The Kevin Trudeau Show: 7-7-12
On this weekend’s edition of The Kevin Trudeau Show, Judge Andrew Napolitano stops by to expose why your freedoms are being forfeited by a government that is more protective of its own power than its constitutional promise to preserve your individual liberties. Click here to purchase his new book, Lies The Government Told You.
PLUS, The Water Doctor, Fred Van Liew, discusses John Stossel’s bunko assertions that plastic bottles don’t cause health problems and that tap water is healthy. Click here to save yourself from the toxins lurking in your water supply!
Food:
Junk Food-Addicted Rats Chose to Starve Rather Than Eat Healthy Food
General Bans Booze & Junk Food
Gordon Ramsay Restaurants Uses Pre-Prepared Meals
Customer Flips Over Filet-O-Fish
Drugs:
Antibiotics Linked to Increased Risk of Birth Defects
Study Urges Vitamin D Supplement for Infants
Cholesterol Drug Use Risky For Healthy People
Vitamin B3 Beats Big Pharma’s Cholesterol Drug
Government:
FDA Suppressed Imaging Safety Concerns
Cuban Leader Endorses Obama Health Care Reform
Expert Claims of Livestock Causing Global Warming False
Record Number of Journalists Murdered Last Year
Health:
Papaya is Effective Against Certain Cancers
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!
Trillions To The 99%: Ellen Brown Explains Monetary And Credit Reform
April 16, 2012 by admin
Filed under News Stories
April 17, 2012
Activist Post
By Carl Herman
The first 41 minutes of the video below from Claremont Colleges’ Center for Process Studies’ conference, “Money-Creation in a Finite World,” is Ellen Brown’s presentation to explain how credit and monetary reform causes trillions of dollars in annual benefits for Americans (remainder of the video is panel and audience discussion).
The 99% must achieve factual command of the basic facts how money and credit are created, or else continue their debt-damned existence under an oligarchic and Robber Baron-era structure.
Monetary and credit reform can be understood with three simple areas of facts that are taught in basic economics and easily verified:
The US does not have a money supply; we have its Orwellian opposite as a debt supply. This is because the US leading banks won legal right through passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act to have private banks and the Fed create debt for what we use as money, and then charge the 99% for its use.
The policy choice of a debt supply compounded with interest causes ever-increasing aggregate debt that can never be repaid. It can’t be repaid because this is what we use for money. The US national debt now pushing $16 trillion has a gross annual interest payment over $400 billion a year; $4,000 per US family of $50,000 annual income (if your household earns $100,000, then your gross annual interest payment is approx. $8,000 every year).
Monetary reform creates debt-free money that extinguishes the debt (details here), and allows government to become employer of last resort for infrastructure investment (hard and soft). This creates full-employment, optimal infrastructure, and because infrastructure historically creates more value to the economy than cost, falling overall prices. Credit reform allows for public loans (interest directly pays for public goods/services) as another monetary tool for stable money supply.
Click here for the report and video.
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 5-21-11
On this weekend’s edition of The Kevin Trudeau Show, Judge Andrew Napolitano stops by to expose why your freedoms are being forfeited by a government that is more protective of its own power than its constitutional promise to preserve your individual liberties. Click here to purchase his new book, Lies The Government Told You.
PLUS, The Water Doctor, Fred Van Liew, discusses John Stossel’s bunko assertions that plastic bottles don’t cause health problems and that tap water is healthy. Click here to save yourself from the toxins lurking in your water supply!
Food:
Junk Food-Addicted Rats Chose to Starve Rather Than Eat Healthy Food
General Bans Booze & Junk Food
Gordon Ramsay Restaurants Uses Pre-Prepared Meals
Customer Flips Over Filet-O-Fish
Drugs:
Antibiotics Linked to Increased Risk of Birth Defects
Study Urges Vitamin D Supplement for Infants
Cholesterol Drug Use Risky For Healthy People
Vitamin B3 Beats Big Pharma’s Cholesterol Drug
Government:
FDA Suppressed Imaging Safety Concerns
Cuban Leader Endorses Obama Health Care Reform
Expert Claims of Livestock Causing Global Warming False
Record Number of Journalists Murdered Last Year
Health:
Papaya is Effective Against Certain Cancers
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!
ObamaCare Lies Starting To Surface
September 13, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
September 13, 2010
Yahoo! News
by Erica Werner & Calvin Woodward
President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he’s hemming and hawing on that.
