Wednesday, December 5, 2007


Shane Ellison M. Sc.
The People's Chemist
December 5, 2007

In the beginning, there were nutrients for procuring health. Today, there are drugs, drugs, and more drugs. The average American gets fourteen prescriptions crammed down their throat every year. This is the result of the drug company business model. It utilizes an array of techniques to influence the government in order to minimize competition from nutritional supplements. The cold hard fact of this business model has become clear: Health in America has been fractured. Most American’s are grossly ill and masking symptoms while waiting for their resting place six feet under – think diabetes. Understanding these profitable – but deadly – techniques serves as a how-to guide for avoiding government-mandated drug addiction and remaining healthy.

First, education on the proper use of nutritional substances to achieve good health was removed from the medical school curriculum more than 85 years ago. There is not a medical doctor practicing today who has been trained in medical school on the prophylactic use of nutritional supplements. This explains the reluctance of medical doctors to teach patients about natural alternatives. They don’t know about them. Through self-education, a select few medical doctors have become excellent advisors on proper use of nutraceuticals.

Second, the FDA has stonewalled ALL nutritional supplement manufacturers from educating their clients on nutritional supplements by passing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). This act prohibits supplement manufacturers to market or claim that their products “cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent” any given disease or illness. Instead, they can only make general statements about their products. As a result, nutritional supplements carry labels that are intentionally vague and misleading to consumers. Finding which nutritional supplements to take for any given illness has become close to impossible.

DSHEA also gave the FDA the authority to remove any nutritional supplement from the market if it “proved” to be unsafe. Because of its broad definition of “unsafe” and because most anything, even water, is unsafe in large amounts, the FDA can now ban any nutritional supplement which imposes competition on its pharmaceutical partners. Ephedra is a perfect example. Green tea extract may be next.

Third, lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry has enabled the drug community to influence the media to set a negative tone on the use of nutritional supplementation. More often than not, the message is that natural alternatives to prescription drugs are ineffective and dangerous. Unable to distinguish between the truth and profit motives, the general public has turned away from nutritional supplements to embrace pharmaceutical drugs.

And finally, on the worldwide front, the pharmaceutically-compliant World Trade Organization (WTO) is working rigorously to convince the nations of the world that ALL human beings require the EXACT same amount of nutrients and that anything above this amount is dangerous. Under the guise of protecting vitamin consumers, the WTO is using what is known as the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISION (CAC) to further restrict the free use of nutritional supplements within the United States and worldwide.

Specifically, the CAC is setting “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.” These guidelines are more restrictive and will supercede current U.S. regulations by dictating to the U.S. which nutrients are safe, the maximum and minimum amounts allowed in a product, and related packaging and labeling requirements.

The CAC stands firm in its conviction that these guidelines are for the safety of others. But if safety were the priority, then the WTO could use the CAC to protect us from prescription drugs which kill an estimated 100,000 people annually in the United States.[1] Instead, they waste time on nutritional supplements which have killed less people than rabid squirrel attacks.

The success of the aforementioned techniques lies in fear. This fear is secured by the vested interests of professional alarmists within the government who promote it in order to minimize drug competition. The end result: Drug companies secure their lion’s share and profit from your pain. Wake up, stop eating every prescription thrown at you.


1, Starfield, Barbara. Starfield, Barbara. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Journal of the American Chemical Society, July 26, 2000-Vol 284, No.4.

© 2007 Shane Ellison - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Shane holds a Master's degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand industry experience with drug research, design and synthesis. With his keen ability to sift through scientific literature and weed out fact from fiction, Shane has empowered thousands to assert their health freedom by saying "no" to prescription drugs. Learn more about his books Health Myths Exposed and The Hidden Truth about Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs.

