US News

World Renowned Trend Forecaster Gerald Celente: “America Is A Collapsing Third World Country”

Posted on Updated on

by Mac Slavo


“This is the way police behave in third-world nations”

Gerald Celente – Trends Research Institute

(Watch both parts of this interview)

Gerald Celente is one of world’s most renowned trend forecasters and in his latest interview he explains, among other things, why the United States is seeing such a heavy militarization of its police forces. The trend, according to Celente who predicted an increase in police brutality in the 1990’s, will continue because America as we have come to know it is in the midst of an epic collapse, and one that will soon require all of those heavily armed law enforcement and military personnel to take to the streets to subdue a population that has been impoverished and forced into an existence of indentured servitude:

It’s cops gone wild because the nation has gone wild… the nation can only think of war and slaughter…

The militarization of America… When you bring it all together it’s a collapsing third world country… That’s the way police behave in third world nations…

The government of the USA obviously sees the writing on the wall. They know the system will soon come unhinged. And that’s why Celente makes it clear that those who want to thrive while everything around them falls apart need to be focusing on physical asset acquisition. And while some investors out there are focusing on how to make money on their next trade, Celente says forget about short-term trading, and focus instead on value and long-term investments.

I never dreamt of anything called quantitative easing… how would i know? They made it up… So that’s the manipulation… You get them wrong in the short-term, sometimes, but the total picture doesn’t change…

On the grander scale you can see where it’s going and you prepare for it accordingly.

So, I don’t trade gold. I buy gold.

I don’t flip real estate. I buy real estate. 

So I’m not a trader. I’m a long-term investor.

Food and water [are the biggest trends of the next decade.]

As the global debt bubble bursts and economies collapse the thing that have real value – physical assets – will skyrocket in value. Food, resource-rich land, and gold will be in high demand, as has always been the case during times of crisis.

That’s why well known investors like strategic analyst Marin Katusa have spent the last decade directing investors and those concerned with the future global landscape to such assets. Katusa, formerly of Casey Research and now the Chief Executive of his own investment firm with over a billion dollars raised in the resource sector alone, explains that despite the challenges we face going forward, there is serious opportunity for those who are willing to look at investments that are often ignored by mainstream firms:

It’s not sexy like Silicone Valley… But look, the reality is the world needs stuff… It may not meet our immediate attention deficit disorder portfolios… but I am very bullish.

Katusa, known for his positive outlook even in times of distress, shares his well informed insights, strategies and recommendations in the following interview with Future Money Trends.

If the trend is that our nation is being fundamentally transformed into third-world status, then it’s time to prepare accordingly:

(Watch at Future Money Trends)


Militarization Is More Than Tanks and Rifles: It’s a Cultural Disease, Acclimating the Citizenry to Life in a Police State

Posted on Updated on



“If we’re training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve. A soldier’s mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers to have that mentality? Of course not.”— Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member of the military

Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it’s brilliant timing.

Only now—after the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense have passed off billions of dollars worth of military equipment to local police forces, after police agencies have been trained in the fine art of war, after SWAT team raids have swelled in number to more than 80,000 a year, after it has become second nature for local police to look and act like soldiers, after communities have become acclimated to the presence of militarized police patrolling their streets, after Americans have been taught compliance at the end of a police gun or taser, after lower income neighborhoods have been transformed into war zones, after hundreds if not thousands of unarmed Americans have lost their lives at the hands of police who shoot first and ask questions later, after a whole generation of young Americans has learned to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates—only now does President Obama lift a hand to limit the number of military weapons being passed along to local police departments.

Not all, mind you, just some.

Talk about too little, too late.

Months after the White House defended a federal program that distributed $18 billion worth of military equipment to local police, Obama has announced that he will ban the federal government from providing local police departments with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms and large-caliber firearms.

Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo more training and collect data on the equipment’s use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to “incentivize police departments to adopt the report’s recommendations.”

While this is a grossly overdue first step of sorts, it is nevertheless a first step from an administration that has beenutterly complicit in accelerating the transformation of America’s police forces into extensions of the military. Indeed, as investigative journalist Radley Balko points out, while the Obama administration has said all the right things about the need to scale back on a battlefield mindset, it has done all the wrong things to perpetuate the problem:

  • distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
  • provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
  • redefined “community policing” to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT teams,
  • encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of “contractors that now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,”
  • ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target “medical marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,”
  • defended as “reasonable” aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house based on a mistaken license plate,
  • and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents can “accuse” of being connected to a crime.

It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama’s part, coming in the midst of heightened tensions between the nation’s police forces and the populace they’re supposed to protect, opens the door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further acclimating the populace to life in a police state.

Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted upon us. In fact, Obama’s belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity. And it certainly fails to recognize the terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy, and our freedoms as a result of the government’s determination to bring the war home.

Will the young black man guilty of nothing more than running away from brutish police officers be any safer in the wake of Obama’s edict? It’s unlikely.

Will the old man reaching for his cane have a lesser chance of being shot? It’s doubtful.

Will the little girl asleep under her princess blanket live to see adulthood when a SWAT team crashes through her door? I wouldn’t count on it.

It’s a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama’s pronouncement and the release of his “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life in the American police state will become even more perilous.

Among the report’s 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on the ground, training for police “on the importance of de-escalation of force,” and “positive non-enforcement activities” in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as sending an ice cream truck across the city.

Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama’s authority as president. And while the word “constitutional” is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report notes: “Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to crime.”

Translation: as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our everyday activities will be even more invasive.

This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to “gift” local police agencies with military weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray devices and fusion centers are all funded by grants from the DHS. Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.

If you’re noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into a national police force that answers not to “we the people” but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community.

So where does that leave us?

There’s certainly no harm in embarking on a national dialogue on the dangers of militarized police, but if that’s all it amounts to—words that sound good on paper and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms—then we’re just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.