So far, the law he signed earlier this year hasn’t had the desired effect. An analysis from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary this week said that the nation’s health care tab will go up — not down — through 2019 as a result of Obama’s sweeping law, though the increase is modest.
Obama offered some caveats when asked in his news conference Friday about the apparent discrepancy between what he promised and what’s actually happening so far. On several other topics, too, his rhetoric fell short of a full accounting.
A look at some of the claims at his news conference and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Said he never expected to extend insurance coverage to an additional 31 million people “for free.” He added that “we’ve made huge progress” if medical inflation could be brought down to the level of overall inflation, or somewhere slightly above that.
THE FACTS: Those claims may be supported in the fine print of the plan he pitched to Congress and a skeptical public months ago. But they were rarely heard back then. “My proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions — families, businesses and the federal government,” he declared in March.
Last August he predicted: “The American people are going to be glad that we acted to change an unsustainable system so that more people have coverage, we’re bending the cost curve, and we’re getting insurance reforms.”
On Friday, he conceded: “Bending the cost curve on health care is hard to do.” The goal: “Slowly bring down those costs.”
The White House contends that although health care costs will rise when most of the changes take hold in 2014 and coverage is extended to the uninsured, costs will go down over the longer term as controls kick in.
OBAMA: “We took every idea out there about how to reduce or at least slow the costs of health care over time.”
THE FACTS: One idea that most experts believe would do the most to control health costs — directly taxing health benefits — was missing in Obama’s plan. Opposition from unions and others was too great, and Obama himself had campaigned against the idea.
Some of the major cost controllers that did make it into the law — including a tax on high-value insurance plans — don’t start until 2018. That tax was watered down and delayed, and other cost-control approaches also softened after opposition from hospitals and other interest groups.
Health spending already accounts for about 17 percent of the economy and is projected to grow to nearly 20 percent in 2019.
OBAMA: “So these policies of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, of stripping away regulations that protect consumers, running up a record surplus to a record deficit — those policies finally culminated in the worst financial crisis we’ve had since the Great Depression.”
THE FACTS: The president probably meant the broader economic crisis and not the meltdown of the financial industry when he talked about the “financial crisis.” True enough, George W. Bush entered office with a $236 billion budget surplus in 2001, and in January 2009, before Obama was sworn into office, the Congressional Budget Office projected the deficit for the fiscal year 2009 to be $1.2 trillion.
But the surpluses the government foresaw in 2001 were based on a bubble economy that was bound to burst. And the deficit Obama inherited was only partly from Bush’s fiscal policies.
Mostly it was a result of a recession that sapped tax revenues, increased the costs of safety net programs and demanded more government spending to stimulate the economy. As recently as 2007, the budget deficit was just $161.5 billion. The current annual deficit is now an estimated $1.5 trillion.
OBAMA: Asked how he can lecture Afghan President Hamid Karzai about corruption when it’s fueled in part by U.S. aid dollars, Obama said: “I’ve said to my national security team … Let’s be consistent in terms of how we operate across agencies. Let’s make sure that our efforts there are not seen as somehow giving a wink and a nod to corruption.”
THE FACTS: While acknowledging the situation is messy, Obama seemed to minimize it.
“Are there going to be occasions where we look and see that some of our folks on the ground have made compromises with people who are known to have engaged in corruption?” he asked. “You know, we’re reviewing all that constantly and there may be occasions where that happens.”
The United States spends more than $100 billion annually in Afghanistan, the world’s second-poorest nation and one of the most corrupt. U.S. officials acknowledge that a significant percentage of the U.S. bankroll enriches shady characters even as it may finance worthy projects, or is stolen outright.
The CIA has paid Afghan warlords and power brokers for years, relying on them as informants and as leverage in the country’s internal ethnic and tribal squabbles. Intelligence officials say payouts are cheap insurance, but development officials and diplomats say the money supports a culture of bribery.
Obama pledged to keep up pressure on Karzai. The Afghan leader recently intervened to free a presidential aide arrested on suspicion of soliciting a bribe. U.S. investigators played a central role in fingering the aide.
Click here to read the full report
Whites, Independent Give Up On Obama
July 21, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
July 21, 2010
The Wall Street Journal
By: Peter A. Brown
It was a year ago this month that President Barack Obama began losing voters. In the 12 months since, he has had legislative victories that appear – especially in the case of health care – to have cost him large amounts of both political capital and political support.
