspapers, radio and television. A time when "most Americans went to bed with the same set of facts, even if they had different political views."

Well of course The New York Slimes would long for such a day. That's because back then the mainstream media — the three networks several major newspapers like The Slimes, The Washington (Com)Post, The Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, the LA Times and news services like The AP and Reuters — were the official gatekeepers of knowledge. All news passed through them. And they got their news from the official news disseminators in government.

Thanks to the internet we now have alternative news sources that are able to give us the truth that the government doesn't want us to have. This is not a skewed version of the truth. It's just the truth. I've seen the internet compared to the Gutenberg Press in the way it has revolutionized the spreading of information.

Alternative media give us interviews with sources not approved by the government censors, not the standard pro-deep state pap that comes from the MSM — like the NYT.

The last four years have proven to Americans that the media are at best dishonest and at worst down-right corrupt. One only has to watch a few minutes of the impeachment sham testimony and then see how the MSM reports it to see they're running a scam on us.

It was the MSM that declared over and over that Trump would never win the Republican nomination. It was the MSM that declared over and over that the latest spun/fabricated Trump "controversy" was the one that would surely doom Trump's campaign.

---

Forget Impeachment — This Will End Donald Trump Forget impeachment, Robert Mueller, Russia, and any other media obsession — here's what will cripple Trump's presidency. Full Story ...

---

It was the MSM that said for months that the Witch from Chappaqua — Hillary Clinton — was a shoo-in for election.

It was the mainstream media that perpetuated the false narrative of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia. It was the MSM that told us for three years that Trump is a Russian agent who goes to Vladimir Putin for marching orders.

The alternative media — Bob Livingston media among them — refuted all that nonsense.

Trump survived all the fabricated and overblown "scandals" and chopped down one by one all the establishment Republicans running against him. Trump outworked the anointed one and won an electoral landslide.

The Mueller report came in and it found there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, and Trump did not obstruct justice. Despite the Mueller report, the MSM continued to maintain that Mueller found obstruction. But he didn't. That was just more fake news. How do we know? The Democrats aren't using Trump's alleged obstruction in their impeachment farce.

The New York Times has been front and center reporting all these lies. Is it any wonder "no one believes anything" anymore that The Times and other MSM report?

AFP and Reuters as Emily Litella

Back in its heyday, when Saturday Night Live was good and the "Not Ready For Prime Time" players were at their peak, Gilda Radner made occasional appearances on the show's "Weekend Update" segment.

As Emily Litella, Radner would give a contrarian view on an editorial from the segment. After a few minutes it would become evident that Litella had misunderstood the subject matter and so her opinion was a nonsensical tangent. After she ranted for a minute or two, the anchor would interrupt her and correct her. When she realized her error, Litella would reply, "Never mind."

That's exactly what AFP (Agence France-Presse) and Reuters did with a story they published that sought to condemn Trump's immigration policies that allegedly resulted in the placing of "more than 100,000 children in migration-related US detention." The source for the information was reportedly the U.N.

And then AFP and Reuters realized their error. The "more than 100,000 children in migration-related US detention" was the number from 2015. Who was president in 2015? Hard to know, because neither AFP nor Reuters bothered to mention it. (Hint: It wasn't Trump.)

Who was vice president in 2015? Again, he was not mentioned by the two "news" agencies.

I'll remind you; it was the bumbling gaffe-fest, sleepy Joe Biden who was the V.P., which makes the story relevant given that Biden is running for president. So did AFP and Reuters correct the story and delve into why the Obama administration was incarcerating so many children and whether Biden participated in setting that policy? Nah.

Here's AFP's response, via Twitter:

AFP is withdrawing this story.

The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children currently in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015.

We will delete the story.

And here's how Reuters handled it:

GENEVA (Reuters) — A Nov. 18 story headlined "U.S. has world's highest rate of children in detention -U.N. study" is withdrawn. The United Nations issued a statement on Nov. 19 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015. No replacement story will be issued.

Never mind.

Washington Post's 'fact-checker'

During Wednesday's round of the impeachment farce, Republican Devin Nunes said of the Democrats, "In their mania to attack the president, no conspiracy theory is too outlandish for the Democrats." (We would add that no conspiracy is likewise too outlandish for the MSM to repeat as fact, as we noted above.)

Nunes then listed the Top 10 list of "asinine" Democrat attacks on Trump:

• Trump is a long-time Russian agent, as described in the Steele dossier.
• The Russians gave Trump advance access to emails stolen from the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
• The Trump campaign based some of its activities on these stolen documents.
• Trump received nefarious materials from the Russians through a Trump Campaign aide.
• Trump laundered Russian money through real estate deals.
• Trump was blackmailed by Russia through his financial exposure with Deutsche Bank.
• Trump had a diabolical plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
• Trump changed the Republican National Committee platform to hurt Ukraine and benefit Russia.
• The Russians laundered money through the NRA for the Trump campaign.
• Trump's son in law lied about his Russian contacts while obtaining his security clearance

"It's a long list of false charges, all false, and I can go on and on and on," Nunes said.

WaPo's "fact-checker" Susan Hennessey then tweeted the list with the remark, "Nunes is literally just reading accusations against Trump that turned out to be true."

Excuse us, Ms. Hennessy, but exactly none of them "turned out to be true."

Fact. Checker. HA!

Wapo's fact-checker gives Schiff three Pinocchio's

The pencil-necked Democrat who is leading the impeachment sham has repeatedly lied about the law regarding whistleblowers. He claims that Eric Ciaramella, who has been named as the whistleblower by several media outlets and Senator Rand Paul, is entitled to "a statutory right to remain anonymous." The leftwing MSM have repeated Rep. Adam Schiff's statement and even refused to name him even though his identity has been an open secret in Washington for weeks.

WaPo's "fact-checker" looked into Schiff's claims and they've decided it's worth three Pinocchios.

As WaPo puts it:

Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers. These laws, in conjunction with Presidential Policy Directive 19 and Intelligence Community Directive 120, provide protections from work-related retaliation. Intelligence community whistleblowers can't be demoted, fired or reassigned for legally reporting their concerns; their pay can't be cut; they can't be sent in for psychiatric exams; and their security clearance level can't be touched.

Nothing in the ICWPA expressly protects the anonymity of a complainant, or provides sanctions for someone who discloses it," Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an expert on national security law, previously told The Fact Checker.

But that's only worth three Pinocchios, not four. Right. Fact. Checker. HA!

Fakebook

The social media giant Facebook makes its money from advertising revenues. Its advertising rates are set by the Facebook's promises that a company's message can reach a certain number of unique users. But according to a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California, Facebook has been telling advertisers that it can reach more people than actually exist in every major metropolitan area. It seems an overwhelming majority of its "users" may not exist at all.

The plaintiff's case in Singer v. Facebook, Inc. quotes former Facebook employees who are listed as "Confidential Witnesses" who state the Facebook "Potential Reach" statistic is a "made-up PR number" and "fluff."

Facebook claims it has had a total of 12 billion accounts over the years, but as many as 10 billion of them may be fake. And it looks like, according to AaronGreenspan.com, that fake accounts may make up the majority of its new accounts.

Facebook had zero growth in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2019, and has seen only 4 million new U.S. accounts since the first quarter of 2017. So the American audience has dried up.

The company reported 2.2 billion fake accounts in the second quarter of 2019. That's approximately the total number of "real" accounts, and the company admits that only half of the "real" accounts are active.

Its "growth" has come from markets in India, Indonesia and the Philippines, which are the countries in which the most fraudulent accounts are created.

Greenspan described the company's growth numbers as a Ponzi scheme and called the company a bigger fraud than Enron.

In other words, Fakebook as a legitimate company is fake news.

-- Jay Baker

The shootingest, most libelous, Bloombergyist, strategic and slimiest fakeries in the week's fake news.

Vice profiles mass shooters, leaves out the two biggest factors

Vice News, citing a study funded by the federal government and conducted by The Violence Project, claims that "Nearly all mass shooters since 1966 had 4 things in common." Curiously — or maybe not — the study leaves off the two most common traits.

The study funded by the Department of Justice found that in instances in which four or more people were shot in a public place, the killer most often had experience with childhood trauma; a personal crisis or specific grievance; a "script" or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap; and the one trait that is common in all shootings, access to a gun. (Well, duh!)

"Data is data," Jillian Peterson, a psychologist at Hamline University and co-author of the study told Vice. "Data isn't political. Our hope is that it pushes these conversations further."

Well, data isn't political, that is true. But people are, and people can slant the data to fit their narrative. And that's what apparently happened here.

The study claimed to have found five profiles of mass shooters. It lists them as:

• K-12 shooters: White males, typically students or former students of the school, with a history of trauma. Most are suicidal, plan their crime extensively, and make others aware of their plans at some point before the shooting. They use multiple guns that they typically steal from a family member.
• College and university shooters: Non-white males who are current students of the university, are suicidal, and have a history of violence and childhood trauma. They typically use legally obtained handguns and leave behind some sort of manifesto.
• Workplace shooters: Fortysomething males without a specific racial profile. Most are employees of their targeted location, often a blue-collar job site, and have some grievance against the workplace. They use legally purchased handguns and assault rifles.
• Place of worship shooters: White males in their 40s, typically motivated by hate or domestic violence that spills out into public. Their crimes typically involve little planning.
• Shooters at a commercial location (such as a store or restaurant): White men in their 30s with a violent history and criminal record. They typically have no connection to the targeted location and use a single, legally obtained firearm. About a third show evidence of a "thought disorder," a term for a mental health condition, like schizophrenia, that results in disorganized thinking, paranoia, or delusions.

Notably absent is a category for gang violence. Blacks (14.6 percent) and Hispanics (17.6 percent) make up only 32 percent of the U.S. population but account for the overwhelming majority of homicides — including mass shooting incidents. According to FBI crime statistics from 2018, blacks and Hispanics together killed 7,894 people. That's almost twice the number killed by whites even though whites make up about 62 percent of the population.

---

You're still constipated... even though you eat fiber and take fiber supplements... What gives? Consuming more fiber will only make your poo larger... and harder to push out. Humans just don't have the digestive enzymes to break down so much insoluble fiber. No wonder you're in pain every time you poo... DOO this instead!

---

One look at the faces of 2019 mass shooters shows that the overwhelming number are black or Hispanic.

But even if you want to buy into the fake news Vice (and The Violence Project) are peddling — that the vast majority of mass shooters are white — the study still failed to list the most common denominator in the type of shootings it focused on. That is the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs. The website SSRIstories.org has a collection of more than 6,000 stories that have appeared in the media in which psychotropic drugs are a factor.

As usual, Vice is fake news.

It was a bad week for the Communist News Network (CNN)

CNN, known for its garbage reporting and Trump Derangement Syndrome, had a particularly bad week last week, even by its own standards. Now it, and the leftwing Daily Beast, are about to be on the receiving end of a defamation suit.

After spending two weeks proclaiming there were "bombshells" in the impeachment testimony that turned out to be little more than the fizzle of wet firecrackers, both media organs peddled a story last week allegedly from the attorney of indicted Ukrainian businessman Lev Parnas, that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, had gone to Vienna to meet former Ukrainian Prosecutor Victor Shokin to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.

Nunes denies the story and announced he was going to sue CNN and the Daily Beast, which repeated the story.

A spokesman for Mr. Nunes released an official statement to The Washington Times:

"These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving."

CNN's story bears a striking resemblance to a previous phony story peddled by CNN and the rest of MSM regarding secret visits to foreign countries by supporters President Trump. The media claimed for months that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — who now wears prison stripes for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress — went to Prague to meet with shady Kremlin-linked figures in a conspiracy to get Russia's help in the 2016 election. McClatchy News even claimed that it had evidence that Cohen's phone "pinged" a tower in Prague. The story was fake news.

Nunes is already suing the McClatchy newspaper chain for defamation.

Also, we need to remind everyone — as Nunes reminded in his opening statements — that the pencil-necked Rep. Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment charade for the Democrats, actually spoke on the telephone with two Ukrainians who claimed to have nude pictures of the president, and he sought to make arrangements to have the FBI meet with the Ukrainians to get them. It turns out Schiff-for-brains was actually talking on the phone to a couple of Ukrainian pranksters.

Business as usual at Bloomberg News

New York's former Nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg has opened his multi-billion-dollar checkbook and is seeking to buy the Democrat nomination for president in a late bid to "save" the party from itself.

Bloomberg owns the vast Bloomberg News empire, and his entry into the race has created what might appear to be a sketchy situation for Bloomberg reporters and reporterettes. How are they going to cover the race in a manner that is fair to all parties?

No worries. Bloomberg the company announced it would continue its ongong policy not to cover Bloomberg the man, even though he is now Bloomberg the candidate. Nor would Bloomberg the company cover any of Bloomberg the candidate's opponents in the Democrat field. Bloomberg the company will, however, continue to cover Trump.

In other words it's business as usual for Bloomberg the company. It'll continue working as opposition research for the Democrat Party.

The fake news strategy

One of the most common tactics of the legacy media these days is to publish a story based on hearsay or inuendo, give it a click-baity headline and let it stew on social media for a while. The story gets lots of traction as it scurries across the internet and other outlets pick it up and run with it.

