Bad news for Alternative Health Advocates:
$10 Trillion subsidy for the ‘Cut, Burn and Poison Industry.’
Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis
(Copyright notice: to lawfully reproduce all or part of this article, the following attribution must be included: “Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis, redressone.wordpress.com)
Follow: To follow this website (to receive e-mail with each new post), click “Follow” at bottom/right of page. Thanks for visiting, Anthony
No, it’s not a mistake: ten trillion dollar subsidy.
When I first saw these numbers, my initial reaction was to regard them as the ranting of a madman. But I’ve learned to verify a statement as to true or false, no matter how absurd it appears; this helps me avoid embarrassment, occasionally. In this case, Walter J. “John” Williams, of Shadow Statistics, made the claim in his article, ‘Federal Deficit Reality’.
John Williams is a professional economist who earns his living by publishing a newsletter that interprets and makes sensible financial reports issued by governments, especially the federal government. I read his article linked in the previous paragraph; the ten-trillion number comes from a financial report issued by the federal government… so much for my initial reaction.
This booty was given to the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry by a single piece of legislation passed by Congress 2003 December the 8th. It is known as the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act”; here is the complete text, all four hundred and fourteen pages of it. Don’t read this until bedtime; and then only if you have trouble falling asleep.
As its title implies, this legislation will provide subsidies to any activity that can reasonably be connected to ‘prescription drugs’ or to ‘improvement’ or ‘modernization’ of the Cut, Burn or Poison Industry. The table of contents of this act (the first four or five pages of the above link) gives a sampling of the myriad possibilities for such handouts. Since alternative remedies (such as vitamin, mineral and enzyme supplements) provide incomparably better results than prescription drugs – and, at a fraction of the cost, we can expect that in all those trillions of dollars of booty given to the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry, there will be a few hundred billion earmarked for the destruction of the alternative health community.
The legislation itself says little or nothing as to the monetary burden it will lay on taxpayers’ shoulders. The expense of this legislation is calculated by the trustees of the federal trust fund that deals with Medicare expenses, and is reported in editions of The Financial Report of the United States Government (frusg).
The frusg for 2004 reports that this Medicare legislation added 8.1 trillion dollars of present value net expenditures to federal “responsibilities” over the next seventy-five years. These three phrases, a) present value, b) net expenditures and c) responsibilities, conceal the magnitude of what this Medicare legislation has done.
Let’s examine them one at a time.
‘Net Expenditures’ represents anticipated expenditures less anticipated collections (taxes, “contributions” and premiums); in this case, over the next seventy-five years.
These expenditures and collections are derived from assumptions (interest and inflation rates, death and birth rates, wage rate increases et cetera) arbitrarily chosen by bureaucrats. These assumptions are invariably chosen for the purpose of minimizing the impact of the legislation on the American economy. Interest rates, for example, are assumed to average 5.7% over the next seventy-five years; inflation rates will be 2.8% over the same period. (See Table 1A, page 100 of the 2006 frusg.) Lewis Carroll, you see, wrote the rulebook for these bureaucrats.
At page 66 of the 2004 frusg, ‘present value’ expenditures (benefits provided by the medicare legislation) are calculated to be 10.77 trillion over seventy-five years; ‘present value’ collections are calculated to be 2.651 trillion over that same period. Thus, ‘present value’ ‘net expenditures’ were calculated to be 8.119 trillion as of 2004 January 1st. Two years later the government changed its assumptions to arrive at slightly more favorable numbers: collections, 2.366 trillion; benefits, 10,250 trillion; and net expenditures (benefits), 7,884 trillion. (See page 42 of the 2006 frusg.)
‘Present value’ of taxes (or expenditures) is arrived at by a) calculating the taxes (or expenditures) for each year; b) then discounting the number for each year by an assumed interest rate, c) then summing all years. (See footnote 1, p 65 frusg 2004)
For example, if expenditures are expected to be a thousand dollars in each of the following two years, the first year would have a present value of nine hundred and fifty two (952) (with an assumed interest rate of five percent; thus, 1,000 divided by 1.05) and the second year would have a present value of nine hundred and seven dollars (907). Thus, while the expected payments would amount to two thousand dollars, their ‘present value’ would be 1,859.
