This November, vote for food and medicine freedom – Top 4 reasons NOT to vote for Hillary!

This November, vote for food and medicine freedom – Top reasons NOT to vote for Hillary!


(NaturalNews) For many Americans, neither candidate for President, in their eyes, is suited for the job, and they’d much rather vote for Mickey Mouse than to choose from the current front-runners. But the main problem is that one of the candidates will surely infringe upon personal freedoms that make a huge difference in health for all members of the family, including adults, children, infants, and babies on the way.

If you think there’s no difference regarding food and medical freedoms at stake in this election, you couldn’t be more gravely mistaken. One candidate is massively funded by corporations, lobbyists, biotechnology companies, pharmaceutical regimes, and Wall Street. In 2014, that same candidate openly stated at the

Biotechnology Industry Organization

(BIO) convention in San Diego that food genetically engineered to contain pesticides is something we should all want.

1. Hillary Clinton is the Bride of Frankenfood and has already sold out to the Kings of GMO–Monsanto (now owned by Bayer)

Hillary Clinton (of the Clinton Crime Family) is a shill for biotech, regurgitating their very own scripted language and twisted terms used to falsely describe cancer-causing and Alzheimer’s-causing food that has besieged our staple food and caused chronic damage to the environment. Hillary talks the biotech game language, throwing propaganda terms around to help pad her own pockets and to help fund her campaign for President, which is falling apart at the seams.

Most Americans are quickly waking up to the dangers of GMOs, figuring out the real research that’s revealing lab animals dying from horrific cancer tumors, children exacerbating allergies and autism, and the elderly losing their memories and their collective minds faster and younger than ever before. It’s not a coincidence. Crooked politicians will say anything to get more money to gain more power, and that’s all that “Hitlery” Clinton is about. She’s been figured out. Simply put, a vote for Clinton is a vote for Monsanto.

2. Hillary will continue Obama’s raiding of organic farms and natural supplement distributors

Like no other president in the history of this country, Obama has been relentless at having his stooges–heavily armed regulatory goons from the FDA, USDA, DEA, EPA, and DHS–raid organic farms in order to destroy, intimidate, and annihilate, by example, anyone who defies his poisoned, corporate-infested country full of GM corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed.

Obama has opened the GMO doors wide, hiring biotech industry insiders to run the FDA, and if Hillary were to win the election next month, the reign of terror would simply continue and get even worse. Stand up for organic


and organic farmers and refuse to vote for a tyrannical regime that illegally destroys hard working farmers who actually care about the health and livelihood of their customers and a sustainable environment.

3. Hillary and the Clinton Crime Family will continue to attack natural medicine doctors and bury the cures for cancer

Just last year, eleven cancer cure doctors were all found dead within months, and each death fell under

suspicious circumstances

. Why would the government of the United States have nearly a dozen holistic doctors murdered? The doctors had discovered an enzyme protein (nagalase) present in vaccines that causes disease and disorder, including cancer and autism.

Make no mistake, Big Pharma, the vaccine industry, and the cancer industrial complex of America is filthy rich and awfully powerful.

4. Hillary supports forced mass vaccination of infants, children and adults

Let’s be very clear here: Globalists like Bill Gates, who contributes heavily to the

Clinton regime

, believe in depopulation and reducing the world’s population by the billions, as he has clearly stated can be done through the use of vaccines. This is why flu shots are free and the government wants mandatory vaccinations for all pregnant women, babies, children, teens and adults across America.

It’s not a conspiracy theory. Vaccines still contain mercury, aluminum, monosodium glutamate (MSG), embalming fluid for the dead (formaldehyde), peanut oil, genetically modified viruses, and live versions of experimental diseases like Zika, Swine, and Bird Flu. Vaccines are already mandatory in the state of California, and if Clinton had her way, no human being living in America could ever be exempt for any reason from getting every single toxic jab the CDC concocts and “recommends” (enforces at gunpoint).

Proof Trump actually cares about organic food and medical freedom

Go online and take a look at most of Donald Trump’s hotels and restaurants and you will find that he

promotes organic food

in most of them, so he’ll probably not be “owned” by Monsanto and Bayer when it comes to food regulations. Plus, Trump has spoken out about too many vaccines too close together causing autism.

For the first time in decades, a possible new President won’t be “owned” by the corporations that pump money into campaigns and then demand their poisonous products get pushed on the American people with no regulations. Trump is our best chance at preserving and promoting food and medical freedom. Be intelligent and resourceful. Get out to the polls and state your case!

Sources for this article include:;





October 12, 2016 at 11:17PM

The Flawed Logic Of Inflation

Authored by Michael Lebowitz (or via,

“To me, a wise and humane policy is occasionally to let inflation rise even when inflation is running above target” – Janet Yellen Chairwoman Federal Reserve


“And, beyond that, would a rise in inflation to 3 percent or even 4 percent be a terrible thing? On the contrary, it would almost surely help the economy” – Paul Krugman Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor and Journalist New

“Scandal Poker” – Dilbert’s Scott Adams Compares Trump, Clinton ‘Hands’

Amid the most ‘scandalicious’ election campaign of all time, it is hard to keep track (fact check) all the accusations, allegations, rumors, and innuendo flying around. As a public service, Dilbert creator Scott Adams summarizes the state of the farce (in the form of poker hands) using his persuasion filter

Let’s play Scandal Poker!