After a short time, the original publishers will pull the story down, sometimes issue a retraction and, more rarely, an apology for the fake news.

But by then the story has done its damage. Most readers don't read beyond the headline. Some read a paragraph or two. Minds are made up and the issue is settled. Hardly anyone knows the story has been pulled, and few, if any, see the retraction, if one is issued. The media have set their narrative.

Some worry that they can no longer tell which media organs are publishing fake news and which aren't. How can you tell?

With a short attention span you can't. You have to spend time reading and verifying. One thing is for sure, if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times and The Washington Post publish it, it's likely propaganda if not outright fake news. Just look back over the last three-plus years at their reporting on Trump-Russia collusion and now the Ukraine hoax and see how much they've gotten wrong.

If they've lied once, they'll lie again. Their strategy is to get a knee-jerk reaction out of you, get you riled up and then move you on to the next phony outrage. It's about ratings, keeping the status quo and keeping you steeped in fake news.

The Slimes is at it again

Here's more fake news from The New York Times. As the Trump impeachment farce has dragged the Democrats into Neverland, the establishment media are working overtime to separate Ukraine from the 2016 election meddling narrative in order to tie Ukraine corruption around Trump's neck.

The official MSM narrative being peddled now by The Slimes and rest of the legacy propaganda media is that Russia engaged in a campaign to frame Ukraine for its own meddling. Thus, the meddling is all Russia and Ukraine corruption is all Trump.

But in 2016, according to The Washington Examiner, The Slimes itself reported that "Ukraine's ‘newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau,' which worked in conjunction with America's FBI, was in possession of a mysterious, handwritten diary that showed (Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul) Manafort was receiving millions of dollars in payments from one of the country's pro-Russian politicians. ‘Investigators assert,' the Times reported, ‘that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials."

In 2017 Politico reported that "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers."

According to the report, "A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

"The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails," Politico reported.

Now they want you to believe that it was only the Russians who meddled. And for the record, there is still no direct evidence that the Russia meddled in the campaign, even though that has become conventional wisdom. The so-called "intelligence report" issued in 2016 that Hillary Clinton claimed was endorsed by "17 U.S. intelligence agencies" actually found no conclusive evidence. It claimed that a Russian spend of a couple hundred thousand dollars for ads and fake stories on Facebook, some Russian Twitter bots and some Trump-supporting figures appearing on RT was Russian meddling. And even lying James Comey, the fired and disgraced former FBI director, admitted the FBI never was allowed to examine the Democrat National Committee's computer server for evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, the bureau relied on the word of a Ukrainian-linked company named CrowdStrike that handled the DNC's computer security.

--Jay Baker

The pharmaceuticals continue their assault on our hearts by producing newer and more toxic "blood thinners" and blood pressure drugs than ever, even though they work no better than inexpensive nutrients and minerals.

Doctors continue to push these drugs on their scared patients who think they are going to die unless they take the drugs. Yet with all these drugs in people's systems, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says one in three adult Americans (70 million) still has high blood pressure (hypertension) and only 52 percent of those with high blood pressure have it under control.

Of course, to the CDC, having it under control means taking a blood pressure drug. It's part of the giant engine of profit that has pushed three blood pressure drugs into the list of the top 10 most-prescribed medicines.

The media dutifully goes along with the scam, trying to make you feel guilty by reporting that health care services and missed work days related to high blood pressure treatment costs the nation $46 billion each year.

But relief for high blood pressure may be as simple as getting more magnesium.

Magnesium is essential for the function of the endothelial cells which induce vasodilation — relaxing of blood vessels and lower blood pressure. Magnesium also reduces inflammation in blood vessels, keeping them flexible, and has been shown to improve blood flow in the tiniest blood vessels in the body — those of the inner ear and in the brain.

How much better, then, to have enough in your body for the large vessels? New research published in the American Heart Association's journal Hypertension found that magnesium supplementation has a direct "causal effect" on lowering blood pressure in adults.

To mainstream medicine, this "causal effect" remains controversial. In fact, the abstract written by the study's authors begins, "The antihypertensive effect of magnesium (Mg) supplementation remains controversial." That's because mainstream medicine considers any treatment that cannot be patented — no matter how successful it may be — as controversial. But it's neither controversial nor surprising to those who look for cures outside of mainstream medicine.

For the study, researchers compiled results from dozens of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving 2,028 patients. They determined that magnesium supplementation of 300 milligrams per day was sufficient to elevate serum magnesium and reduce blood pressure; and low serum magnesium was associated with high diastolic blood pressure. (The National Institutes of Health recommends 400 mg/day.)

I have written a number of times about the benefits of magnesium supplementation, most recently last September in my article, "Low magnesium linked to heart disease, high blood pressure."

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

Almost everyone is low in magnesium, and the mineral is required for all the body's major organs in order for them to function properly. There are a number of symptoms that are indicative of magnesium deficiency including:

Low calcium levels

Poor heart health

Weakness

Muscle cramps

Tremors

Nausea

Anxiety

Respiratory illness

Dizziness

Fatigue

Potassium deficiency

Difficulty swallowing

Poor memory

Confusion

Another major disease in which magnesium deficiency is rampant is diabetes. In fact, in diabetes, extreme magnesium loss is common. Magnesium is an important co-factor in the production of insulin by the pancreas. Normal total body magnesium is essential for glucose metabolism. Thus, the rampant magnesium deficiency in our society may be a contributing cause of diabetes.

In addition to supplementation, you can raise your magnesium levels naturally by adding magnesium-rich foods to your daily diet. There are quite a few, but which ones are the best?

You won't find out from the Food and Drug Administration. And good luck searching through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's public documents. You might think they don't want you to know about the South American seed called quinoa, and how just a small amount can give you loads of magnesium. Here is a list of the other foods with the most magnesium:

Roasted pumpkin and squash seeds

Bran cereal

Brazil nuts

Almonds

Cashews

Pine nuts

Oil-roasted peanuts

Halibut

Swiss chard

Soybeans

Spinach

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

P.S. — Would you rather take something that's not a pill, yet has demonstrated real cardiovascular health benefits including the ability to help your heart cells, normalize blood pressure, reduce free radicals and strengthen blood vessels? Then you'll want to have a look at this, which goes well beyond simple nitric oxide...

Dear Jackson, Constipation increases dramatically as you age and can be especially problematic during your senior years. But this becomes much more than an embarrassing problem when you consider that your cardiovascular risk is rising right along with it. It's the constipation/heart attack connection that most people have never heard of — and you need to understand the danger. My friend and colleague, Virginia Tims-Lawson, has done extensive research on the subject. I urge you to see what she's learned... Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

The U.S. Constitution was a document designed to place restraints on the federal government the Founders were creating, not a document to restrain the people or the states. This is an important distinction

The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for the promise of a bill of rights to further check the federal government. That's because most of the Founders — particularly the Anti-Federalists — feared the Constitution wasn't strong enough to prevent the federal government from stealing power from the states.

It was commonly understood prior to 1861 that the states reserved the right to secede. There had been talk of secession by the New England states many times. They called it "disunion."

New England Federalists in the early 1800s feared that Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New England states and in the interests of Southern ones. Many of them also opposed the War of 1812.  After Thomas Jefferson's election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government "had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners" who would "govern and depress New England."

The complaints of New England Federalists essentially mirrored those later made by Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s. And in fact, in the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for "disunion" over the slavery issue. A New England Anti-Slavery Convention was held and attendees voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24.

So we see that secession was not a wholly Southern construct. Even Abraham Lincoln, as a representative, recognized the states had the right to secede — he only changed his mind after became president.

To "save the Union" — which Lincoln stated at the outset was his goal in prosecuting the war, whether he had to preserve slavery or abolish it to do so – Lincoln trampled on the rule of law when  he sent federal troops to occupy the seceding states and force them back into the union. The natural result of Lincoln's actions is the imperial presidency we have today.

On Nov. 19, 1863, at the dedication of the military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Lincoln spoke these words:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It's curious that he took the phrase "that all men are created equal" from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but stopped there rather than continue with the words, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and institute a new Government."

The Civil War was not fought to create "a new birth of freedom," as Lincoln suggested. Nor did it create a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." It did quite the opposite.

As H.L. Menken later wrote about the Gettysburg Address in "Smart Set" in 1920:

[I]t is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it.  Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — "that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

The states that left the Union to join the Confederacy did so in the true sense of the Jeffersonian principle of self-government, as stated in the Declaration. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederate States stood that idea on its head.

The threat of secession was a check on federal power that both New England and Southern states invoked between the ratification of the Constitution and beginning of the Civil War. It was generally understood that, because the Constitution was silent on the issue, secession was a viable alternative to checking federal power.

In fact, when during the Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state, James Madison proclaimed: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." The proposal was removed.

Lincoln's claims in his address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people " would somehow "perish from the earth" if the Union lost the war was hogwash. Representative democracy would have continued in the Union and in the Confederacy regardless of the outcome. The  Union and the Confederacy could have existed side by side as trading partners an allies, just as Mexico and Canada do today.

And remember, neither side entered the war over the issue of slavery. Lincoln's stated purpose for invading the Confederacy was "preserving the Union."

Finally, the final outcome of the Civil War did not usher in "a new birth of freedom." It did quite the opposite. It consolidated federal power, neutered the 9th and 10th Amendments and gave birth to the fascist system and the imperial presidency under which we now suffer. There is no check on federal power, the states are essentially meaningless and the political class is running roughshod over the Constitution and our traditional institutions.

Do Republicans really want to think of themselves as belonging to the party of Lincoln?

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™



References: History.com

"The Real Lincoln," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"The Civil War," by Bruce Catton

If we are to measure the concept of "economic recovery" in real terms, then we would have to look at the fundamentals (not stock markets) and whether or not they're improving. Unfortunately, not all economic data is presented to the public honestly. Very often it is mired and obscured in a fog of disinformation and false standards.

I would point out, though, that there is relatively accurate information out there that tells us our economic structure is destabilizing, you just have to know where to look. Beyond that, even the rigged numbers are moving into negative territory. But what does all this mean for the holiday retail season, one of the mainstream's favorite gauges of U.S. financial health? And if 2019's holiday profits sink, what does this tell us is going to happen in 2020?

First, let's start with what we know...

Since we live in a "globalized" economy where everything is interdependent it helps to examine international export numbers. The U.S. doesn't manufacture and export much of anything anymore beyond agricultural products, but we are relied upon by global markets to consume the goods of other nations. A decline in exports indicates a failing global economy, but in particular a failing U.S. economy.

China has seen plunging export data the past three months, and many will argue that this is merely due to tariffs and the trade war. However, it's not just China that is showing signs of collapse.

South Korea, a major manufacturing and export hub in Asia has seen declining exports for 11 consecutive months. South Korean shipping is crumbling in November and the media are blaming the trade war, as some SK companies would be "hit indirectly" because they sell intermediate goods to China and are linked to U.S. companies in China. But this makes little sense. Tariffs are highly targeted to specific companies and specific goods and, so far, the U.S. has not directed major tariff attention at South Korea beyond the auto market, and the new KORUS deal between Trump and SK is different only cosmetically to original trade agreements. Yet, South Korean exports continue to fall.

The same situation can be seen in Japan, with Japanese exports witnessing a 9.2 percent year-over-year drop in October, the largest decline in three years. Japan has seen three consecutive months of declines in exports.

And what about Europe? While Germany, the manufacturing powerhouse of the EU, finally saw a jump in exports to the U.S. this past month, overall the European Union has seen consistently poor export performance for the past year, and Germany itself is hovering on the edge of recession with 0.1 percent official GDP growth. Many economist already consider Germany to be in recession, as official GDP numbers are constantly manipulated by governments to the upside.

But let's not forget about the U.S. Remember how Trump promised that the trade war would result in a renaissance for U.S. manufacturing and that millions of industrial jobs would be returning to our shores? Well, as I've warned consistently for the past couple of years, there is no way corporations will be bringing manufacturing jobs and factories back to the U.S. without incredible incentives. Trump already gave companies tax cuts without demanding anything in return, and the cost/benefit ratio of building new factories and paying American workers top dollar versus keeping existing factories in Asia and dealing with 10-25 percent tariffs just doesn't add up to a new U.S. Rust Belt renaissance.

U.S. manufacturing ISM index just sank this month and has been sinking for the past four months into negative territory. While U.S. PMI manufacturing data jumped this month, it is still well below the 10 year average and is also very low compared to past holiday seasons, which almost always see a spike in manufacturing.

So, what does all this mean? And why is the media portraying the trade war with China as the cause of the global export and shipping crisis when clearly most of the world is not directly or even indirectly tied to the tariffs?

As noted above, the narrative that is being pushed is that we live in an "interdependent" and globalized world, and that nations cannot function economically without cooperation. The trade war, I believe, is a smokescreen designed by the globalist establishment to do two things specifically:

1) It is being created to hide a crash in the greater economy. Notice that almost no one in the mainstream is talking about a collapse in global demand; instead they constantly talk about the trade war and exports. The trade war is becoming the scapegoat for the implosion of the market bubble engineered by globalists and central banks through a decade of stimulus measures.