A comparison of the public’s views of him then and now tells us a great deal about the shape of American politics and how difficult it is for any president, even one as politically gifted as Barack Obama, to surmount the nation’s deep political and ideological divisions.
Mr. Obama won a surprisingly easy victory in 2008, carrying 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes – along with Bill Clinton in 1996, the biggest Democratic presidential win since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide.
Candidate Obama promised “change we can believe in,” a post-partisan, problem-solving presidency that would heal the nation’s yawning political divide. By the time he was inaugurated in January 2009, Mr. Obama had stratospheric public approval ratings, heightened by many who had voted against him but decided to give him a chance despite their misgivings.
For the first six months of his presidency, Mr. Obama retained vigorous public support – until he tried to translate into legislation his promise to “reform” health care, which, it turned out, meant different things to different voters. In July 2009, the demonstrations against the Obama health care plan reached critical mass and began to deflate the president’s poll numbers, and that continues today.
Skepticism About the Government’s Role
The U.S. economy has continued to flounder, and surely that is part of the reason for the president’s decreased standing. But the disillusionment with the president’s handling of the economy stems from the same public skepticism about the role of government in economic policy as in health care.
Quinnipiac University today released a national poll of 2,181 registered voters, almost twice the size of most national polls. (It has a margin of error of 2.1 percentage points.) It showed President Obama’s net job approval rating at its lowest point ever – 44% approve, 48% disapprove.
In July 2009, Quinnipiac’s national poll had the president with 57% approve, 33% disapprove.
The decline in Mr. Obama’s support over the past year has been across the-board, with the largest decreases being among whites, older voters, political independents and men.
Some of it was to be expected. It was unlikely, for instance, that given Mr. Obama’s preference for increased government involvement that he was going to keep the 21% of Republicans who approved of his job performance in July 2009. That figure is now 12% – more than a third lower.
Losing Faith in Obama
So, too, went white, evangelical Christians, perhaps the largest GOP constituency group. In July 2009, 35% said they approved of Mr. Obama’s job performance. Today, that figure has been cut almost in half – to 19%.
If it was just among Republicans and their ideological allies that the president was losing support that would not represent a serious political threat.
What is most problematic for the president is the drop among whites, men and political independents. Those demographic groups gave him greater support in 2008 than they had most Democratic presidential candidates over the past few decades.
Simply put, when Democrats carry or are competitive among whites, independents and men, they win the White House.
When they don’t, they don’t.
Winning the White House
On Election Day 2008, much was made of the increased turnout that Mr. Obama inspired among young voters and African-Americans, and to be sure that fattened his margin. But he won the White House because, the exit polling showed, he got 49% of men, 43% of whites and 52% of independents. Each of these three groups individually makes up a larger share of the electorate than blacks and young people combined.
In July 2009, President Obama had actually grown that support so that he was getting a thumbs-up job approval from 54% of men, 51% of whites and 52% of independents.
But today, the numbers for those three groups show just how far he has fallen. He gets a positive job approval from just 37% of whites, 38% of independents and 39% of men – a roughly 30% drop in all three groups in his support.
And the bleeding has spread to his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. In July 2009, voters said by 42%-34% that they would back a Democrat for Congress; today, they said they prefer a Republican, 43%-38%. The drop-off among the various demographic groups is similar to that for the president.
All of which suggests the last year has convinced an awful lot of the folks who hadn’t voted Democratic for president in some time before supporting President Obama to rethink their politics with an eye toward returning to their political roots.
click here to read full article
Business Groups Air Policy Concerns
July 14, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
July 14, 2010
The Wall Street Journal
By: Elizabeth Williamson
Washington’s major business groups plan a united front Wednesday in their confrontation with the Obama administration over economic policy, calling on the White House to cut taxes and curb its regulatory agenda.
Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Federation of Independent Businesses will air a list of concerns about government policy at a “Jobs for America Summit” at the Chamber’s offices Wednesday.
The Chamber will issue an open letter to President Barack Obama asking that the administration cut taxes, act on pledges to expand export markets, and streamline government rules, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Wall Street Journal.
Summit participants include legislators with leadership roles on business-related congressional committees, including Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.); Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.); Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.); and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Also attending from the administration side are Erskine Bowles, President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson (R)—the two men co-chair Mr. Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
“There’s a lot more unanimity than you may have seen over the past year” among business leaders, particularly in their opposition to tax and regulatory policy, said Stan Anderson, executive director of the chamber’s Campaign for Free Enterprise, which promotes its job-creation policies.