Despite the Obama Administration’s lofty claims of wanting to “ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice,” this is the reality we must contend with right now:

Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through our doors, or police officers who shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still no longer innocent until proven guilty. Americans still don’t have a right to private property. Americans are stillpowerless in the face of militarized police. Americans still don’t have a right to bodily integrity. Americans still don’t have a right to the expectation of privacy. Americans are still being acclimated to a police state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed at reassuring the public that the police are our “friends.” And to top it all off, Americans still can’t rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when our rights are violated by police.

To sum it all up: the problems we’re grappling with have been building for more than 40 years. They’re not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish the same results—i.e., maintain the government’s power, control and wealth at all costs.

This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.


Does George Soros Control the Obama White House?

Posted on Updated on

Strategic Culture
by Wayne MADSEN

Five major banks agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for manipulating the exchange rates of U.S. dollars and euros. The banks were Citicorp, J.P. Morgan Chase, Barclays, Bank of America, and the Royal Bank of Scotland. A sixth bank, UBS Group, agreed to plead guilty to manipulating interest rates after the Justice Department granted it immunity on the exchange rate criminal charges. The banks will pay an estimated $5.8 billion in fines to the United States. However, only corporations were charged criminally. Not one individual banking executive was indicted in the currency manipulation scam. 

The reason for no personal indictments is simple. George Soros, the man who opened up his checkbook in 2008 and 2012 for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and is estimated to have poured millions of dollars into Obama’s coffers, made his hundreds of billions of dollars primarily from the same type of international currency manipulation that landed the five banks into trouble. Had Attorney General Loretta Lynch sought indictments against banking executives, any defense lawyer worth his or her salt would have brought up the fact that Soros, Obama’s «money bags», had evaded prosecution for the very same crimes for decades. The cries of uneven application of the law would have been shouted from defense tables at U.S. court houses around the United States.

Soros’s currency manipulation scheming saw its heyday during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. It was during a time when Soros’s friend, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. Although Soros’s currency exchange scams rocked stock exchanges around the Pacific Rim, there was no attempt by Clinton’s Justice Department to indict Soros, an emigré from Hungary, to justice. One of the worst-hit countries from Soros’s currency manipulation was Malaysia, which saw its ringgit plummet in value. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed thundered that Soros was part of an international Jewish bankers’ conspiracy to attack the Malaysian economy. Mohamed said, «We do not want to say that this is a plot by the Jews, but in reality it is a Jew who triggered the currency plunge, and coincidentally Soros is a Jew.» Mohamed was condemned for «anti-Semitic» remarks but he was not the only leader to charge Soros with the very same currency speculation that recently landed the «Big 6» banks into criminal trouble. Soros’s short-selling the Thai baht resulted in the government of Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh calling Soros an «economic war criminal.»

In 1992, Soros dumped £10 billion based on insider information that the pound would be devalued after Britain’s withdrawal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Soros became known as «the Man who broke the Bank of England.» Soros’s attack on pound sterling caused the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, to borrow £15 billion with an overall cost to Her Majesty’s Treasury of £3.4 billion. A few years earlier, in 1988, Soros was convicted of insider trading by the French Bourse regulatory authority. Soros had enough insider information that it enabled him to buy sizable chunks of the shares of four major French companies: Société Générale, Indo-Suez Bank, Paribas, and the Compagnie Générale d’Électricité. Soros’s conviction on insider trading was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2006 and the multi-billionaire’s appeal of its earlier decision was rejected in 2011.

Soros’s influence not only extends over the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute individual bankers for currency manipulation but also Obama’s foreign policy. Soros’s Open Society Institute and Foundation, as well as his generous gift, some would say bribe, of $100 million to Human Rights Watch and his sponsorship, along with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), of a number of Eastern and Central European front organizations has given the global hedge fund tycoon an inordinate amount of influence over U.S. foreign policy. Soros’s fingerprints on manipulation of political parties, media organizations and web sites, «civil society» groups, and governments, sometimes accomplished in league with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the operations of which Soros inherited from the Central Intelligence Agency, can be seen in «color revolutions» from Georgia and Ukraine to Macedonia and Serbia.

Soros has supported the independence of Kosovo, the U.S. and NATO protectorate that recently launched terrorist attacks on neighboring Macedonia from its soil. Kosovo and its U.S. military base at Camp Bondsteel serve as logistics points for the allegedly banned Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), of which Kosovo Foreign Minister Hashim Thaci was once the chief, to attempt to stir up ethnic Albanians who are working with the Soros-funded opposition to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.

The United States, perhaps representing the interests of Soros and his cabal of «democracy manipulators», was quiet as Macedonia discovered U.S. passports among the dead KLA terrorists found after their foray from Kosovo into the Macedonian town of Kumanovo. The recent attempt to force a revolution in Macedonia was not without the familiar Soros «theme.» As anti-government protesters teemed through the central square of Skopje, a female employee of the Soros-financed Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Macedonia applied a heavy amount of red lipstick on herself and then proceeded to plant a kiss on the riot shield of a policeman. The attempt to stage a Kiev-like «Maidan Revolution» in Skopje became known as the «Lipstick Revolution» as Soros-financed media transmitted the photograph of the kiss imprint to web sites and news organizations around the world. In every case where the Soros organization engages in «democracy manipulation», the Obama-appointed U.S. ambassadors are willing accomplices. This was the case in Kiev with Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt – and his boss and friend Victoria Nuland, the chief of the State Department’s Europe/Eurasia bureau — in Skopje with Ambassador Jess Baily, and in a number of other countries, from Algeria to Zimbabwe and Mongolia to Moldova.