The collapse of the economic bubble is being caused by massive debt and a lack of consumer demand due to lack of consumer savings and cash flow. The trade war has little to do with it.

2) The trade war creates a false dichotomy in which many Americans will be lured into blaming China and other nations for their economic ills, and China and the rest of the world will be lured into blaming America. It also reasserts the globalist propaganda argument that when nations and economies "go rogue," they hurt everyone; therefore, more global controls and centralization will have to be established in order to prevent nationalism from harming the rest of the world.

And what does this all have to do with the Christmas shopping season? Like the end of last year, I think we are in for another ugly holiday retail event — perhaps far worse than before. All the manufacturing and export data indicates that this will be the case. If so, then the mainstream narrative of recovery, long perpetuated as fact by the media and the Federal Reserve for the past several years, will finally die.

In the mind of the average American consumer, holiday retail sales are a primary indicator of the health of the economy. A dramatic crash in Christmas retail will end the delusion of a stable U.S. system and cause the public to start asking questions. Economics is 50 percent math and 50 percent psychology. The math in the U.S. economy says we are in the middle of a crash. The psychological orientation of the public has been on the opposite end of spectrum but is now slowly moving to meet with reality. When the psychological delusion ends, the game is over. And, for the globalists a new game begins.

Order out of chaos is their motto for a reason...

The global "reset" as they sometimes refer to it, has already been triggered. Going into 2020, the question is will the fantasy fall completely away to reveal the grotesque economic swamp our foundation has been built on top of? Or, will the delusion drag on for at least one more year? Given the current data, I suspect the party is over. But it is difficult to predict how the public will react to a financial crash. Sometimes people have no choice but to acknowledge the danger in front of them, but sometimes they simply bury their heads in the sand deeper and hope that by dragging out the inevitable the inevitable will become forgettable.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friends at Banyan Hill Publishing. They have some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

The most unconservative, accountable, memory-holed and ahistorical fakeries in the week's fake news.

You keep using that word...

Last week we learned from The Washington Post's David Swerdlick that Barack Obama isn't who we — and specifically Democrat presidential candidates reeling from the former president's rebuke to move toward the center if they want to beat Donald Trump in 2020 — think he is.

What set Swerdlick off was Obama's speech at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago in October in which the undocumented former president told a group of young activists that they were too "woke." For the Baby Boomers and older folk out there who may not be into the hip jargon of the day, "woke" means being "with it" as it relates to recognizing racial discrimination, oppression and injustice in society.

"This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama told the budding socialists. "The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."

Michael Robinson's Michelle's husband went on to caution those steering the party toward the socialism/communism of the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party that the nominee hopefuls would be better served, as Daily Wire notes, to move more to the center because "[t]his is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement."

Swerdlick opines that Obama is casting a long shadow on the party's 2020 nominees, particularly Sleepy Joe (No Malarkey) Biden, who is essentially running on Obama's legacy. But even Mayor Pete the sodomite and the no-longer-a-candidate Kamala (I owe my career to Willie Brown) Harris have suggested that running on Obama's legacy is a plus, not a minus. Meanwhile, Warren has pushed for a much more dramatic overhaul of the health insurance industry (she wants government healthcare) because she thinks Obamacare didn't go far enough.

So the Democrat presidential hopefuls are struggling to come to grips with how to simultaneously criticize Obama and praise him in order to appease their fickle "woke" constituencies. And the reason, Swerdlick says, is that Obama's a — get this — conservative.

"It's because the former president, going back at least to his 2004 Senate race, hasn't really occupied the left side of the ideological spectrum," Swerdlick writes. "Obama never dramatically departed from the approach of presidents who came before him."

And what's his evidence? Even though Obama embraces left-wing policies like baby murder (my words, not Swerdlick's), the Paris climate accords, Dodd-Frank big bank corporatocracy, gay "marriage," he was conservative on domestic issues (gun control and Obamacare) and foreign policy.

Obamacare a conservative policy, you ask with incredulity. That's a common left-wing trope in which they claim that Obamacare was conceived by the "conservative" Heritage Foundation. While Heritage sometimes takes a conservative slant, one must remember who funds it and who stood to gain by a new health insurance system that benefited the medical-health insurance industrial complex. But I digress.

---

The 1 Stock Everyone Should Stop Ignoring A little-known chipmaker has developed the catalyst that could help ignite a global industry — and no one is talking about it. But one former hedge fund manager is blowing the lid off this five-figure opportunity and showing readers how to profit before the whole world finds out.

---

There's nothing conservative about Obama, but it's  typical left-wing poppycock — enabled by the propaganda media — to try and label socialism as a moderate policy and anything to the right of Stalin as rightwing lunacy.

Obama went along with George Bush the lesser's foreign policy, in that Swerdlick is correct. But Bush the lesser just continued Bill "Horndog" Clinton's, who just continued George Bush the first's. That's because those foreign policies were set by the Council on Foreign Relations. All presidents get their foreign policy advisors, and therefore the foreign policies, from the CFR. That's why Trump is in such trouble... he's rejecting the foreign policy establishment.

And WaPo isn't alone in acting as a "change agent" attempting to rewrite the meaning of ideologies. Also last week The New York Slimes wrote a profile of Mini Mike Bloomberg after he joined the Democrat clown show. The article talked about how Bloomberg — who supports gun confiscation, baby murder, China's communist government, high taxes to control behavior and using government to restrict what you can and cannot eat and drink — appealed to the "center" and "moderates." It put him in the moderate wing with Biden, Pete the sodomite and Senator John Kerry.

Once again, WaPo and The Slimes are fake news. Conservative doesn't mean what they think — or what they want you to think — it means.

Newsweek's accountability

Late last Thursday morning a story posted to Newsweek about Trump's Thanksgiving plans. The story, titled, "How is Trump spending Thanksgiving? Tweeting, golfing and more," hit as Air Force One was in the airspace heading toward a presidential Thanksgiving visit with troops stationed in Afghanistan.

The article by Jessica Kwong attempted to paint Trump as a self-absorbed goof-off, claiming, "As with any other day of the year, Trump will probably be tweeting, or expressing his opinions in another way."

Less than four hours later a news embargo was lifted and the press pool accompanying the president announced that Trump was in Afghanistan serving Thanksgiving meals to military personnel.

Newsweek corrected the story, but that didn't stop the social media pile-on that ravaged the news magazine for several hours. Kwong deleted her tweet when the Afghanistan news broke, tweeting:

Trump headed to Afghanistan to surprise U.S. troops on Thanksgiving. Deleting this tweet because it was written before knowing about the president's surprise visit to Afghanistan-an honest mistake. Story has already been updated, as shown in the screenshot.

She also retweeted a Newsweek tweet of a story headlined, "President Trump pays a surprise visit to U.S. troops in Afghanistan."

By Friday evening, Kwong was given her walking papers.

"Newsweek investigated the failures that led to the publication of the inaccurate report that President Trump spent Thanksgiving tweeting and golfing rather than visiting troops in Afghanistan," a Newsweek spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation Monday evening. "The story has been corrected, the reporter responsible was terminated and the editor was demoted."

Newsweek wouldn't say why the reporter — who some reports claim was instructed by an editor to write the Thanksgiving story on Wednesday — was fired while the editor was only demoted. The editor was also not named by Newsweek.

"We will continue to review our processes and, if required, take further action," the statement continued. "From the start of her tenure as editor in chief of Newsweek, Nancy Cooper has moved the newsroom toward strong reporting, such as the scoop on [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's] killing, and away from knee-jerk political snarkiness. This story did not meet the standards she has set."

Maybe Newsweek is really trying to get a handle on its own fake news. But if Kwong was instructed to write the story on Wednesday, the wrong person was fired.

Pulling Ukraine out of the memory hole

We told you last week how certain fake news organizations were memory-holing information about Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The legacy propaganda media continue to this day to dismiss as "conspiracy" any hint that Ukraine meddled, blaming all meddling on the Russians and claiming that Russia is engaged in a propaganda campaign to try and deflect meddling blame from itself to Ukraine. Anyone peddling the Ukraine interference "conspiracy," the legacy media posits, is a peddling Russian talking points.

Well thanks to The Federalist, those previous reports of Ukraine meddling have been retrieved from the memory hole. So if you need to convince your friends that the real conspirators are the MSM working for the Democrat impeachment charade, you need to go to the column, "Media acknowledged Ukraine election meddling until it hurt their impeachment efforts."

For a quick recap, here are the MSM's own reports of Ukraine interference:

• Financial Times, August, 28, 2016. It claimed Ukraine attempted to intervene in the U.S. election.
• Politico, January 11, 2017. It reported the Ukrainian government tried to help Clinton and undermine Trump.
• Financial Times, December 22, 2016. Showed how Russia used Ukrainian technology to hack the DNC server before the 2016 election.
• Politico, February 23, 2017. Said Ukrainian parliamentarian attempted to contact one-time Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort claiming to politically damaging information on Manafort and Trump.
• The New York Times, December 12, 2018. Reported on Ukrainian court ruling that information released to Manafort about the 2016 election was illegal interference.

So anyone telling you that only Russia interfered, and not Ukraine, is lying to you and repeating fake news. And further, there has still been no evidence that Russia actually interfered in the election to Trump's benefit or Hillary's.

Recall that the "evidence" presented by the so-called "17 intelligence agencies" consisted of a statement by a pro-Ukraine company named Crowdstrike that it had evidence Russians hacked the DNC's emails and gave them to WikiLeaks. The FBI was never granted access to the servers, as former FBI Director James Comey admitted in Congressional testimony. Other "evidence" from the "Intelligence agencies" involve an ad spend on Facebook of about $200,000 and some Trump supporters appearing on RT, a Russia-owned online television network that only a few thousand people watch.

CNN's Chris Cuomo invokes the Founders

Chris Cuomo knows as much about the views of the Founding Fathers as he does about weather in New York.

We told you a few weeks about Cuomo's foray into climate alarmism with claims that New York was seeing its first storms ever because of climate change. Historical references continue to be unkind to him.

Commenting on Wednesday's whine-fest by activist "constitutional scholars" testifying on impeachment, Cuomo said the Founders intended impeachment to be a "bipartisan" process. Chris either slept through history class, or attended public school or some left-wing private school teaching pseudo-history.

There were no actual political parties at the time the Constitution was ratified. So there was no way to be "bi-partisan." Political parties as we understand them didn't come into being until well into the George Washington administration. They lined up into two predominate factions under national government — the Federalist Party in the Alexander Hamilton, John Adams camp; and the Democratic-Republican party (more commonly known as Republicans) in the Thomas Jefferson, James Madison camp — and soon began organizing in the states.

Cuomo, like his network, is fake news.

-- Jay Baker

Joseph Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy dynasty, made a grand fortune not by bootlegging (there's no evidence he was ever a bootlegger) but by being educated, observant — and never afraid to be contrarian.

In the late 1920s, Kennedy saw signs that stocks were wildly overvalued. He sold off most of his stock holdings before the 1929 crash, and further, he shorted the stock market, betting stocks would go even lower. When his play came to fruition, he became richer than ever.

Kennedy also invested in rock-bottom real estate that soared in value after World War II.

And, in 1933, Kennedy bet big that Prohibition was going to be overturned. He used his now-substantial wealth, plus his political connections to land exclusive contracts to import high-end Scotch whiskey and gin from the United Kingdom — legally.

To make money in a bad economy you just have to think differently from the masses. While others were dumping real estate, Kennedy made his play the other way. When real estate was near or at its bottom, instead of running with the crowd away from real estate, Kennedy went all in. But he was shrewd with the properties he chose.

Like Kennedy, you can make money in a down market, too. But you have to know what you're doing. You have to be shrewd. You have to educate yourself. Read, read, read, as I have written to you often, and as Warren Buffett attests to as well.

You have to read and study the market. Those willing to take a little risk — and invest some mental and sweat equity — cannot only survive any bust, but can profit as well.

For example, can you profit from a company's debt?

Debt matters because it can reduce your returns as a shareholder. Additionally, it depletes the cash reserves of a company.

A few years ago, billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller said, "Corporate debt was $3.5 trillion in 2007, arguably a period many would describe as bubbly. It's $7 trillion now ... As you know, most of that mix has been in more highly leveraged stuff, Covenant-Lite loans — high yield, that's where the majority of the rise has been. And if you look at what corporations have been using it for, it's all financial engineering."

The Washington Post just reported that U.S. corporations are now sitting on a mountain of nearly $10 trillion in debt. That's equivalent to almost 50 percent of the overall economy. A record pile of debt, in fact, according to the WaPo.

Business Insider is reporting that trillion-dollar asset manager BlackRock said in a report in October that "BBB-rated bonds, the lowest bracket of the investment-grade debt, now accounts for more than 50% of the market compared to 17% in 2001." The Fed backed up that information up with a warning in its November Financial Stability Report. It said that the riskiest companies have accounted for the bulk of rising debt in recent years.