Get 6-months of his FREE Life-Saving Health Briefs at

Monday, December 3, 2007


By Steven Yates
December 2, 2007

And they can cite the claim of Alan Blinder, former deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve, that things are going to get worse for the domestic economy—much worse!. In his view, offered last May, the U.S. could lose between 30 million and 40 million more jobs to offshoring over the next generation as global corporations pursue the cheapest labor they can find. For Americans, entire occupations will be wiped out and replaced with nothing. America will become a third-world country, as U.S. workers—including many well-educated professionals—go pinwheeling over the economic cliff. Disruptions now go hand-in-hand with World Trade Organization meetings. With the growing popularity of commentators like Lou Dobbs, we could see organized resistance to “free trade” and “globalization” here at home in the future. Patriots have views of their own on the true state of the U.S. economy that do not reflect official propaganda about ‘low inflation’ and ‘low unemployment.’ They are taking the long view. They have been investing in precious metals, including the Liberty Dollar—recently targeted for a federal government raid.

Patriots might also ask pesky questions like, How can the Bush Administration claim to be fighting a “war on terror” with our borders wide open and still allowing thousands of illegal aliens into this country every day. (Newsflash: not all illegal aliens are Mexican.) They have some pretty good ideas why those in power refuse to secure our borders. They are aware of the stealth effort to fold this country into a North American Union with a new fiat currency, the amero, intended to replace our debauched dollar. The integration of Mexicans with a squatter’s mindset into the economies of our cities and towns will further drive the third-worldization of America as it drives down American wages.

Many Patriots believe we should stop fighting foreign wars where only corporate interests (and Israeli interests, not American interests) are at stake. No one, after all, ever showed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us. Nor has Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened us (he has threatened Israel).

Among Patriots are those who question the legality and Constitutionality of the federal income tax collected annually by the IRS. They are aware of the shady history of the Federal Reserve Corporation. Many can name names to go along with the otherwise vague ‘power elite’ label: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan, Schiff, Aldrich, Harriman, Brzezinski, Kissinger, and so on. Some Patriots would like to see an independent investigation into what really happened on 9/11.

In short, the independent Patriot movement completely rejects the direction this country has been going in since the Reagan-Bush era during which globalism took a quantum leap culminating in NAFTA, and has been accelerating ever since.

Reading H.R. 1955/S. 1959, Patriots will have still more unwanted questions. Is rejecting the official consensus on the health and direction of the U.S. economy the same as ‘terrorist-related propaganda’? Is a person who documents points of view online that dissent from the Bush Administration’s stay-the-course policy on the Iraq War a potential ‘homegrown terrorist’? Are the groups associated with the many websites offering alternatives to corporate media about to be labeled such, as a precursor to controls over our online activities and demands for unquestioned support for federal (and globalist) policy? These may sound like rhetorical questions, but the wording of H.R. 1955/S. 1959 is so open-ended we have no alternative.

Patriots are aware, finally, that all except for two or possibly three of next year’s contenders for the presidency are members of, or are controlled by, the CFR/Trilateralist/Bilderburg axis, and fear another pseudo-choice between Globalist Candidate A and Globalist Candidate B.

The Patriot movement clearly threatens the lust for power that captured Rome on the Potomac after 9/11, and it threatens the greed of global corporate predators who place profits ahead not just of the livelihoods of ordinary Americans but of U.S. sovereignty itself. Moreover, while much of the country of course remains in its television-induced stupor, the Patriot movement is growing. Within it are articulate voices who recognize that behind both is the power elite’s drive for a world government, for which global “free trade” and “capitalism” are Trojan horses.

Patriots, moreover, are not powerless. They may look powerless as they meet and plan in the back room of the local Denny’s. But they definitely did a number on the badly wanted (by the power elite) amnesty-for-illegal-aliens effort—grassroots efforts stopped amnesty-for-illegals four times this year, as irate callers shut down Congressional switchboards and floods of emails crashed servers! Patriots are not a bunch of peons who can simply be told by government officials to keep their mouths shut! In the event of, e.g., a strike on Iran—especially in the wake of the ongoing catastrophe in Iraq—these people are bound to be trouble, as are many other groups who oppose foreign wars for different reasons. They will be trouble if Cintra, a foreign corporation, persists in building a NAFTA Superhighway. Organized resistance has already emerged in Texas and Oklahoma against the NAFTA Superhighway system, which would take hundreds of thousands of acres of land through post-Kelo eminent domain. Cintra’s contract is supposed to run for 50 years!

The feds can’t just “go after” Patriots and antiwar groups, though—not without giving away their hand. Hence evil bills like this one to relabel their activities as ‘homegrown terrorism,’ serving as potential domestic preemptive strikes against possible civil unrest.