Soros is a supporter of U.S. and European Union economic sanctions on Russia. However, Soros is also a keen manipulator of economic crises and he has taken advantage of artificial crisis brought about by Western sanctions against Russia to make money on investments designed to bypass Russian gas pipeline projects, such as the Turkish Stream project that is to bring gas from Russia to Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary. Soros’s financial support for the «Lipstick revolutionaries» in Macedonia is a clear attempt to dislodge that country from the Turkish Stream deal. Meanwhile, Soros and his close friend and business associate, Nathaniel Rothschild, have virtually purchased the nation of Montenegro, which, along with Croatia, are being dangled as alternate source of gas from U.S. tankers distributing it from new offshore gas terminals to be built in the Adriatic Sea. Oil and gas exploration companies, in which Soros has vested interests, are drilling in pristine Montenegro and Croatian waters. With Mr. Soros, the so-called defender of freedom, liberty, and the environment, comes phony staged revolutions, inter-ethnic bloodshed and civil wars, and the specter of off-shore platforms, fossil fuel marine terminals, supertankers polluting idyllic maritime regions, from the Adriatic coast to the Gulf of Mexico and the Alaskan Arctic North to Alberta prairies.

Soros’s domination of the Obama administration can be seen in Obama’s selections for not only Cabinet-level positions but, more importantly, in the secondary and tertiary levels of government where policy is produced. It is at these levels where Soros’s minions concoct foreign, economic, and defense policies that are indistinguishable from those of Soros. However, the Justice Department dared not indict individual bankers for currency manipulation. Had it done so, it would have also had to indict its true master, Mr. Soros.

Strategic Culture

What A Cashless Society Would Look Like

Posted on Updated on

Zero Hedge
by Erico Matias Tavares


Calls by various mainstream economists to ban cash transactions seem to be getting ever more louder.

Bills and coins account for about 10% of M2 monetary aggregates (currency plus very liquid bank deposits) in the US and the Eurozone. Presumably the goal of this policy is to bring this percentage down to zero. In other words, eliminate your right to keep your purchasing power in paper currency.

By forcing people and companies to convert their paper money into bank deposits, the hope is that they can be persuaded (coerced?) to spend that money rather than save it because those deposits will carry considerable costs (negative interest rates and/or fees).

This in turn could boost consumption, GDP and inflation to pay for the massive debts we have accumulated (leaving aside the very controversial idea that citizens should now have to pay for the privilege of holding their hard earned money in a more liquid form, after it has already been taxed). So at long last we can finally get out of the current economic funk.

The US adopted a policy with similar goals in the 1930s, eliminating its citizens’ right to own gold so they could no longer “hoard” it. At that time the US was in the gold standard so the goal was to restrict gold. Now that we are all in a “paper” standard the goal is to restrict paper.

However, while some economic benefits may arguably accrue in the short-run, this needs to be balanced in relation to some serious distortions that could rapidly develop beyond that.

Pros and Cons

To be most effective, banning cash would most likely need to be coordinated between the US and the EU. Otherwise if only one of the two Western economic blocks were to do it, the citizens of that block might start using the paper currency of the other, thereby circumventing the restrictions of this policy. Can’t settle your purchase in paper euros? No problem, we’ll take US dollar bills.

This is just one aspect that can give us a glimpse of the wide ranging consequences this policy would have. Let’s quickly consider some pros and cons, as we see them:


  • Enhance the tax base, as most / all transactions in the economy could now be traced by the government;
  • Substantially constrain the parallel economy, particularly in illicit activities;
  • Force people to convert their savings into consumption and/or investment, thereby providing a boost to GDP and employment;
  • Foster the adoption of new wireless / cashless technologies.


  • The government loses an important alternative to pay for its debts, namely by printing true-to-the-letter paper money. This is why Greece may have to leave the euro, since its inability or unwillingness to adopt more austerity measures, a precondition to secure more euro loans, will force it to print drachma bills to pay for its debts;
  • Paper money costs you nothing to hold and carries no incremental risk (other than physical theft); converting it into bank deposits will cost you fees (and likely earn a negative interest) and expose you to a substantial loss if the bank goes under. After all, you are giving up currency directly backed by the central bank for currency backed by your local bank;
  • This could have grave consequences for retirees, many of whom are incapable of transacting using plastic. Not to mention that they will disproportionately bear the costs of having to hold their liquid savings entirely in a (costly) bank account;
  • Ditto for very poor people, many of whom don’t have access to the banking system; this will only make them more dependent, in fact exclusively dependent, on government handouts;
  • We wonder if the banks would actually like to deal with the administrative hassle of handling millions of very small cash transactions and related customer queries;
  • Illegal immigrants would be out of a job very quickly – a figure that can reach millions in the US, creating the risk for substantial social unrest;
  • If there is an event that disrupts electronic transactions (e.g. extensive power outage, cyberattack, cascading bank failures) people in that economy will not be able to transact and everything will grind to a halt;
  • Of course enforcing a government mandate to ban cash transactions must carry penalties. This in turns means more regulations, disclosure requirements and compliance costs, potentially exorbitant fees and even jail time;
  • Banning cash transactions might even propel the demise of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The share of US dollar bills held abroad has been estimated to be as high as 70% (according to a 1996 report by the US Federal Reserve). One thing is to limit the choices of your own citizens; another is trying to force this policy onto others, which is much harder. Foreigners would probably dump US dollar bills in a hurry and flock to whichever paper currency that can offer comparable liquidity.

In light of the foregoing does banning cash transactions make sense to you? Aren’t the risks at all levels of society just too large to be disregarded?

Unintended Consequences

Paper money can be thought of as a form of interest-free government borrowing and therefore as a saving to the taxpayer. Given the dire situation of Western government finances, probably the very last thing we should do right now is to ban cash transactions.

Think about it. If the government prints bills and coins to settle its debts, rather than issuing bonds, it does not add to its snowballing debt obligations. Of course the counterargument is that this might result in significant inflation once politicians put their hands directly on the printing press. But isn’t this what the mainstream economists are so desperately trying to do to avoid deflation?