If one wanted to make an educated guess as to whether or not overleveraged companies with large volumes of low-rated corporate bonds would be something to bet against, we would say that this is certainly something that one with an observant, contrarian mind would want to look into. If you think these debt-ridden companies are "too big to fail," dear reader, remember that while the elites and Banksters engineered the term "too big to fail" so that Americans would accept multi-billion dollar bank bailouts, those same money creators still let Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest investment bank, burn to the ground and its 25,000 employees hang out to dry.

Debt matters

We consider this huge burden of debt to be a result of the financialization of assets. We make very few actual products here. It is difficult to buy physical gold, or take into your possession a certificate for an actual share of stock. You are pushed toward buying pieces of paper that represent an asset — ETFs (which may or may not own physical gold) or shares of a fund that merely tracks the rise and fall of actual company stocks.

Hard assets and investment in infrastructure and the facilities of production are only done in China now, not America. Companies in the U.S. have most things made overseas, bring it here to sell it, and instead of growth through revenue and market share, they try to make money by moving their money and borrowing more money and purchasing their own shares of stock with debt.

Problem has been, you have to shrink the debt or physically grow and profit to push that debt back down to something reasonable. This is neither likely nor sustainable. We're trapped in the shadow of the debt tsunami.

If the Fed decided to unload just its own bonds now, even by a little, there would be a crash like never before. Bond prices would sink and interest rates would rise very quickly.

Trillions upon trillions of corporate bonds would be marked to market and repriced to nothing. Companies wouldn't be able to borrow a red cent. The economy would be a big smoking crater.

Obviously, that can't happen. Nor, apparently, can the Fed now embark on its long-established exit plan of letting all those bonds expire.

Rather, the people who run our monetary authority admit that they'll have to keep printing money and issuing new bonds to replace the old ones, basically forever. The problem is, when companies see no demand growth to speak of, borrowing to expand is senseless, even when money is virtually free.

Raising rates and making money more expensive only makes that dynamic worse. Therefore, can long-term corporate bonds for debt-ridden companies be a good investment? It hardly seems so, and in fact seems like an excellent opportunity to do some research into shorting the worst offenders.

If you are looking to invest in a low-debt company, you might follow the lead of Warren Buffett, who looks for companies "that have a debt to equity ratio that is below 0.30. Buffett likes to see companies that can grow earning using equity and not large amounts of debt" according to Seeking Alpha.

Three huge companies with piles of debt that are short favorites are Charter Communications, Comcast, and Tesla. Many people like Tesla, and the swings will be wild because of emotional investing in the stock. And regional cable monopolies might be on the government's "too big to fail" lists, otherwise, how will the media deliver their pablum to the masses? Better to stay away from those and find your own stocks to short. For companies listed in the U.S., you can easily find which of them have the most shares sold short by looking up the short interest percentage. It tells you how many of the company's shares have already been sold short, calculated as the number of shares sold short divided by the total number of shares outstanding.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

The demise of the Robert Francis (call me Beto) O'Rourke presidential campaign has served to tamp down the anti-gun rhetoric coming from the Democrat presidential contenders.

For a while there was no gun law too extreme for them to embrace — not even outright gun confiscation. Even previously (somewhat) pro-gun commie Bernie Sanders has moved toward supporting a gun ban.

Last week the United States Supreme Court heard a challenge to a New York law that essentially prohibited gun owners from taking their weapons outside the home. Highlighting the flaw in the widely acclaimed (by the right) opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller case, New York effectively recognized the right to have a gun in the home, but nowhere else. Gun owners were subject to arrest if they tried to transport their gun to another location, or even take it to the gun range for practice.

When it became clear that the law was headed for a Supreme Court challenge, New York instructed law enforcement to not enforce it and claimed it would create a workaround that would allow gun owners to transport their weapons to certain approved places. SCOTUS listened to arguments from both sides of the case, labeled New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York.

Afterwards, court observers opined that the court seemed inclined to dismiss the case as moot, given New York's enforcement change. This means states inclined to nibble around the edges of the 2nd Amendment by putting small infringement on top of small infringement may continue unabated.

The gun control rhetoric may have tamped down, but not the efforts.

They're much more bold with it in Virginia. The November election there left gun grabbers giddy. The state has Democrats controlling both sides of the legislature and Democrat Governor Blackface Northam has signaled he's "working with our secretary of public safety" on ways to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Virginia state legislators are preparing and pre-filing bills for the January 2020 legislative session. Among the bills in the works is one that institutes universal background checks on firearms transfers between individuals and makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person knowingly to authorize a child under the age of 18 to use a firearm unless he's under adult supervision. This is the same legislature that will also be considering a bill to allow minors to get an abortion without parental or a judge's consent.

The gun bill would prohibit 15, 16, 17 year olds from sitting alone on a tree stand, plinking targets or defending themselves in their homes.

Another proposed bill will ban the "importation, sale, possession, etc., of assault firearms." There is no grandfather clause in the bill, which means that every law abiding Virginian owning an "assault weapon" (which is a nebulous term that means whatever the politicians want it to mean) would instantly become a criminal.

But it's not just the political left seeking to restrict your God-given right. So-called "conservative Republicans" like Senators Lindsey Graham and Rob Portman and Representatives Mike Turner, Adam Kinzinger and Dan Crenshaw have endorsed "red flag" laws, which are gun confiscation laws. President Donald Trump has likewise signaled support for red flag laws, dismissing due process fears with a shrug and statement, "We'll worry about due process later." That's unacceptable and unconstitutional.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr recently announced that the Department of Just(Us) was launching a new federal gun control program titled Project Guardian. He promised to enforce federal gun regulations "with a vengeance."

"I have long believed that the first duty of government is to protect the safety of our citizens," Barr told the press gathered to cover the kick-off of the gun buying crackdown.

According to local media covering the announcement in Memphis, Tennessee, U.S. prosecutors will coordinate with state and local law enforcement officials to consider potential federal charges when a suspect is arrested for weapons possession, is believed to have used a gun to commit a violent crime or drug-trafficking offense or is suspected of being a violent gang member.

"Gun crime remains a pervasive problem in too many communities across America," Barr said in a statement.

Barr is not new to federal gun control schemes. In the 1990s he oversaw a program called Project Trigger Lock. Under that scheme, U.S. Attorneys would work with local law enforcement to find ways to move violent crime and gang crime cases into federal court.

The truth is, almost all politicians and government bureaucrats support gun control. Many hide it out of political considerations, or they use nebulous language to shroud their gun control efforts in feel-good propaganda. For instance, change agents are substituting the words "gun control" laws with "gun safety" laws. Some of the most nefarious legislation ever passed was done so in the interests of "safety."

When politicians start telling you they want to pass laws for your or your children's safety you'd better sit up and take notice. Your liberty is about to be whittled away.

Politicians and their propagandists have engaged in a decades-long program to confiscate weapons by stealth by promoting the nonsense that private arms in the people's hands is unAmerican and unsafe because guns are "dangerous." This is twisted double-speak, but people buy into it more and more every time a mass shooting makes the news.

Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the 2nd Amendment was an orphan, a "disfavored right" in the Supreme Court. It is in lower courts as well. We'll see whether Thomas is correct when we see the court's response to New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. City of New York and how the courts react to challenges to the laws about to come out of Virginia.

Rights are never stolen from the people in one fell swoop. They are gradually eroded away — and often under the guise of "safety," "security," and "for the children" — until one day people awaken in chains.

Somehow any process of gradualism escapes detection. Gradualism extends false hope and the illusion of reality. Meanwhile, the sheep are led to slaughter.

Gun laws are coming. Denial of due process is already here in the form of asset forfeiture — and it was in the works and supported by many politicians under the Barack Obama regime, which sought to steal the guns of people on the No-Fly List even though they were not even suspected of having committed a crime, much less been convicted.

The politicians realize that mass forced confiscation will not work. It would result in the deaths of thousands of federal agents, if they could find enough of them to attempt such a thing. Nor have efforts at soft confiscation — requiring self-reporting and voluntary surrender of arms and accessories suddenly deemed illegal — been anything more than marginally successful in recent years.

The truth is, the local sheriffs, rank-and-file police and military members are by-and-large pro-gun, and their families and friends are as well. For the most part, they would be loath to join federal agents in a forced confiscation program, although we have seen several instances where local police have employed red flag laws have to remove weapons from individuals. At least one man has died over red flag law confiscation. So local police are not averse to confiscation programs.

Americans seem to be waking up. On Black Friday the FBI processed 202,464 gun background checks. That's second-most in history, trailing only the 203,086 processed on Black Friday in 2017.

In Virginia, citizens on the county level are beginning to gather to push back against the coming gun laws.

"I've never seen anything like this, and I've been doing this for over 20 years," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Defense League. "It's a sleeping giant that had been pretty much not paying attention to politics, and now they're awake, and now they're flooding these sanctuary county hearings. Flooding them."

They should have been awake before. It's not like the signs haven't been there for more than 40 years that gun confiscation is the government agenda. They've likely awakened too late.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Editor's Note: Are you concerned about protecting your personal assets and bodily safety? Then here's a question for you: Do you avoid carrying your weapon with you because you've never had a properly functioning waist holster? Every concealed carrier needs one. That's why we have arranged for you to get a proper concealed waist holster free by going here right now. Just pay shipping and handling.

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friends at Weiss Ratings. They have some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

I get the question often, though one would think it's obvious. Who are these "globalists" we refer to so much in the liberty movement? Sometimes the request comes from honest people who only want to learn more. Sometimes it comes from disinformation agents attempting to mire discussion on a particular issue in a swamp of conjecture. The answer to the question can be simple and complex at the same time. In order to understand who the globalists are, we first have to understand what they want.

We talk a lot about the "globalists" because frankly, their agendas have become more open than ever in the past 10 years. Believe it or not there was a time not long ago when the idea of the existence of "globalists" was considered "conspiracy theory." There was a time when organizations like the Bilderberg Group did not officially exist and the mainstream media rarely reported on them. There was a time when the agenda for one world economy and a one world government was highly secretive and mentioned only in whispers in the mainstream. And anyone who tried to expose this information to the public was called a "tinfoil hat wearing nutcase."

Today, the mainstream media write puff-pieces about the Bilderberg Group and even joke about their secrecy. When members of Donald Trump's cabinet, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, attended Bilderberg in 2019, the mainstream media were wallpapered with the news.

When the World Government Summit meets each year in Dubai, attended by many of the same people that attend Bilderberg, as well as shady mainstream icons and gatekeepers like Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson, they don't hide their discussions or their goals, they post them on YouTube.

Remember when talking about the U.S. dollar being dethroned and replaced with a new one world currency system and a cashless society controlled by the IMF was treated as bizarre theory? Now it's openly called for by numerous leaders in the financial industry and in economic governance. The claim that these things are "conspiracy theory" no longer holds up anymore. In reality, the people who made such accusations a few years ago now look like idiots as the establishment floods the media with information and propaganda promoting everything the liberty movement has been warning about.

The argument on whether or not a globalist agenda "exists" is over. The liberty movement and the alternative media won that debate, and through our efforts we have even forced the establishment into admitting the existence of some of their plans for a completely centralized global system managed by them. Now, the argument has changed. Now, the argument is over whether or not the globalist agenda is a good thing or a bad thing.

---

America's No. 1 Stock Trades Under a Code Name Five hundred miles outside of Silicon Valley, this obscure company is about to unleash a radical technology worth more than $10 trillion. It's so obscure, in fact, that it trades under a code name. But 77 million Americans are about to get their hands on this tiny company's groundbreaking technology. And some investors could make a small fortune. Click here to get all of the details before this tech goes mainstream.

---

First, I would point out the sheer level of deception and disinformation used by the globalists over the past several decades to maneuver the public toward accepting a one world economy and eventually one world governance. If you have to lie consistently to people about your ideology in order to get them to support it, then there must be something very wrong with your ideology.

Second, the establishment may be going public with their plans for globalization, but they aren't being honest about the consequences for the average person. And there are many misconceptions out there, even in the liberty movement, about what exactly these people want. So, we need to construct a list of globalist desires vs globalist lies in order to define who we are dealing with. These are the beliefs and arguments of your run-of-the-mill globalist:

Centralization

A globalist believes everything must be centralized, from finance to money to social access to production to government. They argue that centralization makes the system "more fair" for everyone, but in reality they desire a system in which they have total control over every aspect of life. Globalists, more than anything, want to dominate and micro-manage every detail of civilization and socially engineer humanity in the image they prefer.

One world currency system and cashless society

As an extension of centralization, globalists want a single currency system for the world. Not only this, but they want it digitized and easy to track. Meaning, a cashless society in which every act of trade by every person can be watched and scrutinized. If trade is no longer private, preparation for rebellion becomes rather difficult. A one world currency and cashless system would be the bedrock of one world governance. You cannot have one without the other.

One world government

Globalists want to erase all national borders and sovereignty and create a single elite bureaucracy, a one world empire in which they are the "philosopher kings" as described in Plato's Republic. This system would be highly inbred, though they may continue to give the masses the illusion of public participation and "democracy" for a time. Ultimately, the globalists desire a faceless and unaccountable round table government, a seat of power which acts as an institution with limited liability, much like a corporation, and run in the same sociopathic manner without real public oversight. In the globalist world, there will be no redress of grievances.