By using ‘present value’ numbers the government conceals the enormity of its liabilities – and, hence, the impossibility of delivering them. ‘Present value’ numbers are not exactly deceptive – they are merely beyond the capacity of most people to comprehend. The practical result is deception: their use makes it difficult, or impossible, for a man of average intelligence to understand the true magnitude of the government’s “responsibilities” to deluded and fleeced taxpayers. (A Tale of Two Bribes tells of this delusion.)
As noted, if we had an obligation that required us to pay a thousand dollars in each of the next two years, we would have a liability of two thousand dollars by ordinary accounting standards. But, by the magic of ‘present value’ adjustments, we could say we had a liability of 1,859 dollars. Thus, by accounting sleight of hand, we could improve our profit by 141 dollars; and probably go to jail.
The reduction of liabilities is not a great difference when dealing with a time period of two years; but the government is projecting Medicare expenses over a seventy-five year period.
Let’s run thru that example again; if we had an obligation that required us to pay a thousand dollars for each of the next seventy-five years, we would report a liability of seventy-five thousand dollars. But, by the magic of ‘present value’ adjustments – and using interest and inflation rates assumed by the federal government, the liability is reduced to nine thousand, four hundred and thirty-four dollars. That’s 75,000 by using real-world numbers; 9,434 by using ‘present value’ numbers. Again, jail, here we come.
When we divide the former number by the latter, we get a ratio of seven point nine-five (7.95); we will use this conversion factor later to convert ‘present value’ to real-world, unadjusted, dollars.
One of the cardinal rules of mathematics is that you cannot add apples and oranges and get a sensible total. When you add statute miles and nautical miles, the total is practically useless. The same rule applies to these numbers produced by the government: it is not permissible to add real-world dollars and present-value dollars.
Thus, we can multiply the government’s ‘present value’ numbers by this 7.95 factor to obtain actual numbers, based on the government’s rose-garden assumptions.
The latest ‘present value’ of the booty bureaucrats anticipate will be distributed to the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry is ten and a quarter (10.25) trillion dollars between now and the year 2080. (Page 42 of 2006 frusg.) Multiply this by the above factor of 7.95, and we get slightly over eighty-one trillion dollars.
That’s just over one trillion dollars to the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry, every year till the end of time… one act of Congress.
Responsibilities When discussing the federal government’s obligations, government accountants divide them into two categories: liabilities and responsibilities.
Liabilities consist of three major categories a) short-term contractual obligations, b) debt securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and c) obligations relative to retirement and health benefits for civilian and military employees of the federal government.
Responsibilities consist of obligations arising under Social Security (Old Age, Survivors’ and Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Medicare), Railroad Retirement, and Black Lung payments. Collectively, these are known as the Social Insurance “Responsibilities” of the Federal government.
Government accountants measure “liabilities” with real-world dollars: the same dollars you and I measure our liabilities with; they measure Social “responsibilities” with “present value” dollars.
When government accountants produce a balance sheet for the federal government (see 2006 frusg, page 6), they measure assets (1.5 trillion) and “liabilities” (10.4 trillion) with real-world dollars, which yield a negative net worth of 8.9 trillion.
For our context, real-world dollars are apples and ‘present value’ dollars are oranges; rational men do not add them to get one total – honest men, also, do not add them.
Despite this, bureaucrats give it a try.
At Table 4 of the 2006 frusg, page 6, the government’s negative net worth (8.9 trillion real-world dollars), as of 2006 September 30th, is listed; just under it, the government’s Social Insurance “responsibilities” are listed (44.2 trillion ‘present value’ dollars); and then the two numbers are summed, producing a total of 53.1 trillion for the government’s overall and alleged negative net worth.
This is equivalent to adding nine (9) feet to forty-four (44) yards to get a total of fifty-three (53) feet.
Again, if you or I did this, we’d go to jail.
Here, we see Lewis Carroll’s influence again.
To obtain mathematically correct – and truthful – totals for the government’s negative net worth, we first have to convert ‘present value’ amounts to real-world numbers. This requires that we multiply the Social “responsibilities” (44.2 trillion) by our conversion factor (derived above) of 7.95; this produces Social “responsibilities” of 351 trillion – remember, this is a net figure of expected benefits less anticipated collections of taxes.
Now, we are ready to add net liabilities and net responsibilities: we get about three hundred and sixty trillion dollars.
That is, the federal government has total assets of one point five (1.5) trillion and total liabilities of three hundred sixty-one and point five (361.5) trillion.
These are civilization-destroying numbers.