And it’s not like people in the West have tons of cash under the mattress. Let’s do the math. If only 30% of US paper money is held by residents, this is only about 2% of GDP, and probably unevenly distributed. It is therefore very dubious that any boost to economic activity will be that significant. In fact there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates this policy will work as intended (not that this has ever stopped a mainstream economist)

Moreover, an economy’s ability to create money would be even more impaired if its banking system were to crash – exactly at the time when it would need it the most. In reality it could be hugely deflationary because there would be no other currency alternatives. Talk about unintended consequences.

As to who could replace the US in providing paper liquidity to the world, we don’t need to think too hard. China will surely not ban cash transactions given that almost a billion of its citizens are still quite poor and most have no access to banking services (plus it seems that their own economic advisors are much more sensible). Replacing the US in offshore cash transactions would create substantial demand for the Chinese yuan, at that stage without any real competition from other major economies as presumably none would be using paper.

It is therefore doubtful that US political leaders would ever endorse such a policy; they would be effectively giving up on an incredible advantage – the US dollar ATM, to the benefit of their main geopolitical competitors. However, given the considerable influence of mainstream economists in financial and political circles this cannot be ruled out, especially during a crisis.

And it would be just the latest in a set of unprecedented economic policies:

“A depression is coming? Let’s put interest rates at zero. The economy is still in trouble? Let’s have the central bank print trillions in new securities. The banks are not lending? Let’s change the accounting rules and offer government guarantees and funds. People are still not spending? Let’s have negative interest rates. The economy is still in the tank? LET’S BAN CASH TRANSACTIONS!”

More Central Planning

The problem is that central planners never know how and where to stop. If a policy doesn’t work, they just find a way to tinker somewhere else – and with more vigor. Devolving the initiative back to the private sector is never an option.

Micromanagement of every single detail of our economic lives thus seems to be inevitable. And at that point there will be no more free markets. As pointed out by Friedrich von Hayek, “the more the state plans the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.”

Banning cash transactions seems like yet another excuse to postpone implementing real solutions to our financial problems. How can we have sustainable growth in the economy if:

  • The banks are not solid enough to lend?
  • Consumers are not solid enough to borrow?
  • Overindebted municipalities, states and governments seek ever more tax revenues?
  • An already overburdened private sector is underwriting the cost of every policy error?

The guys and gals who generate real wealth and employment need encouragement and support, not more penalties on how they choose to go about their business.

A cash ban does not address any substantive issues. What is needed is a sensible economic proposal and above all political courage to implement it, which so far seems to be lacking.

There are no free lunches in economics. A cashless society is promising to have very tangible costs to our liberties and future prosperity.

Via Sinclair & Co.

Here We Stand, One Step Away from a Dictatorship: “The Groundwork and Foundation Have Been Put Into Place”

Posted on Updated on

by Jeremiah Johnson

“A dictatorship was impossible in our Republic because power was widely diffused.  Today, as we approach Democratic Socialism, all power is being centralized at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government.  This concentration of power makes a dictatorship inevitable.”

(Gary Allen, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy,” page 34)

dictatorship-in-americaThe aforementioned quote and book were written in 1971.  Good Day to you, SHTF readers.  This article is going to mention some of the “finer points” utilized by the executive branch (Obama) toward the totalitarian end-state he desires.  The end state of slavery he erroneously (and intentionally) labels a “fundamental transformation.”  Keep these points in mind, as we mentioned in the last article that Jade Helm is (as you readers also agree) a precursor for some unknown nefarious act to take place in the near future.

The Executive Order is a presidential directive that holds the force of law once it is published in the Federal Register.  Now the United States has been continuously placed in a “state of emergency” since 1933.  The War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933 has enabled all successive presidents to usurp powers normally designated to the legislative branch.  Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1862, flagrantly disregarding Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution that states a person may not be imprisoned without due process on a whim of the government.

In 1937, the courts in the case of U.S. vs. Belmont ruled that executive agreements do not require the consensus of other branches of the government to be enacted.  On March 23, 2005, George Bush Jr. entered into a treaty with Canada and Mexico in which the president of the U.S. is allowed to use troops from those countries to stop an uprising or political unrest…in the U.S.  The treaty was signed without the approval of Congress and via executive order.

Readers, I have read your comments and we see the writing on the wall for what it is!  What reason for all of these different laws and executive orders if not to bring to bear the whole weight of the U.S. government against the American people?  It is poised and ready, just waiting for the right moment to be unleashed.

December 15, 2011 was when Congress passed the NDAA, which of course was ratified into law by Obama while he vacationed in Hawaii, signed with that “auto-pen-thing,” slipped right into everyone’s New Year’s Eve drink under our noses.  Section 1021 of the NDAA affirms the authority of the President to detain an individual via the Armed Forces of the United States, and this detention without trial until the end of the hostilities. Guess we all better hope Jade Helm doesn’t go “live.”

Section 1031 refers to the U.S. as a “battlefield,” giving the military the green light to act in a “law enforcement” role in the U.S., and this is the death-knell of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that the Warner Defense Act of 2006 had already negated.  We are already well aware of the March 16, 2012 Executive Order Obama signed for National Defense Resources Preparedness, in which every thing that can be eaten, drank, driven, grown….virtually everything in the U.S., including human labor…is now under the authority of Obama and his minions during an “emergency,” whether real, created, or imaginary.

With all that has just been mentioned, there is so much more to it than this.  He must be crafted out of Teflon…nothing sticks to him.  Nothing.  Not Benghazi (or the entire “Arab Spring,” for that matter), not Fast and Furious, not the bin Laden thing where an entire SEAL Team paid the price to keep a lid on the truth (in a Chinook, no less of an ignominy…when have you ever heard of a SEAL team extracted or transported by a Chinook?), and so on ad infinitum.  Nothing sticks to this guy.  Nothing.