“We are not going to engage in a debate over whether the White House is pro- or anti-business. We really want to talk about policy.”
The White House will issue a written response to the chamber’s concerns, an administration official said Tuesday.
The Obama administration, struggling with a 9.5% unemployment rate in a congressional election year, has made a series of economic announcements in recent weeks that have so far failed to quell business groups’ furor.
Mr. Obama last month pledged to renew efforts to move a South Korea free trade agreement through Congress, and to work on treaties with Panama and Colombia. This week, administration officials said they’ve asked business leaders to submit specific regulations that inhibit economic growth, and are open to a broad regulatory review.
In the letter, which was sent to the White House Tuesday, the chamber says this Congress has passed $700 billion in tax increases, and demands that all tax cuts passed in the previous decade be extended, including those to individual, estate, capital gains and alternative minimum taxes. “In one bold, swift move, this would substantially boost investor, business, and consumer confidence,” the letter reads.
To reduce the deficit, the chamber urges the government to trim entitlement spending, expand logging in national forests, and revive inactive leases on oil, gas, and shale reserves.
It urges passage of free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, estimating that 380,000 existing U.S. jobs will be lost to Canada and the European Union should they conclude agreements with the three nations before the U.S. does.
On the regulatory front, “What we’re looking at here is a tsunami of regulations coming online slowly because of legislation that has either been enacted or legislation that people expect in some form will be enacted,” said Bruce Josten, the chamber’s chief lobbyist.
The letter points out that the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with 29 major economic rules (a major rule would have an impact on the economy of at least $100 million) and 173 major policy rules.
Legislation overhauling financial-markets regulation now nearing passage in Congress would create more than 350 rule makings, 47 studies and 74 reports.
“You can find in these numbers a principal reason why businesses are so reluctant to make investments,” the letter reads.
The nation’s biggest business groups have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks, issuing public demands that the administration trim rules, speed trade deals and limit its intervention in private industry.
“I think the concerns have always been aligned but it’s really just a matter of tone and tenor,” said John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which encompasses the nations’ biggest multinationals. Last month the roundtable, usually more friendly to the administration than the chamber, gave the White House a 54-page report detailing policies that it said are inhibiting growth.
Some in the White House express frustration with growing demands from businesses that it do immediately what takes months to accomplish in Congress.
“This economy is in a transitional phase and transitions engender uncertainty,” said Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.
“Addressing the long-term fiscal challenges, as well as the excesses of the financial sector, was essential.”
click here to read full article
The Kevin Trudeau Show: 7-13-10
Today, Kevin gives you the news you won’t hear from the mainstream media and the Editor-In-Chief of Big Government, Mike Flynn, stops by to blow the whistle on government corruption.
Self Help:
Healing Power of Apple Cider Vinegar
Kombucha Tea
Filter Out The Toxins
Flatten Your Stomach
Health:
Junk Food Controls Your Brain
9 Unexpected Things in Drinking Water
Pfizer Alters Study for Epilepsy Drug
Cancer In The Kitchen
Tamiflu Not Proven to Cut Flu Complications
Medically Caused Death in America
Diabetes Drug Increases Cancer Risk
NWO:
Al Gore Knowingly Deceived the Public
Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click BELOW to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
Obama Health Site Promotes Celebrity Vodka
July 1, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
July 1, 2010
Politico
By Sarah Kliff
With HHS’s rollout of a new web portal, HealthCare.Gov, you can investigate health insurance plans and provisions of the new health care law. And for a while, you could also learn some not so health-related information, like that HealthCare.Gov enjoys P. Diddy and Indian politicians.
Alongside the portal that went live last night, HHS launched a Twitter feed at the handle @healthcaregov, and it came with a notably odd list of “favorite tweets,” ranging from pop culture icons to politicians.
Twitter allows users to mark certain tweets as “favorites,” items that they want to hold on to for future reference. The HealthCare.Gov collection was diverse and confusing — all Tweets written well over a year ago, and none having any clear connection to the agency or to health reform.
Click here for the full report.
Rahm Emanuel Expected To Quit White House
June 21, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
June 21, 2010
Telegraph.co.uk
by Alex Spillius
Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to “bang heads together” to get policy pushed through.
Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.
Friends say he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of most high profile jobs in US politics.