This is not the end of the confusion. In the category for “liabilities” (10.4 trillion) is a line item for pension and health obligations for retired civilian and military employees of the federal government that totals just under four point eight (4.8) trillion “present value” dollars. (See 2007 frusg, page 3.) These “present value” numbers are produced by the Departments of Labor, and of Defense; and, of course, use different sets of assumptions and time-frames than are used by the Social Security Administration. (See 2007 frusg, page 71) Despite these “present value” numbers, I make no adjustment for them; other numbers are so deep into fantasy land that it would be a superfluous effort to make adjustments for these so-called obligations to federal employees.
Whether we discuss ‘present value’ or real numbers, these numbers are so enormous that a few government bureaucrats are alarmed by such numbers. David Walker, a former Comptroller General, made this remark in the 2004 frusg,
In March 2004, the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds issued their 2004 annual reports on the current and projected status of these programs. Once again, the trustees’ reports confirmed that both the Social Security and Medicare programs are unsustainable in their present form. (pp 29-30)
See also this story about David Walker as reported by CBS News.
Bureaucrats’ and special interest groups’ alarm is so great that they have organized a so-called ‘Fiscal Wake-Up Call’ tour for the purpose of telling the public that tough decisions have to be made. The following makes their concern fairly clear.
[Beginning of quotation from Concord Coalition]
The purpose of this Tour is to explain in plain terms why budget analysts of diverse perspectives are increasingly alarmed by the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook. Our emphasis is on the key areas in which we have found consensus, such as:
- The overall dimensions of the problem
- The nature of the realistic trade-offs that must be confronted in finding solutions
- The adverse and inequitable consequences for future generations if we fail to make serious changes, sooner rather than later.
Our mission is to cut through the usual partisan rhetoric and stimulate a more realistic public dialogue on what we want our nation’s future to look like, along with the required trade-offs. We believe that elected leaders inWashingtonknow there is a problem, but they are unlikely to act unless their constituents better understand the need for action, and indeed, demand it. Members of the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour do not necessarily agree on the ideal levels of spending, taxes and debt, but we do agree on the following key points:
- Current fiscal policy is unsustainable
- There are no free lunch solutions, such as cutting waste fraud and abuse or growing our way out of the problem.
- The best way to make the hard choices is through a bipartisan process with all options on the table.
- Public engagement and understanding is vital in finding solutions.
- This is not about numbers. It is a moral issue.
We remind audiences that each of the realistic options comes with economic and political consequences that must be carefully weighed, and that there must be tradeoffs. Those who want to raise taxes are asked to explain what level of taxation they are willing to support and the manner in which the new revenue should be raised. Those who argue that spending must come down from projected levels are asked which programs they would target and how the savings would be achieved. Those who are unwilling to do either are asked how much debt they are willing to impose on future generations.
Our experience is that when audiences are told the facts, and shown that if they demand their “rights” to programs or policies it will have damaging economic effects to other groups or generations represented in the audience, they begin to accept the need for tradeoffs. The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour does not presume to know the “correct” answers, but we are trying to make sure that the American people and their elected leaders are asking the correct questions.
[End of quotation fromConcord]
Their alternatives include a) raise taxes, b) reduce spending or c) impose debt on future generations. This is an echo from the 2004 frusg at page 70 where it is explained that when Social Security trust funds run out of cash, “Congress must either raise taxes, cut other Government spending, or reduce SMI benefits.”
Here are mainstream professors, bureaucrats and analysts who are beginning to come face to face with the civilization-destroying policies of American governments over the past one hundred and fifty years, at least.
And none of them are capable of designing a correction for the problem we discuss.
As I have stated many times, the American system survives by cannibalizing future generations of Americans; the amount of the debt that we discuss is sufficient to cannibalize generations of Americans to the end of time. The American system cannot be saved, and it does not deserve to survive in its present arrangement.
It cannot be saved because, while members of the Wakeup Call tour propose higher taxes, lower expenditures or new debt on future generations, none of these alternatives is possible.
Higher taxes At page 5 of the 2007 frusg, it is explained that the ratio of taxes to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has held steady at eighteen percent since World War ii; and that every time the government attempts to extract taxes beyond this level, “policy actions have tended to pull them back.” This is a typically obscure way of explaining that, when taxes exceed 18% of GDP, the economy descends into depression. Men lose their jobs and factories close their doors; angry taxpayers hit the streets and, if politicians don’t cut taxes quickly, many of them will be thrown from office, if not hanged. Results are higher government expenditures (to support and feed the jobless) just at a time when tax revenues are falling; and higher deficits.