Obviously, H.R. 1955/S. 1959 will do nothing to protect Americans against real terrorism. What it should do is raise the question of who protects Americans from their own government? The bottom line is that if this bill is rushed through the Senate and signed by President Bush, it raises the specter of anyone dissenting from official national and international policy being labeled a ‘homegrown terrorist.’ Coupled with earlier abominations like the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, and Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD-20” signed by Bush on May 9 of this year—all of which will be inherited by Bush’s successor—Patriots can see that our present direction is toward totalitarian rule by brute force, with dissent and alternative voices and products being ruthlessly suppressed. Just two weeks ago we saw the above-mentioned raid on Liberty Dollar headquarters. Even as it destroys the value of our fiat currency, the Federal Reserve Corporation doesn’t want the competition. H.R. 1955/S. 1959 could lead to the coerced shutting down of alternative news sites on the Internet, the end of alternative newspapers and talk radio shows, culminating in federal raids on the residences of known patriots (in the case of Patriots who question the legality and Constitutionality of the federal income tax this has already happened).

Finally—H.R. 1955/S. 1959’s Sec. 899C stipulates, “the Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.”

In other words, the Commission may hire private contractors to identify and isolate ‘homegrown terrorists.’ Blackwater, the increasingly notorious private army, comes to mind. Should we see a power elite caused economic crisis with tens of thousands of suddenly unemployed people taking to the streets protesting globalist policy, will federal officials contract with Blackwater to engage in a little “crowd control”?

Four hundred and four members of our House of Representatives voted for this abomination (219 Democrats and 185 Republicans). Six votes were cast against it (split three and three). This overwhelming bipartisan support speaks volumes about where the present Congress stands—and about the absence of any substantive difference between the two divisions of the Rome on the Potomac Party.

H.R. 1955/S. 1959 is now in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We need to fax or call our Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that We The People oppose this bill (use the U.S. Capitol Switchboard toll-free numbers 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588, 1-866-220-0044, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-866-340-9281, 1-800-862-5530). We need to demand a NO vote to one of the most frightening and dangerous pieces of legislation I think I’ve ever seen! The edifice of a totalitarian America is under construction in increments under our noses! H.R. 1955/S. 1959 is just the latest installment. We now have very little time to get up off our duffs and do something to stop this! For part one click below.

Click here for part -----> 1,

© 2007 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.

He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.


By Steven Yates
December 2, 2007

On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed what may be the most dangerous bill ever to come down the pike. This bill, like many of its predecessors on our steady march toward totalitarianism, sailed under the radar. There was virtually no publicity or fanfare. Now, the bill has gone to the Senate, and is in committee.

The bill is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955/S. 1959). The language in this bill is so maddeningly vague it could mean anything. It could therefore be tailored to attack any group opposing national and international policies that have the backing of the corporatist-governmental power system.

Consider the definition offered of ‘violent radicalization’ (from Sec. 899A of the bill being referred to the Senate): “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”

This definition alone ought to raise your hackles! What counts as an ‘extremist belief system’? What constitutes ‘violence’? Either one is anyone’s guess, because nowhere in the bill is the word ‘extremist’ defined, nor is ‘violence’ defined. In practice, they will mean whatever federal bureaucrats or others calling the shots want them to mean. What about ‘facilitating’? This is a favorite word in today’s mushy political-correctese. Does it mean ‘causing’? Or merely ‘encouraging’? How much ‘encouragement’?

Consider the definition offered for ‘homegrown terrorism’: “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

No examples of ‘homegrown terrorism’ are offered.

One could understand a federal proscription against ‘the use … of force or violence…’ assuming we know what these amount to. But ‘planned’ use? What does this mean? ‘Planning’ involves thought, not action. In such ways this bill kicks open the door to the officially sanctioned creation of thought crimes that can be smuggled in under ‘homegrown terrorism’ and treated accordingly. Some critics have therefore dubbed H.R. 1955/S. 1959 as the Thought Crimes Act of 2007. They have spoken of the potential criminalization of dissent in America.