Sustainability as religion

Globalists often use the word "sustainability" in their white papers and agendas, from Agenda 21 to Agenda 2030. Environmentalism is the facade they employ to guilt the population into supporting global governance, among other things. As I noted in my recent article 'Why Is The Elitist Establishment So Obsessed With Meat', fake environmentalism and fraudulent global warming "science" is being exploited by globalists to demand control over everything from how much electricity you can use in your home, to how many children you can have, to how much our society is allowed to manufacture or produce, to what you are allowed to eat.

So-called carbon pollution, perhaps the biggest scam in history, is a key component of the globalist agenda. As the globalist organization The Club Of Rome, a sub-institution attached to the United Nations, stated in their book 'The First Global Revolution':

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

In other words, by presenting human beings as a species as the great threat, the globalists hope to convince humanity to sublimate itself before the mother earth goddess and beg to be kept in line. And as the self-designated "guardians" of the Earth, the elites become the high priests of the new religion of sustainability. They and they alone would determine who is a loyal servant and who is a heretic. Carbon pollution becomes the new "original sin"; everyone is a sinner against the Earth, for everyone breaths and uses resources, and we must all do our part to appease the Earth by sacrificing as much as possible, even ourselves.

Population control

Globalists come from an ideological background which worships eugenics — the belief that genetics must be controlled and regulated, and those people they deem to be undesirables must be sterilized or exterminated.

The modern eugenics movement was launched by the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 1900s in America, and was treated as a legitimate scientific endeavor for decades. Eugenics was taught in schools and even celebrated at the World's Fair. States like California that adopted eugenics legislation forcefully sterilized tens of thousands of people and denied thousands of marriage certificates based on genetics. The system was transferred to Germany in the 1930s were it gained world renowned for its inherent brutality.

This ideology holds that 4 percent or less of the population is genetically worthy of leadership, and the elites conveniently represent part of that genetic purity.

After WWII the public developed a distaste for the idea of eugenics and population control, but under the guise of environmentalism the agenda is making a comeback, as population reduction in the name of "saving the Earth" is in the mainstream media once again.

Narcissistic sociopathy

It is interesting that the globalists used to present the 4 percent leadership argument in their eugenics publications, because 4 percent of the population is also consistent with the number of people who have inherent narcissistic sociopathy, either in latent or full-blown form. Coincidence?

The behavior of the globalists is consistent with the common diagnosis of full-blown narcopaths, a condition which is believed to be inborn and incurable. Narcopaths (pyschopaths) are devoid of empathy and are often self-obsessed. They suffer from delusions of grandeur and see themselves as "gods" among men. They believe other lowly people are tools to be used for their pleasure or to further their ascendance to godhood. Narcopaths feel no compassion toward those they harm or murder, yet crave attention and adoration from the same people they see as inferior. More than anything, they seek the power to micro-manage the lives of everyone around them and to feed off those people like a parasite feeds off a host victim.

Luciferianism

This is a highly complicated issue which requires its own essay to examine in full. I believe I did this effectively in my article 'Luciferianis: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System.' Needless to say, this agenda is not one that globalists are willing to admit to openly very often, but I have outlined extensive evidence that luciferianism is indeed the underlying globalist cult religion. It is essentially an ideology which promotes the worship of the self and the attainment of godhood by any means necessary — which fits perfectly with globalism and globalist behavior.

It is also the only ideological institution adopted by the U.N., through the U.N.'s relationship with Lucis Trust, also originally called Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust still has a private library within the U.N. building today.

So, now that we know the various agendas and identifiers of the globalists, we can now ask "Who are the globalists?" The answer is — anyone who promotes the above agendas, related arguments, or any corporate or political leader who works directly with them.

To make a list of names is simple; merely study the membership rosters of globalists organizations like the Bilderberg Group, the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Tavistock Institute, the IMF, the BIS, World Bank, the U.N., etc. You will find a broad range of people from every nation and every ethnicity all sharing one goal — a world in which the future for every other person is dictated by them for all time; a world in which freedom is a memory and individual choice is a commodity only they have the right to enjoy.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friend Dr. Michael Cutler. He has some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

The most guarded, unblinking, unprovable, laughable and ironic fakeries in the week's fake news.

The Guardians of the Galaxy Bureaucracy

The failing news magazine Time, which saw its worth drop from $1.8 billion when it was sold to Meredith Corp., in early 2018 to just $190 million when it was sold to Salesforce co-founder Marc Benioff just a few months later, is most famous for its annual listing of Person of the Year and subsequent ____________ of the Year, with various subjects filling in the blanks.

For this year's Person of the Year, Time chose Greta Thunberg, the shrieking mentally handicapped Swedish high school dropout and climate propagandist being worshiped by the climate cult. But as ridiculous as that selection is, it falls far short of matching its choice for the ____________ of the Year category, Guardians of the Year. Time selected the "Public Servants." Which public servants? Ambassadors Marie Yovanovitch and William Taylor, Dr. Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who all testified in the Democrats' impeachment scam hearings, and the unnamed "intelligence analyst" (who is named Eric Ciaramella) who allegedly blew the whistle on President Donald Trump.

---

Networks Are Trying to BAN Bill O'Reilly's Money Message One network actually told us that it will NOT run Bill O'Reilly's wealth-building message because of its "conservative nature"! This is a conspiracy in plain sight. Watch O'Reilly's money message NOW, before it gets pulled from the internet forever.

---

As we've learned as the impeachment scam has fallen apart, Democrats didn't find any evidence of a quid pro quo or bribery, the two charges they pursued in the interrogation of the aforementioned witnesses. These guardian "public servants" were simply participating in a Deep State coup because these "public servants" didn't like Trump's foreign policy as it pertained to Ukraine.

They provided no evidence of Trump wrongdoing. One even admitted that Trump told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. We know they provided no evidence because the quid pro quo and bribery charges didn't find their way into the Democrats' articles of impeachment. If there had been a scintilla of evidence provided, Jerrold "The Hut" Nadler would have used it to beef up his feckless articles.

These "public servants" haven't worked as guardians to protect anything but the State Department bureaucracy (part of the Deep State), which has apparently decided its career bureaucrats set the foreign policy rather than the president. In fact, that was the whole of Vindman's testimony: that Trump was off script and his comments didn't follow the bureaucracy's established line.

As Vindman testified, "In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy." Vindman and his fellow bureaucrats have forgotten that nothing the president does can be harmful to "U.S. government policy," because the president is decider of "U.S. government policy."

Time is fake news and a propaganda organ for the Deep State. And those "public servants" were working for the Deep State and their own benefit and power, not that of the American people.

Did Virginia Democrats blink?

The Daily Wire published an article this week by Ryan Saavedra headlined, "Virginia Democrats abandon gun confiscation as pro-freedom groups surge in state." Saavedra doesn't normally publish fake news, but we've got to call him on this one.

In his article, Saavedra's lede claims:

Virginia Democrats were forced to abandon part of their extremist gun control agenda, the confiscations of semi-automatic firearms from law abiding citizens, on Monday as opposition to their anti-Second Amendment agenda has exploded across the state.

He then quotes The Free Beacon's report that claims, "Instead, they will include a provision to allow Virginians to keep the firearms they already own. The reversal comes before the newly elected Democratic majority has even been sworn in, after a majority of the state's counties declared themselves 'Second Amendment sanctuaries.'"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but they've not abandoned anything. As Saavedra himself notes, Governor Blackface Northam spokespuppet Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday:

In this case, the governor's assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period. Additional details on this and all other bills will be announced prior to the start of the upcoming session.

So, Governor Blackface hasn't abandoned his gun confiscation effort at all. He's just put it off until more opportune time, hoping that the backlash will die down and the liberty lovers that still remain in Virginia will go back to sleep, like they were during the last election when they allowed the gun grabbers to take power even as they openly declared their disdain for the 2^nd Amendment.

As Saavedra notes:

Pro-freedom groups that advocate for the Second Amendment cautioned against thinking that the Democrats' cave on gun confiscation was a victory, warning that Democrats are still coming after firearms.

"Gov. Northam and the rest of Virginia's anti-gun politicians' idea of a compromise is to threaten hundreds of thousands of Virginians with felonies unless they submit to government control," NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told the Free Beacon. "The NRA will stand with the Commonwealth's law-abiding gun owners in solidarity to oppose gun bans, confiscations, and registrations."

Unfortunately, it looks like Governor Blackface's gamble may pay off. Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave seems to think the Democrats have abandoned their gun confiscation plan because people got involved in political activism and were pushing back on extreme policies. He has apparently already gone to sleep and isn't listening to what Governor Blackface's spokespuppet said.

And we take exception to another aspect of the Daily Wire headline. Pro-freedom groups haven't "surged." They've always been there. It's the assaults on freedom and the Constitution that have surged. And people are finally recognizing it.

Case in point came Thursday via a report in The Washington Examiner. According to the article, "Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say local police who do not enforce gun control measures likely to pass in Virginia should face prosecution and even threats of the National Guard."

The Examiner went on to report:

Democratic Virginia Rep. Donald McEachin suggested cutting off state funds to counties that do not comply with any gun control measures that pass in Richmond.

"They certainly risk funding, because if the sheriff's department is not going to enforce the law, they're going to lose money. The counties' attorneys offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down," he said.

McEachin also noted that Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary.

Let's hope they stay vigilant… and Daily Wire doesn't publish anymore fake news. It's clear Virginia Democrats are itching for a civil war and aren't backing down at all.

CBS claims Trump harmed Ukraine

We told you last week that the mainstream legacy media were working overtime to try and send Ukraine's 2016 election meddling down the memory hole and pin all Ukraine corruption on Trump. Well it hasn't stopped.

This week, CBS reported that while in the U.S. the scandal of military aid to Ukraine was triggering impeachment hearings, in Ukraine the military aid isn't about politics, "it's about survival." CBS sent one of its intrepid reporters to Ukraine to find out how Trump's action to withhold military aid had affected the country. But there's one problem. Trump didn't withhold the aid. While he delayed approving its release for a few weeks, they got it and it arrived on time.

But CBS failed to note that. It also failed to note that Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, actually did withhold military aid, sending them pillows and blankets instead.

Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. should be sending military aid to Ukraine to help them against Russian aggression. One of the activist professor/legal scholars that testified last week in the impeachment scam hearing actually paraphrased George Bush the lesser in stating that we need to fight the Russians there so we don't have to fight them here. That indicates the professor is as astute on foreign policy as she is on the Constitution… meaning, not so much.

Here's a little history for you. There would be no war in Ukraine if not for Barack Obama and his State Department and CIA. The Obama regime orchestrated a coup to oust elected Ukrainian pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych after he rejected the International Monetary Fund's demands to raise taxes and devalue the currency. So the U.S. and the EU organized a "popular protest" that resulted in about 100 deaths and thousands of injuries, which they blamed on Yanukovych and his supporters.

Yanukovych was later forced to flee to Russia and Ukraine installed a puppet president, central banker Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk. A Forbes article described Yats as "… the kind of technocrat you want if you want austerity, with the veneer of professionalism. He's the type of guy who can hobnob with the European elite. A Mario Monti type: unelected and willing to do the IMFs bidding."

The question that's not asked is, why must we be fighting Russia at all? It's a fake war created by the globalists. The Democrats had no problem when Obama started the war. They didn't care much about Ukrainians when Obama refused to send aid authorized by Congress.

And as we're learning from the Trump impeachment charade, there's a lot of American politicians making bank off Ukraine corruption. Blaming Russia for all of it is a misdirection.

More from the Ukraine-down-the-memory-hole file

Senator Ted Cruz appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to discuss the Trump impeachment. Fake news peddler Chuck Todd asked Cruz about meddling in the election.

"Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" Todd asked the senator.

"I do, and I think there's considerable evidence," Cruz replied.

Todd's eyes grew wide and his jaw dropped to the floor. "You do?" Todd asked with a surprised and incredulous look on his face.

And then laughter could be heard in the background of the Meet the Press set. Various media outlets, HuffPo, Esquire, Rolling Stone, WaPo and Dallas Morning News among them, got a real kick out of the fact that Cruz was laughed at while on air.

But it's the news media that's the biggest joke. We told you last week that Financial Times (twice), New York Slimes and Politico all reported in 2016 and 2017 that Ukraine had interfered in the election to help SHillary Clinton and hurt Trump.

The MSM continue to say that Ukraine interference is a "debunked theory." Only the MSM have been debunked.

One of the heads of the Deep State says there's no Deep State

Surprise. The head of the FBI rejects the notion that there's a Deep State. ABC News' Pierre Thomas asked FBI Director Chris Wray, "As far as you know,based on the findings in the Inspector General's report, is the FBI, was it part of some "Deep State?"

"Well that's the kind of label that is a disservice to the 37,000 men and women who work at the FBI who, I think, tackle their jobs with professionalism, with rigor, with objectively and with courage," Wray said. "So, that's not a term I would ever use to describe our workforce and I think it's an affront to them."

Excuse me Director Wray, but even The Slimes recognizes there's a Deep State, as we told you in this space a month ago. And Time recognizes it as well, as we told you above.