Lower expenditures. Once a man becomes accustomed to a government check, it is a matter of days before he begins to regard the check as his divine right. – especially when the government took taxes with the understanding that such would be returned at a later date. Social Security benefits currently comprise about twenty-five percent of federal expenditures; the Defense Department, twenty-two percent; every city, county, and state in theUnion derives from twenty percent to forty percent of its revenue from federal taxes.
One, there are fifty million Americans who are currently taking some form of benefits from Social Security – and another one hundred and forty million who expect to do so. Two, Defense Department contractors are willing to commit genocide in order to get their checks. Three, There are some thirty million bureaucrats (civilian, military, police et cetera), school teachers and professors who look forward to their retirement checks of $4,000 to $10,000 per month, financed entirely by taxes.
Of the three categories, only the first stands on obvious moral grounds to demand fulfillment of governmental obligations. People in the other two categories know that if they ever lose their grip on governmental power, they stand to lose much more than pay checks.
It is simply not possible that any of these groups would willingly consent to a reduction in their government checks.
Additional debt. Of the three alternatives offered by these bureaucrats, additional debt is the only option available to them – and they seem to realize that this door is slowly closing on them.
In the financial Report for 2007, it is observed that, since World War ii, federal debt has ranged between 35% and 60% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and, that when debt goes beyond that level, numerous financial strains appear in the economy. The only way debt can be supported beyond that level is an emergency condition that is supported by the whole country; the last time that occurred was during World War ii when debt edged over 100% of GDP.
It is further observed that, owing to the burden of the so-called “social responsibilities” of the federal government, its debt will triple from 38% of GDP to 115% by 2040 (more than the 109% recorded toward the end of World War ii); it will double again by 2040; and reach six times GDP by 2080. “At some point before debt reaches such unprecedented debt levels, the world’s financial markets would likely cease lending to theUnited States.” 2007 frusg, p 7.
The deception never ends. Federal accountants claim the current debt (that is, US Treasury securities held by the public) stands at thirty-eight percent of GDP. This number ignores other “liabilities” and “social responsibilities” of the federal government. Liabilities, no matter how they are described, represent actions the reporting entity is morally or legally required to perform. By claiming that the current debt of the federal government is thirty-eight percent of GDP, it is implied that the retirement and health “obligations” to federal employees are not legally binding obligations. I would imagine that when nine million active and retired civilian and military personnel of the federal government become aware of this “official” position, they would start to feel like they should come unglued.
These three options, higher taxes, lower spending or more debt are the only alternatives offered by members of the Wakeup Call tour, and none are possible.
Along with the impossibility of saving the American system, it is, as I’ve noted, not worth saving. The thing that makes it so is the phenomenon of government debt. This is the mechanism by which one generation of Americans cannibalizes future generations: the process by which one generation enjoys the booty of government and lays the burden on its children and grandchildren. The primary purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to facilitate this cannibalization by monetizing government debt: that is, by issuing banknotes in exchange for US Treasury securities. In other words, the paper money that Americans use cannot come into existence except against government debt. Since both governmental debt and the Federal Reserve are mandated by acts of Congress, their natural consequence – the cannibalization of future generations of Americans – is also mandated by Congress.
All American governments, public-school districts and universities have fashioned retirement systems that allow employees of such to receive fabulous retirement checks after only twenty years of employment: grunt bureaucrats (including public-school teachers) can retire and receive fifty thousand a year; heads of departments and judges can receive one hundred and fifty thousand a year; retirement checks are noticeably larger for university employees.
If these bureaucrats are to receive their retirement checks, the American system must remain as it is; all other Americans must live in tents and be left with five percent of their earnings . . . maybe that much.
Civilized men do not tolerate such conditions; nor do they generate children to be slaughtered by insolent bureaucrats.
Hence, the only civilized correction is to abolish the system as it is; make provisions to recover taxes wrongly taken from private workers; and make a new beginning.
Risk to Alternative Health Advocates
These Social Security and Medicare “responsibilities” of the federal government have ominous forebodings for the Health Freedom Movement, or, as some call it, Alternative Health remedies. When bureaucrats prepared financial projections of these “responsibilities” by the government, they constructed several scenarios that would increase or decrease such “responsibilities”; each scenario included three alternatives regarding effects on ‘net expenditures’: low, intermediate and high. Each of these categories was derived by altering various assumptions (birth and death rates, interest and inflation rates et cetera) made by the government. A sample of the table, and then explanation, follow.