There is plenty more in this insidious bill that ought to scare the living daylights out of anyone defending basic freedoms recognized by our Constitution. Sec. 899B of the bill is entitled ‘Findings’ and consists of nine numbered paragraphs—all of them legislative land mines. There is no need to look at them all. Consider (3): “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

Again, the bill offers no definition or examples of ‘terrorist-related propaganda’ available over the Internet. The phrase could therefore again mean anything those in power want it to mean.

Or consider (6): “The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.”

Read between the lines. H.R. 1955/S. 1959 would accelerate the federalization and militarization of state and local police departments. If this bill becomes law, expect more Taser attacks on ordinary people who haven’t been charged with any crime, but refuse absolute obedience to cops acting like common bullies. Those paying attention know that there has been an epidemic of such attacks this year, the most recent being on a driver in Utah who declined to sign a traffic ticket and wanted proof that he had been speeding (innocent until proven guilty, correct?). If this bill becomes law, police militancy will increase, but with incidents sufficiently widely dispersed that few residents will detect the pattern, organize, and demand a stop to it.

Sec. 899C of the H.R. 1955/S. 1959 would establish a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence within the legislative branch. The Commission will consist of ten members appointed by federal officials including the president and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The bill commands the Commission in mind-numbingly repetitious language: “Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or ‘lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.”

The Commission would convene and conduct “studies” for 18 months. Very possibly it will rely on such biased sources as the Marxist Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which bills itself as the gold standard for monitoring “hate groups” and “extremist” activity on U.S. soil. During this period, grassroots political groups could find themselves compelled for their own protection to do the equivalent of background checks on new members and recruits. Some would doubtless be spies sent by the SPLC or the federal government itself. They would also have to watch what they send out via email, or place on their websites. Big Brother would be watching—especially anything sent to or received from persons based overseas.

Sec. 899D creates a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. This Center would be “university-based,” suggesting intent to pull academia into subservience. The lure, of course, will be Homeland Security dollars. The result will be more infiltration and more academic thought control, this time in the guise of the “war on terror.”

The Findings section ends: “Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.”

Articles—on the Internet, of course—have been appearing regularly on how the U.K is becoming a total surveillance state, with cameras watching the movements of civilians everywhere. Is our government to emulate the U.K.? All three societies are slightly further down the road to police-state conditions than we are. Is that why they are suggested as good models for those who would carry out the mandates of H.R. 1955/S. 1959?

Sec. 899E elaborates: “International Effort—The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.” In other words, our federal government is to study foreign police states in order to build a better police state on U.S. soil. Only, however, “[t]o the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution …”

If anyone at the federal level except perhaps Ron Paul had read the bill, they would realize that by its very nature it is unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes our federal government to model policies on those of governments elsewhere in the world—or to conduct the kind of domestic infiltrations and surveillance this bill would require.

Sec. 899F, in light of all the above, is almost comical. Are you ready? Here it comes: “The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.”

George Orwell couldn’t have said it better!

Here is the million dollar question: what prompted this bill? The only event in recent years that can be labeled ‘homegrown terrorism’—given the federal government’s pronouncements as our only criterion—was the destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The federal government executed Timothy McVeigh for that on July 14, 2001. Even in that case there are unanswered questions. But while Internet-based claims persist that McVeigh had accomplices other than Terry Nichols, none are officially recognized. Other attacks on U.S. soil (World Trade Center 1993 and, of course, the 9/11 attacks) are blamed on foreigners.

So again: what prompted this bill?

There is only one plausible answer. H.R. 1955/S. 1959’s unnamed target is the independent Patriot movement.

By the ‘Patriot movement’ I mean red-blooded Americans who proudly defend gun rights, and will tell you why: an armed populace is a free populace. They have turned off their televisions and tuned out corporate-controlled media. They have removed their children from government schools. Many are men and women of modest means at best—some are living from paycheck to paycheck—and are sick and tired of bromides on behalf of NAFTA/CAFTA/FTAA, “free trade” and “globalization,” when they have seen none of the supposed benefits. They are aware that today savings are nonexistent, while bankruptcies and foreclosures are at all-time highs.

They know, moreover, that the federal government and its controlled media lie brazenly with a cooked inflation figure, a “core inflation” rate that excludes food and energy costs. For part two click below.

Click here for part -----> 2,

© 2007 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.

He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.