Make no mistake about it; the groundwork and foundation have been put into place.  The NDAA is there, all primed and ready to be used against us, the American citizens.  The EO’s are all in place to confiscate our resources and to force us into internment camps to perform forced labor for KBR (Kellogg, Brown, and Root) under the supervision of the Internment Specialist MOS of the U.S. Army.  The police departments, local and state, have effectively been federalized by the dangling of the carrot (federal funds) in front of the jackasses (the state governors and their respective state legislatures).

Now all that the regime needs is a good false flag, or the conversion of an existing problem into something cataclysmic. A war, or an economic collapse would be good triggers.  Make no mistake, guys and gals, we are right on the edge.  All it will take is a small shove and we’ll pass over the tipping point.  The point is that the propaganda and the conditioning of the public consciousness to accept martial law are well under way.  The “for your own safety” and “in the interests of the nation/national security/public good,” etc., slogans are going to be the keys to their pulling the trigger on a martial law scenario.

Every day the envelope is pushed just a little further.  It is also quite obvious there are much larger forces that pull the strings of Obama: the globalists so desirous of their world government.  The UN and other foreign forces, backed by the thieves of the IMF and the World Bank are slavering with anticipation of the United States giving away its own sovereignty and becoming another “district” in their version of “the Hunger Games.” I submit to you that the actions this regime has taken toward the American people is nefarious and evil because it cannot answer the question “why” for any of its actions with any legitimacy.  There is no reason that has been given that justifies any of the things done by either the administration or its bureaucratic fiefdoms.

Why would DHS need billions of hollow point rounds for paper targets?  Why would MRAP’s and other armored personnel carriers be sent to towns akin to Gomer Pyle’s Mayberry?  Why are all of these military maneuvers being carried out on American soil in populated areas?  Why is all of the hardware…tanks, artillery, etc., being shipped all over the U.S.?

The answer to all of them, good Readers, is that we are now in a “soft” tyranny.  It will morph into something much harder, and the only unanswered question is “when” that tyranny will fully flower.  Let’s open up the dialogue.  The comments have been great: in-depth and thought provoking.  I ask you to present your prognosis and your ideas about where we are and where we’re going, both short and long term.  Also, I’m trying to answer as many of you back as possible, so please don’t be offended if I haven’t answered yours right away.  I’m reading each and every one of them; they’re that important to me, and I hope they are important to you (one another) as a group.

Stay alert and frosty, and keep up the good work.  Have a great day!


Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at


Engineering The Climate To Control Populations

Posted on Updated on

Geoengineering Watch
by Dane Wigington


Climate engineering is the most powerful and most utilized weapon of the western power structure to destabilize and topple the countries and governments around the globe which it wishes to control. Geoengineering is a primary tool that has been used to help force nations to allow US or NATO occupation. The military industrial complex has always sought to “control the weather”.


US/NATO occupation of the Middle East

How many countries have US military boots on the ground? There are at least 156 US occupied countries around the globe with some 900 bases. Does anyone really believe that all these countries just wanted the US to occupy them? Is it a coincidence that many if not most of these countries endured some sort of climate cataclysm prior to the occupation being allowed? How many countries in Africa were subjected to record drought before being destabilized and occupied? Occupations that often began under “humanitarian” pretexts due to climate catastrophes?

What about the Middle Eastern countries that have recently been destabilized? Many of these countries were not cooperating with the US agenda before they experienced record drought, is there a connection? Record drought in Syria preceded the recent destabilization, was weather warfare used to help trigger the ongoing civil war


 Syrian Civil War

How about Iraq, were they also a target of weather warfare to help trigger destabilization? Was the record drought in Iraq during the years prior to the invasion in 2003 a natural occurence? Or was it also engineered? Were there plans to invade Iraq years ahead of time? If available data is examined, the answer is inarguably yes. The invasion of Iraq was planned well before the events of 911.

How many know there has been a crop destroying drought in Russia and Ukraine? Just another coincidence? Certainly the whole world understands that Iran is also a current primary target for the western power structure, is it just bad luck for Iran that there is record drought there, too? Does anyone in the US even know that the leaders from Iran have been on the floor of the UN openly stating that the western powers are causing the record drought with climate modification? Pakistan showed resistance to US policy in 2010, were the record floods that occurred there later the same year just an act of nature? Or were other forces in play?

How are things in South America? Certainly we all know how the US power structure is constantly complaining about the BRIC countries. Brazil and Venezuela have been a source of aggravation for our government for a very long time. Brazil is experiencing devastating record drought, and yes, so is Venezuela.


Catastrophic drought in South America

I could go on and on about the countries that have been victims of the US/NATO weather warfare juggernaut of biosphere destruction, but let’s now consider the catastrophic and unprecedented drought being engineered in the US West, should we ask ourselves what agendas are now being carried out on the US population? The laws of physics make clear that a warming world should bring more rain overall, the atmosphere can carry 7% more moisture for every degree of additional warming. Why is there so much drought in so many countries around the world when the laws of physics state there should be more overall rainfall on a warming planet, not less? 

Global water shortages

Now it seems that the power structure is sending us the message that they know the drought in the US West is only going to get worse. In fact NASA has recently stated on the record that the western US states can expect “megadroughts” in the coming decades, how do they know this? NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has recently stated that even with a potential record el nino event, there will be no relief for the completely parched state of California. Since when does El Niño not bring more rain to the West? How does NOAA know this? The heat and drought in California has destroyed all previous records.