“I would bet he will go after the midterms,” said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. “Nobody thinks it’s working but they can’t get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he’ll go.”
An official from the Bill Clinton era said that “no one will be surprised” if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.
It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.
His abrasive style has rubbed some people the wrong way, while there has been frustration among Mr Obama’s closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president’s legislative programme that his background promised.
“It might not be his fault, but the perception is there,” said the consultant, who asked not to be named. “Every vote has been tough, from health care to energy to financial reform.
“Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm’s job.”
There were sharp differences over health care reform, with Mr Emanuel arguing that public hostility about cost should have forced them into producing a scaled down package. Mr Obama and advisers including David Axelrod, the chief strategist, and Valerie Jarrett, a businesswoman and mentor from Chicago, decided to push through with grander legislation anyway.
Mr Emanuel has reportedly told friends that his role as White House chief of staff was “only an eighteen month job” because of its intensity.
Regarded as the most demanding after president, it involves controlling the president’s agenda, enforcing White House message discipline as well as liaising with Congress.
His departure would regarded as another sign of how Mr Obama’s presidency has been far more troubled than expected.
Mr Emanuel has privately expressed a readiness to run for mayor of Chicago, which is also his home town though he was never part of the Obama set and did not endorse the then senator in the Democratic primary in 2008.
That would however depend on Mayor Richard Daley stepping down when he is up for re-election in 2011.
The chief obstacle to taking the White House job originally was doubts about moving his three children from Chicago. According to another former Clinton official, he has let friends know that he is “very sensitive to the idea that he is not a good father for having done this”.
One of Washington’s more colourful characters, Mr Emanuel is the son of Jewish immigrants and was an accomplished ballet dancer at school. He served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defence Force in the 1991 Gulf War.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
What We Have Learned From Bilderberg 2010
June 15, 2010 by admin
Filed under News Stories
June 15, 2010
Guardian
By Charlie Skelton
Weary and bramble-scratched, elated by the press coverage, and sick of riot vans and lukewarm Spanish omelette baguettes, we return from Bilderberg 2010 with the following thoughts uppermost in our tired mind:
• ‘Global cooling’ is on the cards
Check out the agenda for Bilderberg 2010: “Financial reform, security, cyber technology, energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, world food problem, global cooling, social networking, medical science, EU-US relations.” That list is a window into your future. Don’t think for one minute that it isn’t. And don’t ignore it, because it isn’t ignoring you.
I love how “social networking” must fry the Bilderbergian mind. On the one hand, as Zuckerberg of Facebook says, privacy is no longer a social norm so it’s okay to milk the networking sites for information, social trends and dissident thinking; however, you can’t stop the people from arranging a meet-up to discuss internet censorship or the rights and wrongs of “global cooling”. Speaking of which, Bill Gates (Bilderberg 2010) is funding “cloud whitening” technology; trials start soon. Global dimming isn’t just something that happens every time Big Brother starts. On the basis of this agenda, I think we can expect a lot of statements about cutting-edge cloud-technology trials in the next 12 months. If it works in Dubai, it can work in Britain too…
• You can’t keep a good story down
If I had to pick the point when Bilderberg finally broke through into mainstream news, it would be when the BBC News Blog published a round-up of Bilderberg reports. Twelve months ago, this would have been barely conceivable. This year, Kissinger must be spitting chips.
• People love their ‘leaders’
I know this sounds peculiar, or at least it does to me, but this year’s Bilderbloggings have quite commonly been met with outrage at the idea that we should submit Bilderberg to greater scrutiny. You hear people talk about the delegates at Bilderberg as their “leaders”, and you see the delegates mythologised as the greatest and the best – whose benign Olympian machinations should progress untroubled by the interference of public and press. “Leaders” like the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, and the chairman of Kissinger Associates Inc.
I’m baffled to the point of punching tree trunks to witness the determination of some folk to throw themselves in front of these heads of corporations and presidents of banks and to wave their arms protectively, yelping: “Leave them alone! Let them strategise for the good of the world in peace! How could they possibly have a frank discussion with our politicians if we were privy to it? Stop this unseemly prying!” I mean, seriously. The day that Marcus Agius, chairman of Barclays, strategises for my good is the day he repays me the hundreds of pounds of bank charges he’s been levying on me since my schooldays. The day that Peter Voser, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, sits around a table with the express concern of making the world a better, more beautiful place for all of us, is the day that my arse grows teeth and eats my hat.