Low Intermediate High
Reduction of Mortality 3,983 5,229 6,738
(0.30) (0.72) (1.28)
In discussing alternative projections relative to the Old Age, Survivors’ and Disability Insurance (OASDI) (commonly known as Social Security) program, we find these remarks in the 2004 frusg.
The low cost alternative is characterized by assumptions that generally improve the financial status of the program (relative to the intermediate assumption) such as slower improvement in mortality (beneficiaries die younger). (2004 frusg, p 78)
For example, the intermediate assumption for the annual rate of reduction in age-sex-adjusted death rates is 0.72 percent. For the low cost alternative, a slower reduction rate (0.30 percent) is assumed as it means that beneficiaries die at a younger age relative to the intermediate assumption, resulting in lower expenditures. Under the low cost assumption, the shortfall drops from $5,229 billion to $3,983 billion, a 24 percent smaller shortfall. The high cost death rate assumption (1.28 percent) results in an increase in the shortfall, from $5,229 billion to $6,738 billion, a 29 percent increase in the shortfall. Clearly, alternative death rate assumptions have a substantial impact on estimated future cash flows in the OASDI program. (2004 frusg, p 78)
In other words, if the death rate is slowed by an annual rate of 0.3 percent (instead of 0.72 percent) – that is, if people die at a faster rate, the government can reduce its expenditures 24 percent relative to OASDI; the same percentage would apply to other programs administered by the Social Security Administration, including Medicare.
Let’s do a reality check here.
Fact One. All programs administered by Social Security collect taxes from a taxpayer, ten, twenty and even forty years before he becomes eligible for benefits. In the meantime, such taxes (not needed for payment of current benefits) are transferred to the U. S. Treasury’s general fund in exchange for interest-bearing Treasury obligations; the general fund then spends the money for any of thousands of purposes authorized by Congress. The sooner a taxpayer dies, the less money Congress has to return to him; and, the less Congress has to raise taxes, or reduce booty given to their special interest groups. (See 2006 frusg, page 18.)
Ordinarily, when Congress authorizes the spending of tax money, it also has to impose taxes for such spending. But, by raiding the surplus in the Social Security trust fund, Congress does not have to raise taxes for thousands of projects each year; these surpluses have been averaging in the range of $160 billion for the last several years.
Fact Two. Obviously, it is to the advantage of Congress, and special interest groups, that taxpayers die early; preferably before they become eligible for benefits; that is, the day after they retire.
Fact Three. As of 1996, doctors and hospitals held the number three position for causing unnecessary deaths; since then, they have captured first place.
Fact Four. Alternative health remedies can extend a person’s life from five to twenty years, and improve its quality.
Question. So, which “industry” promotes the health of the country… the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry, or the Alternative Health movement? That is, which should be favored?
Fact Five. Congress, by one piece of legislation, has promised booty of more than one trillion, on a yearly basis and to the end of time, to the “industry” that is responsible for more unnecessary deaths than any other collective.
With these facts, we can draw the conclusion that major purposes of Medicare are a) to transfer as much money as possible from soon-to-retire taxpayers to the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry, and b) to cause such taxpayers to die shortly before the end of their working years, or as soon as possible thereafter.
Why else would government accountants take such care to elaborate on the impact of mortality rates on future obligations of the government’s “Social Responsibilities?” By including this example in federal Financial Reports (which are sent to members of Congress), these accountants convey the not-so subliminal message that the solution to the approaching crisis in “Social Responsibilities” is the early death of beneficiaries.
For this to succeed, it is necessary that taxpayers believe that cutting, burning and poisons – as a response to every ailment – is beneficial to them.
Thus, with the enormous booty given to the Cut, Burn and Poison Industry, we can rest assured that billions of it will be earmarked for projects such as,
- legislation to require the radiation of all food; to finance genetically modified seeds; to require that all health supplements be sold only on a prescription basis; et cetera;
- a media campaign to demonize alternative health remedies; and
- prosecutions of alternative health practitioners and suppliers.
Until members of the alternative health movement learn the lessons of American Founders, they face nothing but bad news, probably annihilation.
The circumstances I have described generate a question, “What can be done about them?”