It is important to remember that defense contractor Raytheon (which is involved in geoengineering programs) does the weather modeling for NOAA and the National Weather Service. Lockheed Martin (another defense contractor involved in weather modification) supplies the weather modeling for the FAA. The weather “predictions” are nothing more than the scheduled weather. 5 Western states are close to running out of water, Lake Mead is is at record low levels. The states most affected by the engineered record drought are also the stated location of the upcoming “Jade Helm” military exercises, another coincidence perhaps? The global power structure is playing every card they have, they are moving their chess pieces into place rapidly as they prepare for total societal collapse. Climate engineering/weather warfare is being used as a primary method to control populations around the globe. The highly toxic fallout from geoengineering is also rapidly sickening global populations thus making them easier to control. US citizens must wake up. Our brothers and sisters in the US military must also wake up, the stakes could not be higher.

Geoengineering Watch

El Gobierno Admite Que las Personas en Estados Unidos Han Tomado Sobredosis de Fluoruro

Posted on Updated on
Por el Dr. Mercola
Available in English

El gobierno de los Estados Unidos finalmente admitió que han dado dosis exageradas de fluoruro a las personas que viven en los Estados Unidos, y por primera vez desde 1962, están disminuyendo el nivel recomendado de fluoruro en el agua potable.1,2,3

Alrededor del 40 por ciento de los adolescentes que viven en los Estados Unidos tienen fluorosis dental,4 una condición que hace referencia a los cambios en la apariencia y el esmalte de los dientes – desde líneas de aspecto calcáreas hasta manchas oscuras y picaduras – causadas por el consumo a largo plazo de fluoruro durante el tiempo en que los dientes se están formando.

En algunas zonas, las tasas de fluorosis son tan altas hasta un 70 a 80 por ciento, con algunos niños que sufren de formas avanzadas.

La recomendación anterior pidió un nivel de fluoruro de 0.7 a 1.2 miligramos por litro (ml/l) de agua. El nuevo límite superior establecido por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés) es de 0.7 ml/l, para prevenir estos signos visibles por la sobreexposición tóxica.

¿Por Qué Se Agrega un Medicamento al Agua Cuando la Dosis No Puede Ser Controlada?

Es bastante claro que cuando se agrega fluoruro al agua potable, no se puede controlar la dosis que la gente obtiene, y el fluoruro de hecho no sólo es un mineral no esencial, sino que es un medicamento tóxico. Simplemente esto es una de las razones por las que el fluoruro no debe ser añadido al agua potable en cualquier nivel.

Si un médico de alguna manera se las arregló para forzar a un paciente a tomar un medicamento con efectos tóxicos conocidos y fallo al informarles sobre la dosis y la frecuencia y nunca supervisó sus resultados de salud, serían médicamente negligentes e incurrirían en responsabilidad legal y médica.

Sin embargo, los servicios de agua administran este medicamento sin prescripción médica, a mandato del gobierno, sin ninguna idea de quién se quedará con qué dosis y por cuánto tiempo y sin la vigilancia de los efectos secundarios.

El fluoruro se añade al agua potable, en teoría, para prevenir una enfermedad (caries dental), y como tal se convierte en un medicamento, por definición de la FDA. Aunque los defensores afirman que esto no es diferente que agregar vitamina D a la leche, el fluoruro no es un nutriente esencial. Por otra parte, el fluoruro aún no está aprobado por la FDA para prevenir las caries.

Ahora sabemos que un límite de 0.7 a 1.2 ml/l provoca que un gran número de personas sufran una sobredosis del medicamento. ¿Será que el límite superior de 0.7 ml/L protegerá a todos los que están obligados a beber agua fluorada?

Teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que las personas también obtienen fluoruro de la pasta de dientes, enjuagues dentales, alimentos procesados ​​y bebidas, las posibilidades de la sobreexposición todavía están presentes, incluso a este bajo nivel.

Muchos Todavía Estarán En Riesgo de Sobreexposición a un Nivel Menor de Fluoruro

En el nivel anterior, el 40 por ciento de los adolescentes que viven en los Estados Unidos tuvieron “daños colaterales.” ¿Cuál será el daño permitido en el nuevo nivel? El HHS dijo que evaluará las tasas de fluorosis dental entre niños de 10 años para valorar si estaban en lo cierto acerca de este nuevo nivel.

Digamos que la fluorosis dental se reduce a un 20 por ciento. ¿El 20 por ciento es un nivel aceptable de daño? ¿Qué hay de un 10 por ciento? ¿Quién decide cual es el nivel aceptable de daño colateral?

Sorprendentemente, el Sacramento Bee5 informó que: “Recientes investigaciones federales no publicadas encontraron que no hay diferencias regionales en la cantidad de agua que beben los niños. Así que tiene sentido usar los mismos niveles en todas partes, dijeron los funcionarios de salud.”

Yo tengo mucha curiosidad en revisar ese estudio, porque me parece muy difícil imaginar que los niños de todo el mundo beben la misma cantidad de agua.

También es una suposición absurda a menos que cada uno de los niños también este expuesto a la misma cantidad de flúor a través de otras fuentes además del agua potable… y tengan el mismo peso… y tengan el mismo estado de salud… y sabemos que ese simplemente no es el caso.

De acuerdo con el HHS, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés) “utiliza el 90 por ciento del consumo de agua potable para todos los grupos de edad para calcular la contribución relativa de cada fuente de fluoruro.”

Lo que esto significa es que si bebe más agua que el 90 por ciento, no está protegido por este reducido nivel. Las personas con más probabilidades de entrar en esa categoría incluyen a niños que recibieron fórmula mezclada con agua fluorada, personas que trabajan al aire libre (especialmente en climas cálidos), atletas y diabéticos.

La Fluorosis Dental NO Es El Único Riesgo de La Fluoración del Agua

Barbara Gooch, una dentista en los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés) dijo a NPR6 que “El único riesgo documentado de la fluoración del agua es la fluorosis y principalmente es un riesgo cosmético. La fluorosis en su forma más leve no es un riesgo para la salud.”