And sorry Director Wray, the IG report released Monday shows that professionalism, rigor and objectivity is sorely lacking. Courage not so much, if it’s courageous to participate in a coup and spy on a presidential campaign.

-- Jay Baker

If you use sucralose (Splenda^®) to cut calories and maybe try to lose a few pounds, you may be losing something else in the process. Research at Washington University School of Medicine showed that sucralose stimulates blood sugar and insulin.

"Our results indicate that this artificial sweetener is not inert — it does have an effect," said researcher M. Yanina Pepino, research assistant professor of medicine. "When study participants drank sucralose, their blood sugar peaked at a higher level than when they drank only water before consuming glucose," Pepino explained. "Insulin levels also rose about 20 percent higher. So the artificial sweetener was related to an enhanced blood insulin and glucose response."

Laboratory studies now suggest that the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas can detect sweet foods and drinks with receptors that are virtually identical to those in the mouth. That causes an increased release of hormones, such as insulin. Some animal studies also have found that when receptors in the gut are activated by artificial sweeteners, the absorption of glucose increases, too.

Now we see the burden of sickness that mainstream nutritionists, health practitioners and food manufacturers have placed on us by recommending sugar substitutes to "cut calories."

Only by using our discerning minds, reading, and believing in what we determine is right for our own health can we overcome such a harsh set of programming and escape to reality which is health.

High insulin levels are our modern plague caused by the recommended diet of very high carbohydrates ("healthy" whole grains that are constantly pushed on us) and very high sugar, including corn sugar (high fructose corn syrup). Mainstream cardiologists rarely warn you of this. They are only interested in dispensing drugs which they and the general public are "educated" to think of as "cures."

We go to the medical profession for help with medical problems. Instead we get prescription drug treatment in the place of advice about diet.

Very few nutritionists even know that our minimum daily requirement for sugar and carbohydrates is zero. We can get all the glucose and carbohydrates we need from vegetables, proteins and fats.

If we eat sugar, we burn sugar instead of fat. Also, if we eat sugar or carbohydrates we will have excess insulin and this extra insulin prevents us from burning fat. All this clearly shows why obese people have such a struggle losing fat.

If we restore health, there is no other way to lose weight but to stop eating sugar and carbohydrates. By far the biggest stress on health is the big sugar (carbohydrate) loads that we regularly consume. It makes us expire when we retire instead of living to 100 against the wishes of those who run the animal farm.

How can you opt out of this plan?

• Firstly, avoid insulin resistance by exchanging omega-6 foods for omega-3-rich foods, paleo foods and vitamin-rich foods. And, if you have blood sugar problems, then you should fear dependency on insulin drugs more than the "disease" of diabetes. Yes, blindness and losing limbs is possible if you don't fix the problem and instead fall into the trap of treating the symptoms.
  
  
• Second, as I wrote to you a few days ago, magnesium deficiency is rampant is diabetes. In fact, in diabetes, extreme magnesium loss is common. Magnesium is an important co-factor in the production of insulin by the pancreas. Normal total body magnesium is essential for glucose metabolism. Thus, the rampant magnesium deficiency in our society may be a contributing cause of diabetes. Take at least 400 mg a day as a supplement if you don't eat magnesium-rich foods like nuts and spinach.

• Third, food is not only for satiety but for the essence of life. We all need to be aware of declining levels of nutrients in our food. We need magnesium. But above all, let's try not to become insulin resistant. Watch all sugars or sweeteners, especially fructose corn syrup. It is more dangerous to the people than a standing army.

If the American people had a mindset for lower insulin equal to the current mind quest for statin drugs (cholesterol drugs), there would be no medical cartel in America, certainly, but imagine our good health without the need for medicine.

If you have blood sugar problems, then you should fear the drugs more than the "disease" of diabetes.

That's why I urge you to follow this link for a complete insulin cure. I want to help you get out from under the thumb of the medical industrial complex so you can use nutrition, not drugs, to sure blood sugar problems. I'll show you what foods to avoid and the ones that are better than insulin injections at lowering blood sugar.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

In a world without constant manipulation and disinformation most economic and geopolitical events would happen spontaneously and randomly. Things would be more unexpected, but at least they would make life fascinating and interesting. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in. Our world is highly micro-managed by global elites with a rather broad if not clichéd agenda. This makes most events highly predictable, as each event services a singular end game.

The only aspect of our system that is not predictable is timing. In the liberty movement we can predict with relative certainty future trends and where they are headed, but one thing we have to consider is that the more effective we are at exposing the plans of the globalists the more they will attempt to either stall or expedite the timing of their agenda in the hopes of encouraging doubt and uncertainty.

Pyschopathic people are obsessed with the concept of surprise. They love to ambush. They hate when their carefully crafted schemes are made obvious by intelligent observation, because they operate on the assumption that they are always the smartest people in the room. In military lingo, this is called being inside someone's OODA Loop; which means always being a step ahead of the planning and foresight of those you want to conquer. Psychopaths are always desperately angling to achieve this constant state of superiority.

Of course, the problem for these personality types is that they have very little imagination or ingenuity and are often robotic in their responses and strategies. Understand one psychopath and you essentially understand them all. Once again, as long as you know what they want, they become predictable. The only way for them to surprise us is by changing what they want, and they aren't going to do that. All they will do is delay or distract.

2019 might have seemed like a roller coaster year to many, but most of it was a simply a succession of engineered distractions and slight changes in timing to throw analysts off the scent of the globalist agenda. Finally, in the past month we have seen certain plans culminate into events some of us always expected. Let's examine some of these events and what they mean for 2020...

---

Networks Are Trying to BAN Bill O'Reilly's Money Message One network actually told us that it will NOT run Bill O'Reilly's wealth-building message because of its "conservative nature"! This is a conspiracy in plain sight. Watch O'Reilly's money message NOW, before it gets pulled from the internet forever.

---

The big fat trade deal farce

Since the trade war between the U.S. and China began I have been warning that all is not what it seems, and that the trade war is not meant to be won, only perpetuated for as long as possible. The endless cycle of "deal" announcements followed by deal fallout followed by renewed deal optimism has conditioned the public to assume that all market movements and the economy at large is tied to the success or failure of Trump's trade war. This is exactly what the establishment wants.

If the masses are focused on the trade war, they might completely forget about the enormous financial bubble that central banks like the Federal Reserve created through nearly 10 years of stimulus. They might also completely forget that the Fed deliberately popped that bubble in 2018 using fiscal tightening policies and removing liquidity from the system. Now, the avalanche has started, and it appears that the Fed has no intention of stopping it (but we will get to that in a moment).

So, as long as the Everything Bubble is imploding, the elites need a distraction of some kind as well as a scapegoat.

The latest "Phase 1" trade deal announcement this month was an epic disappointment to almost everyone who thought that maybe Donald Trump was fighting the good fight or working toward a legitimate diplomatic compromise with China. Finally, people are beginning to understand that the trade war is Kabuki theater, and nothing more.

As it stands, the Phase 1 agreement is not an agreement at all. Last time I checked, in diplomacy, business and sales, the goal is always to get agreements in writing as quickly as possible along with some assurances that the deal will be honored. Verbal agreements and half measures are a recipe for disaster. Phase 1 is designed to fail.

Phase 1 will not be put in writing and signed, at least, not by Trump or Xi. The details are still murky, tariffs are not being rolled back in any meaningful way, and China's promise to quadruple their agricultural purchases from the U.S. in 2020 is unlikely to be fulfilled. China has already diversified their food purchases to Russia, South America, etc. To quadruple their purchases from the U.S. would mean abandoning all the work they put in to build new supply lines outside the U.S. market. This is not going to happen.

Will Chinese farm purchases increase? Yes, but only for a short period of time and not to the level of the agreement. This means that the Phase 1 deal has a built-in mechanism for collapse, as it relies heavily on China following through with a requirement they can't or won't honor. I give it a month or two before hostilities between the U.S. and China surface once again.

North Korea nuke talks collapse

In in my article 'Syria And Iran Prove There's No Chance For North Korean Peace', published in May 2018 after the initial nuke deal hype, I argued that:

"North Korea will of course refuse disarmament. The establishment will push harder, causing North Korea to pull back from the talks, to reschedule talks multiple times or to abandon talks altogether. Then, the establishment will say North Korea is not serious about peace, therefore, the force of action may be justified. They will say they gave North Korea a chance to do things the easy way, but now the hard way is necessary... North Korean missile tests will continue, and new nuke facilities will open. Trump will call for the kinetic termination of such sites."

In December the denuclearization talks with North Korea have collapsed. North Korea has indicated they have no intention of continuing, and the initial deal itself is being exposed as the fraudulent nothing-burger it always was. Like the China trade deal, the North Korean talks are designed to fail. China will not quadruple its agricultural purchases from the U.S. for any meaningful length of time, and North Korea will never voluntarily denuke.

The timing of this implosion in progress with North Korea is rather interesting, as it coincided almost exactly with the weak trade deal with China. If the U.S. government sticking its nose into the Hong Kong protests has the potential to derail trade talks, then the U.S. getting aggressive with North Korea would be a veritable powder keg. I see tensions with North Korea as an extension of tensions with China, as North Korea is essentially a satellite state of China. If the globalists want to accelerate the trade war in 2020, all they have to do is ratchet up the saber rattling with North Korea. I believe this was always the intent; the elites merely put the plan on pause.

Brexit now on the fast track

I have a love/hate relationship with the proceedings of the Brexit movement. I understand that the movement itself is mostly grassroots and is legitimate. I also understand that the European Union is a monstrosity that should be broken apart. Finally, I am a longtime champion of national sovereignty, and if the majority of British people want it, then they should get it.

However, the story of Brexit is not as simple as this. As with my prediction that Donald Trump would win the 2016 election, I also correctly predicted that the Brexit vote would succeed. I predicted these events based on the tides of change in public perception and the rise of conservative ideals, but also on the reality that the globalists would allow these events to occur because they ultimately benefit.

This is not to say that the globalists are omnipresent and control everything; that is not my argument. I continue to believe that the rise in conservative sentiment in the public is largely due to over a decade of effort on the part of the liberty movement spreading the word and fighting back against establishment propaganda. That said, anyone who thinks any voting system today is not completely dominated by the establishment is delusional, to say the least.

I predicted the Trump and Brexit wins based in the theory that the elites would simply step back and not interfere with the vote. That they would allow the obvious proliferation of conservativism to run its course, for a little while. Why? Because by triggering the first stages of the crash of the Everything Bubble in 2018, they will soon need someone to take the blame. Why wouldn't the globalists set up their ideological enemies as the cause of an economic crash that they created?

So far, my theory continues to prove correct. The trade war is unequivocally tied to the performance of the economy in the minds of the masses, and the mainstream media has made sure that this is the case through steady propaganda. Trump has attached the market bubble to himself by endlessly Tweeting about how he is personally responsible for the performance of markets, even though during his campaign he said that the markets were a huge bubble that he didn't want to inherit. And now, all eyes are on the Brexit as the conservatives under Boris Johnson now have a mandate to force through the Brexit while the mainstream predicts economic disaster.

At the beginning of this year I predicted that the Brexit would ultimately end with a 'No Deal' event. I continue to believe this will be the outcome, because it is the most beneficial to the globalists. With a No Deal and a abrupt break from the EU, the elites can accelerate the crash of the economic bubble in Europe and the U.K. while sticking "populist" movements with the blame and the consequences. Now, Johnson's conservative majority assures the Brexit will be finalized, and I see no indication that the EU will agree to a diplomatic separation.

The EU will claim they can't support any deal from the U.K. because Brexit "puts the global economy at risk." Brexit will happen anyway, and then the current bubble collapse in Europe will hit main street hard.

Repo market crisis looms

The Federal Reserve's odd policy behavior over the past few years only makes sense if the central bank is trying to create financial crash conditions in a way that is subtle but powerful. The initial rate hikes and balance sheet cuts into economic weakness and stimulus addiction set the stage for the crash in fundamentals that is happening now. The only question left is, when will they allow markets to crash?

We may have some indication this December as to the pace of the crash in the Fed's overnight repo purchases and liquidity injections. As I noted in my article 'The Fed's Liquidity Injections Are Too Little Too Late — But That Was Always The Plan...', published in October:

"The Fed launched asset purchases to make it look like they care about trying to fix the problem. However, the Fed's repo stimulus and balance sheet increases are not enough to make any difference. Calling Fed repo actions "Not-QE" is a funny means of pointing out that the Fed is not being straightforward about its intentions, but when comparing current repo loans and asset purchases to an event like TARP back in 2008, which by itself injected over $16 Trillion in liquidity into the financial system (no audit of the other QE programs has yet been undertaken), the current stimulus is nothing but a drop in the ocean."

The creator of the Fed's repo loan structure, Zoltan Pozsar, said the same thing this past week. He argues that an unprecedented crisis in repo markets looms at the end of this month with loans coming due and many banks holding the wrong type of collateral to trade for more cash from the Fed. I suspect that Pozsar's prediction may be a little early and that the repo crisis will move slower than he expects, but not much slower. The former fed employee argues that the Fed must unleash TRUE QE4, with massive amounts of liquidity behind it in order to stave off the market collapse that is set to occur. I predict that the Fed will not do this, at least not at levels needed to make much of a difference.