From the literature of the Concord Coalition, it appears that most of its members are dedicated collectivists who sincerely care about their fellow man; and, as collectivists, that they sincerely believe they benevolently serve him. From this perspective, I don’t believe these people can come to the conclusion that the system, as we know it, cannot be saved . . . nor does it deserve to be saved. The debt they speak of is sufficient to cannibalize future generations of Americans to the end of time. As I’ve noted, civilized men do not generate children for such a purpose.
What should be done? Let me give a pertinent historical example.
Several Greek and Latin writers attest the Carthaginian sacrifice of children to Moloch. As related by Diodorus, it appears that when the Carthaginians were defeated by Abathocles they ascribed their disaster to Moloch’s wrath, for whereas in former times they had been wont to sacrifice to him their own offspring, they had latterly fallen into the habit of buying children or rearing them to be victims. So, to appease the angry god, two hundred children of the noblest families were picked out for sacrifice and the total of victims was swelled by not less than three hundred more who volunteered to die for the fatherland. One by one they were placed on the sloping hands of the brazen image from which they were rolled into the pit of fire, while all the place in front of the image was filled with a tumultuous music of fife and drum to drown their shrieks. Childless people among the Carthaginians bought children from poor parents and a mother had to stand by and see it done without a tear or a groan, for if she wept or moaned she lost all the credit, and the child was sacrificed none the less. . . According to Tertullian, whose testimony is prejudiced, however, the practice went on secretly as late as A. D. 200.
Romans were the most brutal of occupiers; yet they still retained a trace of humanity about them. When Tiberius (12 BCE) discovered that Carthaginian priests had orchestrated the sacrifice of children, “he remonstrated by crucifying these priests on the trees beside their temples.”
Men do not change: they only grow more subtle and clever in their crimes. Just as our deluded ancestors sacrificed their children to long-forgotten gods, so our contemporaries sacrifice generations of posterity to the god of socialism. To this purpose, Congress has mandated the sacrifice of generations of Americans to the end of time. We are one of those generations. When it comes time to right the wrongs done to us – and our children, we should not do less than Tiberius.
The topic of what and how we should correct this, and any other, wrong is a very comprehensive topic; and my book, The Lost Right, gives a history, law and technology of that topic.
 Homer Smith, Man and His Gods, 136.
Timely, and related, pages,
Turncoat. Here are excerpts from The American Inquisition which explain three points on which internal taxes are unconstitutional relative to “we the people… and our posterity”.
Summaries of articles pertaining to “Totalitarian” Grievances: Since most of my articles run 5-35 pages, I thot it would be more time efficient to have one page to summarize each article with one paragraph. Please visit.
Summaries of articles pertaining to “Financial” Grievances: … more time efficient.
Turn Back the Clock.Have I discovered the fountain of youth? Men frequently declare that they would like to go back in time to re-live certain events or to take back unkind words. Well, I can’t send men back in time; so, I haven’t invented a time machine. But I can reduce one’s biological age to the condition one should have had as a teenager.
In my case, I’ve reduced my biological age by 50 or more years. So, how can I prove or demonstrate this claim? My primary exercise is hitting baseballs (go to YouTube, search for “1668-85”); I’ve had many former pro and college players tell me that, if I played competitive ball at the level of a major college, I would “wreck,” or “lead,” the league with a “.700 average”; that I’m a “hitting phenomenon”, among other comments. Those who play college ball are about 20 years of age; I’m over 70. This is what I have done despite a current living arrangement that prevents me from complying completely with my health regimen (the YouTube video (above) will lead you to a web page that explains my regimen). Still, I’m looking forward to another fifty years with the health and physical condition of a near-professional athlete. Thus, I fully expect, at the age of 120, to have the same or better condition.
If it comes to pass, I’ll have another 50 years. It raises the question, ‘Will it ever stop?’ Check back in 50 years and I’ll let you know.
Better yet, maybe you, also, would like to give it a try. Your age makes no difference: my regimen will benefit anyone, at any age: from a year before conception to elderly. It is especially important for the young; for, if they do not get proper nutrients at proper times, they will not develop to their full potential.
No, I can’t erase those unwanted events or unkind words; but I can give you the strength and youthful condition to play another, and better, game.
Lost Right (The) Among the many rights officially declared by American Founders is the right to withhold taxes until the government redresses grievances. This was adopted unanimously by the Continental Congress as one of the “three grand rights” intended to be secured by the Revolution. And who knows it? Here, in this book, is the history, law and procedures of this lost right.