Esto apunta a una comprensión muy deficiente de la información científica disponible sobre los efectos del fluoruro para la salud. La fluorosis dental es la forma más visible de fluorosis, pero está lejos de ser “simplemente cosmética” y no de más preocupación.

También podría ser in indicador de que el resto de su cuerpo, como los huesos y los órganos internos, incluyendo el cerebro, también se han sobreexpuesto al fluoruro.

En otras palabras, si el fluoruro tiene un efecto visual negativo en la superficie de los dientes, podría estar prácticamente garantizado que también está dañando otras partes de su cuerpo, como los huesos. La fluorosis esquelética, que no es visible, es muy difícil de distinguir de la artritis. Los síntomas indicativos de fluorosis esquelética en etapa clínica temprana incluyen:

  • Ardor, cosquilleo y hormigueo en las extremidades
  • Debilidad muscular
  • Fatiga crónica
  • Trastornos gastrointestinales
  • Menos apetito y pérdida de peso

La segunda etapa clínica de fluorosis esquelética se caracteriza por:

  • Rigidez en las articulaciones y/o dolor constante en los huesos; huesos frágiles; y osteosclerosis
  • Anemia
  • Calcificación de tendones o ligamentos de las costillas y la pelvis
  • Osteoporosis en los huesos largos
  • Espolones óseos también podrían aparecer en los huesos de las extremidades, especialmente alrededor de la rodilla, el codo y en la superficie de la tibia y el cúbito

Todo esto se sabe desde la década de 1930, así que es bastante ingenuo proclamar que la fluorosis dental es el único riesgo documentado de la fluoración del agua. Si el 40 por ciento de los adolescentes que viven en los Estados Unidos tienen fluorosis dental ¿cuántas personas padecen de fluorosis esquelética como consecuencia de la sobreexposición crónica al fluoruro?

En un estudio previo, la tasa de fracturas óseas también aumentó considerablemente con el severo incremento de la fluorosis dental. Los estudios también han demostrado que la toxicidad del fluoruro, causada por la exposición excesiva, podría provocar:

Mayor absorción de plomo Síntesis del colágeno alterada Hiperactividad y/o letargo Trastornos Musculares
Cáncer en los huesos (osteosarcoma) Incremento en la tasa de tumores y cáncer Artritis Fluorosis esquelética y fracturas de huesos
Daños genéticos y muerte celular Esperma dañado y aumento de infertilidad Inactiva 62 enzimas e inhibe a más de 100 Formación de anticuerpos dañada sistema inmunológico interrumpido

El Fluoruro No Tiene Ningún Beneficio Para Los Dientes Cuando Se Ingiere

Está más allá de lo ingenuo si cree que el fluoruro de alguna manera selectivamente va a los dientes cuando lo traga. Más bien, se acumula a lo largo de los huesos y los tejidos del cuerpo. El pequeño beneficio que el fluoruro podría tener es por medio de la aplicación tópica. Tanto el CDC como la Organización Mundial de la Salud (WHO, por sus siglas en inglés) han señalado que no hay ninguna diferencia discernible en la caries dental entre los países desarrollados que ponen fluoruro a su agua y los que no lo hacen.7

La disminución de la caries dental que los Estados Unidos ha experimentado en los últimos 60 años, que a menudo se atribuye al agua fluorada, igualmente ha ocurrido en todos los países desarrollados, la mayoría de los cuales no ponen fluoruro a su agua. Así que al disminuir los índices de caries dental no es una prueba en sí misma de que la fluoración del agua realmente funciona.

También vale la pena señalar que más del 99 por ciento del fluoruro agregado al agua potable ni siquiera toca un diente; simplemente corre por el desagüe, en el medio ambiente, donde en realidad no está haciendo nada que sea beneficioso…

Cavity Rates

Fuente: KK Cheng BMJ 2007.8 Los índices de caries han disminuido en cantidades similares en países con y sin fluoración.

HHS Todavía Ignora Preocupaciones de Mayor Seguridad

De acuerdo con la Red de Acción de fluoruro9 (FAN, por sus siglas en inglés), al finalizar su nueva recomendación sobre el fluoruro, el HHS ha encubierto una serie de cuestiones de seguridad, para no abordar las recientes investigaciones que muestran los efectos adversos que van desde la disminución del cociente intelectual en niños (encontrado en no menos de 43 estudios), hipotiroidismo10 y el TDAH.11

Por ejemplo, un reciente estudio12 que vinculo el agua fluorada a una mayor prevalencia de TDAH ha creado un modelo predictivo que muestra que cada aumento del uno por ciento en la porción de la población que vive en los Estados Unidos que bebía agua fluorada en 1992 se relacionó con 67,000 nuevos casos de TDAH 11 años más tarde, y 131,000 casos más 19 años después.

FAN señala que el HHS incluso “recurrió al engaño” al desestimar las reducciones que muestra la investigación del Coeficiente Intelectual. El HHS declaró que “Un reciente meta-análisis de estudios realizado en la China rural… identificó una asociación entre la alta exposición al fluoruro (es decir, el consumo de concentraciones de agua que van desde los 11.5 mg/L) y un menor coeficiente intelectual…” En primer lugar, en los 43 estudios hay información de una relación entre la exposición al fluoruro y un menor coeficiente intelectual. El estudio que mencionó el HHS se limitó a 27 de ellos.

Pero lo más importante, es que cuando busca proteger a toda una población, tiene que mirar hacia el nivel más bajo, donde el daño se hace evidente, no en el más alto. Al señalar sólo el nivel superior de las concentraciones de fluoruro que se encuentran en este estudio, parece que el HHS estaba tratando de ofrecer tranquilidad engañosa de que su nivel recomendado estaba bien por debajo de cualquier nivel en el que podría estar presente un riesgo. Pero el nivel más bajo en el que se observaron reducciones del coeficiente intelectual en ese estudio fue de 0.88 mg/l, que no está tan lejos del nuevo límite superior recomendado de 0.7 mg/L.