The Everything Bubble is imploding in the background while the events listed above provide distraction. If the central banks really intend to kick the can on the crash, then they will have to inject tens of trillions of dollars into the global system in the next few months. If they do not, then we should expect crash effects to hit the wider public even harder in 2020.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

Dear Jackson, Please find below a special message from my friends at Stansberry Research. They have some important information to share with you. Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Patent "medicines" are among the greatest deceptions of our time. They are products of advertising — very sophisticated and subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) advertising.

What do patent medicines do for those persuaded to take them? They are palliatives that suppress symptoms. They do nothing to "cure" or in any way enhance the immune system. Nor do they make any claims as such, but the public misses this vital point.

The federal government, through the Food and Drug Administration, unleashed the pharmaceuticals upon the American people, resulting in massive and unbelievable profits. The American people didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against this monstrous and deceptive fraud. What a scam! What a cash cow!

The trigger happened in 1997 when the FDA relaxed the rules for drug advertising direct to the consumer (DTC). Only the U.S. and New Zealand permit this.

The new FDA rules allowed the drug companies to make claims unimpeded as long as they offered a phone number or website or referenced a magazine ad where consumers could get the "fine print." The FDA knows as well as you do that people don't read the "fine print" and most don't read at all except a few words at a time. The public was as helpless before this charade as if they were little children.

So what has happened since then? Prescription drugs are a $360 billion a year business. More than $5 billion a year is spent on promoting them to the consumer market and to physicians.

When you go to the doctor with an ailment you expect that if you get a prescription that the choice of medicine would be made based on proven results for your disease. But that is probably not the case, thanks to the massive PR/marketing campaigns run by the pharmaceutical giants.

Physicians may think so, and you may think so, but the fact is that the information physicians get — even from some publications that are purported to be peer-reviewed — is often just a product of Big Pharma's marketing arm. This is because Big Pharma is using ghostwriters to draft articles for publications and getting top-flight physicians to sign on as the "author" even though all they do is read the articles and suggest changes.

This fact came to light in 2009 when The New York Times and The Public Library of Science (PLoS) gained access to documents used in a court case filed by more than 14,000 plaintiffs who developed breast cancer while taking the menopausal hormone therapy drug Prempro.

---

Avoid the potential dangers of prescription drug addiction... Big Pharma is raking in huge profits after addicting millions to dangerous pain pills. Escape their greed and your pain! Discover how the newest and oldest in alternative pain relief methods can help you finally conquer the pain! Click here learn more...

---

PLoS Medicine tells us that between 1996 (when Prempro was first marketed) and 2004, Wyeth (since bought by Pfizer) worked with several medical education and communication companies — but mostly with a company called DesignWrite — to market the Premarin family of products. In its communications with Wyeth, DesignWrite noted that "Research shows high clinician reliance on journal articles for credible product information." So, in addition to "full-length review articles," DesignWrite recommended that the publication plan for Premarin products should include mini-reviews, case reports, editorials, letters and comments.

DesignWrite suggested that short pieces could be published quickly and were an efficient "means of placing important information about the therapeutic profile of an agent into the hands of influential physicians." The company also explained that it would help Wyeth decide what data to present, recruit "authors," choose journals, create abstracts and posters for medical meetings and "Position the product appropriately to influence subscribers."

DesignWrite then drafted the articles — casting the drug in the best possible light — and submitted them to physicians for review. The reviewing physicians then became "authors."

PLoS Medicine reports that there is no evidence the "authors" were paid for the use of their name. There is also little evidence that authors did much more than review the article and occasionally make an editing suggestion.

It is illegal for pharmaceutical companies to promote a marketed drug for a use other than those which are approved by the FDA. But articles in medical journals, newsletters and magazines are not considered promotional and the FDA considers them free speech and doesn't regulate them. (However, try to get that past the FDA if you are touting the benefits of a natural supplement… or even natural foods.)

PLoS Medicine writes that, in the absence of data (or in the presence of data adverse to marketing goals), review articles in medical journals are crucial vehicles for encouraging off-label uses, promoting unproven benefits and for downplaying harms. In other words, Big Pharma can say anything it wants about the benefits of a drug or completely ignore known harmful side-effects as long these articles are run in medical journals, newsletters and magazines.

At about the same time The New York Times and PLoS were revealing Wyeth's strategy on Prempro, researchers with The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were looking at drug maker Parke-Davis' marketing of gabapentin. Gabapentin is FDA approved for treating seizures and nerve pain that can occur with shingles. But it's become the 10th-most prescribed drug in the world for a host of other uses even though there is no evidence it works for them. Physicians are prescribing it for migraines, fibromyalgia, hot flashes, depression, bipolar disorder, restless leg syndrome, anxiety, and a wide variety of other nerve and chronic pain issues. It's even given to cats and dogs with chronic pain, reports Vice.com.

Parke-Davis was found to be pushing gabapentin on doctors via a rating system that ranked physicians by the dollar value of prescriptions they could potentially write. As Vice.com notes:

(Parke-Davis) zeroed in on doctors who were influential and affiliated with major medical centers, who they thought could encourage their colleagues to use gabapentin too. The company wrote in their internal documents from the mid 1990s that this strategy would be "one of the most effective ways to communicate our message."… Parke-Davis executives spent hundreds of thousands of dollars targeting medical residents to—as explained in one document—"influence physicians from the bottom up" and "to solidify Parke-Davis' role in the resident's mind as he/she evolves into a practicing physician."

The company hired medical education companies to write favorable review papers, original articles and letters to medical publication editors, paying $13,375 to $18,000 per article plus an honorarium to the authors of $1,000. In most instances the payments were not disclosed. The company also hosted teleconferences that connected doctors paid to moderate with other doctors. An internal company memo said "the key goal of the teleconferences was to increase new Neurontin (a generic form of gabapentin) prescriptions by convincing non-prescribers to begin prescribing and current prescribers to increase their new prescription behavior."

According to an analysis published in JAMA in January, the medical-pharmaceutical trust spends $30 billion a year on marketing, and about $20 billion of that goes to persuading physicians and other medical professionals of the benefits of prescription drugs. They do this with face-to-face visits with drug sales representatives, providing free drug samples and other freebies, and offering payment for speeches that includes food, beverages, travel and accommodations.

A study published this week in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that doctors who received compensation from drug manufacturers for promotional speaking, consulting, lunches and other expenses were seven to 10 times more likely to prescribe more opioids to their patients than doctors who received no money from the medical-pharmaceutical trust.

Now you must ask yourself if your doctor is intentionally prescribing a drug based solely on fees he or she had been paid by a drug company or because there is evidence the drug actually worked, and if the evidence of success is real or contrived by PR flaks.

I personally know of instances in which doctors have prescribed medicines for people despite warnings of harmful side effects — not to mention the side effects that occur but the Food and Drug Administration won't admit to. In one instance a woman older than 70 was prescribed a drug for a urinary tract infection even though it was not recommended for anyone over age 60. In another, a physician encouraged his pregnant patient to have a flu vaccine.

Legally peddling drugs is a multibillion-dollar business. If a doctor prescribes a medication for you, be sure you research it and understand the possible consequences before taking it.

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Dear Jackson, Over 50% of people with poor thyroid function have an auto-immune issue. What does that mean for you? It could mean you have a common, yet little-known thyroid problem that can completely destroy your thyroid function. So keep reading, even if you're already being treated for your thyroid... or even if your test results are coming up "normal!" Yours for the truth, Bob Livingston Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

The crow-eatingest, Clinton-tweetiest, Cohen in Pragueiest and satirical Bee-buzziest fakeries in the week's fake news.

What the IG report tells us

If we lived in a sane world in which people took responsibility for their failures, crows would be an endangered species today because of the vast amounts being eaten by the fake news legacy corporate propaganda media.

You're not hearing it from the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world, but Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the abuse of processes by the FBI illegal spying campaign on President Donald Trump and his campaign has shown who is fake news and who is not. And it's the legacy corporate propaganda media that have been lying to us for the last three-plus years about Trump.

We could give you enough examples to cause you to use up a month's worth of data reading all of them if we wanted, but we'll just you give a few of the most egregious examples of three years of MSM reporting and pontificating that the IG report showed to be false.

• Responding to a Trump tweet about then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking the IG to investigate abuse of FISA court system, former CIA spook, Barack Obama special assistant, Georgetown professor and current NBC contributor Ned Price tweeted: "Don't take the bait by falling for or even accepting the premise. There was no 'massive FISA abuse.'"
• On May 18, 2018, writing for The Week, Damon Linker wrote a screed claiming that The Federalist was "a vanguard of a thoroughly Trumpified Republican Party" because it was reporting that the Obama Administration was actively spying on four affiliates of the Trump campaign. The Federalist was way ahead of the rest of the media on uncovering FBI malfeasance. Scoffing at the notion that "federal law enforcement" couldn't possibly be partisan, Linker posited, "The point, driven home again and again on the website, is that the investigation of Trump should never have been started and certainly shouldn't have been expanded to include the appointment of a special counsel — because it was hopelessly, irredeemably tainted by partisanship from the beginning." Turns out The Federalist was correct, not Linker.
• Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham made a criminal referral of Christopher Steele in January 2018 and received a lot of flak from it from the MSM, Democrat politicians and the #NeverTrump GOP-elite. Grassley took to Twitter last week to point out some of it and show how wrong they were. Senator Diane Feinstein claimed in a statement, "Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted." In the same statement she also claimed Steele "is a respected and reliable expert on Russia," and "Mr. Steele came forward voluntarily out of concern for U.S. national security." CNN's Renato Mariotti said the criminal referral "doesn't appear to be a legitimate effort to alert the FBI of criminal activity" and "The dossier isn't bogus, since parts of it have been confirmed." Faux conservative Jennifer Rubin, WaPo's token "Republican," claimed the referral was "entirely inappropriate" and it "raises a real question as to Grassley's credibility." Warmongering neocon Max Boot, the CFR's spokespuppet, wrote, "Trump's unwillingness to criticize Putin makes you wonder what hold the Kremlin has over him; the Steele dossier looks more credible all the time." The truth is, Rubin and Boot, part of the GOP-e, look less credible every day.
• Way back in February 2018, Republican Representative Devin Nunes issued a report — now known as the Nunes memo — detailing how the FBI "may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources" to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant in October 2016 and in three subsequent renewals on Trump adviser Carter Page in the early phases of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Already a lightning rod to the left, Nunes was heavily criticized for creating a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI may have acted improperly. The MSM, almost as if they were all working from the same playbook, called Nunes everything but a white man and vilified him for daring to "carry Trump's water" and peddle falsehoods. Even after the Department of Just(Us) released a trove of redacted documents related to the FISA warrants that showed Nunes was likely mostly correct, the MSM continued to pile on. The IG report completely vindicated Nunes. Meanwhile, Democrat Adam Schiff-for-brains — who had the same information Nunes had — went to the MSM over and over claiming Nunes was lying and the Steele report was entirely accurate and there was no abuse of the FISA system.

The MSM peddled these lies and repeated them ad naseum. But now we know who was lying to us in reporting on anonymous leaks and specious sources and doctored documents that allegedly showed Trump was conspiring with Russians and an asset of Vladimir Putin. It was CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, The New York Slimes and the rest of the Deep State talking heads and leftist punditry class.

In the last few days before the IG report was released, CNN, The Slimes, WaPo and other members of the MSM quoted unnamed sources (which is code for "we're making it up) claiming the IG report would absolve the FBI of any wrongdoing. It didn't, and in fact was a scathing rebuke of a rogue agency.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist tweeted, that "Today's IG report debunks *years* of reporting based on leaks from intelligence officials. Russia collusion, Carter Page being a Russian asset, Steele being credible, and a thousand other things. How many days will media devote to balancing out their years of false reporting?"

I think we know the answer. We also know who has been telling the truth about this whole mess. It was Hemmingway and her co-workers at The Federalist, John Solomon of The Hill and Solomonreports.com, The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel, and the independent alternative media, including us at Bob Livingston Alerts.

Who really used Russians for election interference?

On December 12, Hillary Clinton tweeted the following:

"Make sure your family and friends see the evidence for themselves:

"The president asked a foreign power to interfere in the 2020 election for his own political gain.

"Americans deserve free and fair elections. He must be held accountable."

In response, WSJ's Kimberley Strassell tweeted:

Make sure family and friends see IG report: Clinton didn't just invite foreign influence in 2016; she paid for it. Her team funneled Russian dossier lies to the FBI, for her political gain. Americans deserve free and fair elections. If only press would hold her accountable.

Don't count on Clintons being held accountable for anything.

And to answer our own question, it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC who used Russian (and Ukrainian) agents, not Trump.

---

It should be no surprise... the fake news media trumpeting their pet candidates is enough to make anyone turn off the "news." But there is someplace you can still get real news. Since 1969, it's delivered real research, the real story from behind the scenes and real analysis — not the "fakenalysis" you see in the lamestream media. So if you want to know what's really happening, and what's coming next, keep reading...

---

McClatchy stands by its Michael Cohen-Prague report

In a story published in April 2018, McClatchy News Service reported that investigators had traced Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen to Prague where he was supposed to have met with Putin operatives on behalf of Trump in August or September of 2016. If true it would have legitimized one portion of the Steele dossier which claimed that Cohen was meeting with Russians on Trump's behalf.

Quoting unnamed sources, the McClatchy report claimed Robert Mueller had obtained "evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier," according to a WaPo analysis looking into how the media handled the Steele dossier in the wake of the IG report.

"Investigators have traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany, apparently during August or early September of 2016 as the ex-spy reported, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is confidential," noted the story. In December 2018, the same reporters caused a stir with their report that Cohen's mobile phone "sent signals ricocheting off cell towers in the Prague area in late summer 2016." Also: An Eastern European intelligence agency, reported the McClatchy team, had eavesdropped on a conversation among Russians, including a comment that Cohen was in Prague.

Mueller denied the report in the days after the McClatchy story ran. But McClatchy stood by the report. Now that the IG report has shot down the entire Steele dossier as having been based on hearsay, bar talk, jokes and nonsense, McClatchy continues to stand by its false reporting.

"Until we have new reporting that tells us our old reporting is wrong, the story stands," notes Jeanne Segal, a spokeswoman for the newspaper chain, in an email to the Erik Wemple Blog.

The Babylon Bee owns Snopes

Not in the financial sense, of course, but in the figurative sense, The Babylon Bee owns the "fact-checking" Snopes site. Snopes often feels the need to "fact-check" The Bee's satirical articles. Well, it's now reached a new level of ridiculous.

Last week The Bee published an article titled "House Dems Unveil Surefire Plan To Get Trump Reelected." The article began:

WASHINGTON, D.C.— House Democrats today announced a new plan to ensure Trump wins the White House again in 2020.

"We hereby unveil these articles of impeachment, which clearly lay out the undeniable fact that we will not win the White House back next year," said Rep. Jerry Nadler. "We have found Trump guilty of absolutely nothing, but we already started this whole process and it would look bad to back out now, so here we are."

"I declare here and now that Trump will be in the White House for at least another four years."

Trump Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis shared the tweet on her timeline, commenting that, "The Bee mocking the Dems: "We have found Trump guilty of absolutely nothing, but we already started this whole process and it would look bad to back out now, so here we are." She included a laughing emoji and three hands-clapping emojis. Trump saw it and retweeted it.

Upon seeing Trump's retweet, the scolds at Snopes emailed the following question to the White House:

"President Trump recently retweeted a post from @JennaEllisEsq containing a fake quote from an entertainment article. Was President Trump aware that this quote was fake when he sent it? If so, why wasn't it accompanied by a message labeling the quote as fiction?"

Dummies. Everyone but the nincompoops at Snopes knows The Bee is just satire.

-- Jay Baker

Chances are the average person thinks "holistic" and "homeopathic" are the same thing. This is intended, since chances are also good that your friendly allopathic doctor thinks all homeopathy is nonsense, as well as holistic (whole body) healing. They want you to think both are equally bunkum.

This is a problem, because people are programmed to listen to their doctors. How many times have you heard "talk to your doctor" in advertisements? It's repeated propaganda so that this is what you'll automatically do.

Homeopathy may be the most suppressed alternative medicine. Conventional doctors don't understand homeopathy, so they're against it.

The traditional medical establishment fears the mainstreaming of alternative medical practices so much that groups of doctors and scientists in Britain, Germany and Australia have asked that universities not allow courses in alternative medicine to be offered.

Learning curve

I am not describing some new development in medicine. Here are the words of Thomas Morgan in a letter to the editor of the Youngstown Vindicator Jan. 27, 1911, in response to a local doctor advocating for the predecessor of what would become the FDA: "The allopathic school of doctors, since the dawn of it its existence, has at all times endeavored to suppress everything new that has come up in the medical line. They are opposed to homeopathy, the eclectic, osteopaths and all methods of drugless healing, including Christian scientists."

I have learned over the years to inquire about whatever treatments establishment medicine opposes. Since we have a drug culture created by the pharmaceutical trust, we can be certain that any non-drug therapy will be vigorously opposed by the Food and Drug Administration and the police power behind it.

What's lost in those mainstream objections: useful information about its effectiveness and safety.

I personally know of and have used a skin cancer cream very successfully. It was distributed by an individual who happened to have an herb formula that was perfect. Well, the FDA health police showed up at her door, asked for her stock and ordered her to cease her distribution of the product. Luckily, I had bought a few containers ahead of time that I gave to people who needed the cream.

Medical therapy

Maybe the most suppressed alternative medicine is homeopathy. A century ago, homeopathy constituted at least half the medical therapy in the United States. But it is non-drug, so it has been systematically suppressed. There is almost a complete ignorance of homeopathy in the United States. Really, it's too simple to believe that it can work.

Most of you who are interested in alternative medicine at least know that the potency (potentization) of homeopathy preparations is inversely determined. This means that the more that solutions are diluted, the more potency of healing they have. I have a hard time understanding this myself.

Homeopathic practice is based on a single law of therapeutics called the Law of Similars. This law states that a substance that can cause the symptoms of a disease can also cure it.

In fact, that is exactly what the word homeopathy means, similar (homeo) suffering (pathy). There are many homeopathic principles used in allopathy, but conventional doctors are oblivious to them.

Homeopathic preparation

The process of preparing homeopathic therapies is puzzling to most medical people simply because they perceive the ultra-dilutions as non-substantive and really nonsense. They believe the ultra-dilutions are so dilute that they cannot possibly contain a single molecule of the original substance, but they are still potent therapeutically — in fact, very potent.

This says two things: One, there is no drug; and two, these preparations are safe. I have never read about anyone being harmed by homeopathic medicine.

I have one big thing going for me. I don't let science or proof get in my way. If something works, nothing else matters to me. I don't have to understand it or even believe it. I am not a good patient for conventional medicine.

The primary and fundamental philosophy of conventional allopathy medicine is harmful. It simply is a drug system of suppressing symptoms. What makes this system work is that it gives temporary relief by suppressing symptoms. Suppressive drugs must be taken again and again. Repeat business builds the drug culture.

Now, do you suppose that the people in the inner sanctums of the drug cartel know how their drugs create repeat business over and over?

For example, dilute hydrochloric acid (HCL) therapy is a nontoxic way of stimulation of individual immune resistance. Isn't this most critical to health?

HCL becomes clinically effective in dilutions of 1:500. This reminds us of homeopathy where the dose is inverse, i.e., the more the dilution, the greater the medicinal value.

The high curative and simulative value of dilute HCL, which is just exactly what we have in our stomachs is what pharmaceuticals seek to destroy for money. How many millions have died because they became hooked on what they thought were harmless antacids?

Some websites for further knowledge:
nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org
medalerts.org
impossiblecure.com
autismone.org
facultyofhomeopathy.org
britishhomeopathic.org

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

P.S. — One of the ways medicine profits most handsomely from you is this: After you "talk to your doctor," they often recommend medical tests and procedures that you don't need and don't want — yes, the PSA test, but even surgery. I found a group of doctors willing to speak out against this money-grabbing scheme. So I put together an urgent report to warn you about the 45 medical procedures you don't need but many doctors prescribe anyway. If you want to avoid them, you can get a copy of this exclusive guide right now.

It's getting late, but there's still time to give the gift of liberty for Christmas. And what better way is there to say "Merry Christmas" to a friend of loved one than giving a gift that not only has physical value but also helps him or her preserve his or her liberty? If you need an idea for that special someone, here are a few:

Knowledge

James Madison once wrote:

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

So how can you give the gift of knowledge? I believe the best and only way to acquire knowledge is to read, read and read some more.

We read voraciously, but we are very selective in our reading. While we follow current events through some daily mainstream publications and by watching the occasional talking "news" reader shows, we don't depend upon them for knowledge because all they feed you is the fake news propaganda their masters want you to know.

Follow them too closely and you remain stuck in a vortex of conventional wisdom. Follow them too closely and you will forever be bound by normalcy bias — that state of mind that prevents one from considering the possibility of a crisis that is outside his or her normal experience.

But there are plenty of options that will help open a person's mind.

The Bob Livingston Letter™ — Since 1969 I have been sharing through my printed newsletter the health, wealth and liberty information that I have discovered in my extensive research. I work hard to uncover the truths that the elites and power brokers don't want you to know. And then I compile it all into an eight-page newsletter each month. Give a subscription to BLL and you've given a gift that keeps on giving long after the holidays have passed. Each issue includes breaking health discoveries your conventional medicine doctor will never tell you about, money-making and money-saving investment tips your broker would never share with you, and privacy and asset protection strategies the government hopes you never learn. You can give a gift subscription of The Bob Livingston Letter here.

History books

Edmund Burke, the British statesman and philosopher and author of "A Vindication of Natural Society," is said to have coined the phrase, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." It's so accurate it's become cliché. So here are a few of my favorite books on American history:

• James Madison and the Making of America by Kevin R. C. Gutzman
• The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution by Brion McClanahan
• Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath edited by George H. Nash.
• Liberty: The God That Failed by Christopher A. Ferrara
• Confessions of an Economic Hitman and the follow-up The Secret History of American Empire: The Truth About Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and How to Change the World both by John Perkins
• The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
• The Civil War by Bruce Catton
• The Political Crisis of the 1850s by Michael F. Holt
• Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley

Money books

Understanding money and how it is created is crucial to understanding how we are losing our liberties. The study of money is a study of tyranny. It makes a mockery out of human freedom, property ownership and the accumulation of wealth. Once we understand money, we then know that any imagined personal freedom that we have is a license or privilege given by the government and taken away by the government. The purpose of money is to transfer wealth from the producers (the people) to the non-producer money creators. Here are a few books to help understand this concept:

• The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin
• End the Fed by Ron Paul
• History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II by Murray N. Rothbard

Health books

We're often asked what health has to do with personal liberty. The answer is simple. If we don't have our health we are figuratively chained to the medical establishment; that is if we are not essentially chained to a bed or chair because of disability or infirmity.

The medical establishment is not interested in your health so much as it is interested in profit. So, we must take charge of our own health and well-being if we are to be free. Here are some recommendations for you:

• Natural Alternatives for Diabetes and Blood Sugar Problems Drug Companies Don't Want You to Know (Most type-2 diabetics don't realize there is no need to remain permanently diabetic. Diabetes is a curable condition. This book tells you how.)
• Surviving Cancer: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding the Causes, Treatments and Big Business Behind Medicine's Most Frightening Diagnosis (Offers advice per type of cancer.)
• Hushed Up Natural Heart Cures and Common Misconceptions of Popular Heart Treatments (Offers advice on how to divest ourselves of traditional medicine "treatments.")
• The Cholesterol Super-Brain, Hidden secret to using your mind's most essential nutrient for optimal brain health, faster thinking and a picture-perfect memory
• The Vitamin D Cure by James E. Dowd, M.D., and Diane Stafford
• The UV Advantage by Michael F. Holick, M.D., Ph.D.
• The Arginine Solution by Robert Fried, Ph.D. and Woodson C. Merrell, M.D.
• A Cancer Answer and Eat to Beat Disease by Catherine J. Frompovich

Silver/gold

This is real money, real wealth and long-term value.

There are three basic reasons to purchase these precious metals: as an investment, as a hedge against inflation or for reasons of survival and barter should the entire economic system collapse.

When buying as an investment, you are betting that the price will rise above the price at which it was bought. Since it doesn't pay dividends, like many stocks do, that is the only way you will see a return on your investment. And silver and gold can't be inflated away like your dollars can be and are.

With silver and gold in a long-term bear market, you must consider whether you are investing short term or long term and whether the price trend will be up or down.

Although their prices have dipped, we happen to believe the long-term trend is up. That's because the market hates uncertainty and Donald Trump's election has created uncertainty, which creates volatility in the market. Uncertainty is good for gold.

If you are buying for survival purposes, then you, as do we, expect the worst and believe that inflation and collapse are inevitable.

There will never be a better time than now to buy silver and gold. Silver is currently selling for a spot price of around $17. That's less than it takes to mine it and mint it, and I think it's the best investment deal out there. I think it's at rock bottom.

Plus, silver has many industrial uses: in photography, technology, medical, defense and electronics. Because of this, there is only about one-sixth the amount of above-ground silver available for use than in 1900. Were silver prices not being manipulated down through the use of "paper" silver, it would easily be several hundred to several thousand dollars per ounce.

Parents and grandparents should buy a silver coin or two and give them as gifts to their children or grandchildren. While you're at it, give them a lesson on sound money so they'll better appreciate the gift.

Gold is still under $1,500 an ounce, and at that price remains a tremendous value.

I recommend buying from a local silver and gold coin dealer. Make sure it is established, has a good Better Business Bureau reputation, and, more importantly, acts as if it values your business. And don't be afraid to shop around for the best price. While the price will be based on the current spot price, some dealers have larger markups than others

Other gifts

• Firearms, ammunition, firearms/tactical training
• Heirloom seeds
• Storage foods

Merry Christmas from the Bob Livingston family!

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™