Añada fluoruro a través de otras fuentes y podrá entrar con facilidad en el rango de peligroso. Curiosamente, una serie de estudios13,14,15,16 han demostrado específicamente que los niños que tienen fluorosis dental moderada o grave tuvieron una puntuación más baja en las pruebas que miden las habilidades cognitivas y el coeficiente intelectual, lo que sugiere que si el 40 por ciento de nuestros niños tienen fluorosis, el esquema de la fluoración del agua en los Estados Unidos probablemente también afecta el coeficiente intelectual de nuestros hijos. Como señaló FAN:

“Además, en toxicología no es la concentración de fluoruro (mg/litro), que es el parámetro relevante, sino la dosis en mg/día (la cantidad que bebe), y una dosis así tiene que ser compilada a partir de todas las fuentes. En el caso de los niños chinos en las aldeas rurales en estos estudios no tenían dos fuentes, como los niños estadounidenses comúnmente tienen: por lo general no son alimentados con biberón y no usan pasta de dientes fluorada.

Así que es probable que algunos niños que viven en los Estados Unidos reciban dosis superiores a algunos de los niños chinos que tenían un Coeficiente Intelectual inferior… Dado a que el fluoruro es un disruptor endocrino y tiene el potencial de reducir el coeficiente intelectual en los niños, FAN solicita a HHS adoptar el principio de precaución y terminar con la fluoración ahora.”

Ellos Se Equivocaron – HHS No Considera el Hecho De Que el Fluoruro Es un Disruptor Endocrino…

De acuerdo a FAN:

“HHS también declaró en su comunicado de prensa que un informe sobre la toxicología del fluoruro por el Consejo Nacional de Investigación de las Academias Nacionales (NRC, por sus siglas en inglés, 200617) no encontró evidencia lo suficientemente sustancial como para apoyar los efectos distintos de la fluorosis dental severa en estos niveles.”

Lo que HHS omitió indicar es que el informe del NRC de 2006 declaró18 por primera vez que el fluoruro es un “disruptor endocrino”, lo que significa que tiene el potencial de causar estragos en la biología y destino de los seres humanos y animales. Esto es mucho más importante que la fluorosis dental severa.”

En 2011, FAN presentó una serie de problemas a HHS y ninguno de ellos se ha tratado adecuadamente, dice FAN. Estas preocupaciones incluyen:

Medicar a la población mediante el suministro de agua no es ético El beneficio y seguridad de ingerir fluoruro nunca han sido demostrado ni aceptado por las normas médicas
Cualquier beneficio del fluoruro es principalmente tópicos, no sistémicos Las personas que viven en los Estados Unidos seguirán exponiéndose a grandes cantidades de fluoruro a 0.7 ppm
Los bebés no estarán protegidos. Los bebés que recibieron fórmula hecha con agua fluorada aun recibirán 175 veces más fluoruro que los bebés amamantados Los niños afro-americanos y niños de bajos recursos no estarán protegidos
El fluoruro es un disruptor endocrino, algo que el HHS todavía no ha tomado en consideración HHS no ha considerado o investigado las tasas de fluorosis esquelético en los Estados Unidos

Para Proteger Su Salud, Evite el Fluoruro

No importa qué estudios científicos examine o que tendencias ve en la población, la conclusión racional es que los peligros para la salud a causa del fluoruro son mucho mayores a los beneficios dentales marginales que podría ofrecer. Las caries dentales se podrían prevenir eficazmente con medios distintos a la fluoración, y así evitar los efectos adversos del fluoruro.

Es importante darse cuenta de que el fluoruro es una toxina acumulativa, que con el tiempo podría conducir a problemas graves de salud, desde el hipotiroidismo hasta la fluorosis esquelética y mucho más. Los efectos neurológicos particularmente son desconcertantes. Incluso los científicos del Laboratorio Nacional de Investigación de Salud y Efectos Ambientales de la EPA han clasificado al fluoruro como un “químico que tiene pruebas sustanciales de desarrollar neurotoxicidad.”

La fluoración del agua tiene que parar. La pregunta es cómo. A pesar de todas las pruebas, eliminar el fluoruro de los suministros de agua de América ha sido muy difícil. Después de todo, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos lo ha promovido durante más de medio siglo. Si admitieran que estuvieron equivocados todo el tiempo, y de hecho han envenenado a todos durante este tiempo, las consecuencias podrían ser enormes. Sin embargo, no es imposible erradicar la fluoración del agua, como se muestra en las zonas que lo han hecho exitosamente.

De acuerdo con el fallecido Jeff Green, Director Nacional de Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, un tema repetitivo en los casos era el de las comunidades que eliminaron exitosamente el fluoruro de su suministro de agua que es el cambio de la responsabilidad de la prueba. En lugar de que los ciudadanos asumieran la carga de probar que el fluoruro es perjudicial y no se debe añadir, una estrategia más exitosa ha sido hacer responsables a los funcionarios electos que hacen dichas afirmaciones, y que dependen de ellos, por entregar las pruebas específicas de que el producto químico para fluoración que utilizan cumple con sus demandas de salud y seguridad, y está en conformidad con todas las regulaciones, leyes y evaluaciones de riesgo ya exigidas para el agua potable.

La Red de Acción de Fluoruro tiene un plan de juego para poner fin a la fluoración del agua no sólo en los Estados Unidos, sino en todo el mundo, pero necesitan de su apoyo para tener éxito. El agua pura y limpia es un prerrequisito para la salud óptima. Los productos químicos industriales, medicamentos y otros aditivos tóxicos realmente no tienen cabida en nuestros suministros de agua. Así que por favor proteja su agua potable y apoye el movimiento libre de fluoruro al hacer hoy una donación deducible de impuestos a la Red de Acción de fluoruro.