Hand :

Clinton had several political opponents killed 

Trump is a puppet of the Russian government


Result: Tie. Neither is

This #1 Blade Sharpener Is 40 Percent Off


This blade sharpener is considered a “ New Release” on Amazon, which means it is one of the most popular products to recently come to market. It’s not hard to understand why. The product already has almost 200 customer reviews, and 80 percent of those customers have given it a perfect 5 out of 5 stars. That means it delivers on its guarantees and then some.

For what its worth, this product promises “to sharpen knives and scissors in seconds.” It comes with a “super grip-lock suction pad” that “secures the knife sharpener firmly on your flat glass-top or kitchen top so that you can sharpen any blade effortlessly.” Furthermore, it says it can give any of your old knives new life, including even serrated knives.

Did mention the best part? It is currently 40 percent off.

Normally $25, this grade-A knife sharpener is $10 off (Photo via Amazon)

Normally $25, this grade-A knife sharpener is $10 off (Photo via Amazon)

SmartHomes Knife Sharpener Tool on sale for $14.95

The price, the value, the quality – everything about this sharpener makes it a must-buy. As one reviewer put it:

Well worth it.

Here is another look at the sharpener (Photo via Amazon)

Here is another look at the sharpener (Photo via Amazon)

Have a suggestion for a cool product or great deal that you think Daily Caller readers need to know about? Email the Daily Dealer at [email protected].  

Follow The Daily Dealer on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Jack on Twitter

The Daily Caller is devoted to showing you things that you’ll like or find interesting. We do have partnerships with affiliates, so The Daily Caller may get a small share of the revenue from any purchase.

Citi Has One Unpleasant Chart For Anyone Thinking Of Buying Twitter

With rumors swirling that Twitter may be acquired at any moment, with such suitor names thrown out as Disney, Salesforce, and even Google, overnight Citigroup released a scathing report explaining why a Twitter acquisition would be a bad idea. As the bank’s Jason Bazinet, who probably is catering to clients who are short TWTR says, "at a superficial level, this sort of transaction seems to make sense. With its recent BAMTech investment, Disney is taking early steps to pivot its cable nets business to the web. And, of course, Twitter recently took steps to move into live video including on-line streams of NFL games. That’s interesting. But, there are four reasons we don’t like this potential transaction…"

Here are Citi’s reasons why a Twitter deal makes no sense:

Reason : History Suggests Internet M&A Fraught with Challenges


In the last 15 years, we cannot think of a single web based property that was successfully acquired by a traditional media firm. This includes both AOL/Time Warner (in 2000) and MySpace/News Corp (in 2005). If history is any guide, Twitter entails significant risks for the buyer.


Reason : Twitter Trends are Troubling


Two key US metrics – including monthly average users (MAUs) and ad revenue per MAU – have deteriorated sharply in recent quarters. Moreover, Twitter has experienced an unusual level of management turnover in recent years. These metrics suggest successful integration may be challenging.


Reason : All Cash or All Stock Deal Apt to Hurt Disney’s Stock


We ran the Twitter merger math two ways: 100% cash and 100% equity. The cash offer would lower Disney’s stock by $5 per share. The equity offer would lower Disney’s stock by $9 per share.


Reason 4: Unclear How Disney’s Content Helps Twitter


We believe both Yahoo! and Twitter lost significant money when they streamed NFL content over the web. That is, the NFL charged far more for the Internet rights than either firm generated in advertising. This suggests that even if Disney brings more content to Twitter, it’s unlikely to be financially beneficial (unless the NFL materially lowers the cost of on-line rights).

Of all the specific reasons listed, we found 1 the most convincing, courtesy of the following note and chart:

Despite the different business models, the Internet’s rapid top-line growth has attracted strategic interest from traditional media firms. Indeed, traditional media has tried – many times – to acquire various Internet firms. And, these acquisitions have occurred at all stages of the target’s arc.

  • Back in 2000 – at the apex of AOL’s trajectory – AOL and Time Warner merged. It didn’t end particularly well for either firm.
  • Undaunted, five years later, News Corp acquired MySpace. The MySpace acquisition occurred when the fledgling social media firm was still gaining popularity. But, again, it didn’t end well for News Corp or MySpace.
  • A decade later, at the bottom of their respective arcs, AOL and Yahoo! were acquired by Verizon. And, MySpace – part of Viant – was acquired by Time Inc. Few investors are optimistic that Time or Verizon can materially improve the target’s prospects.

So, whether the Internet firm was on the rise, at its peak or in the doldrums, it’s difficult to point to a single successful acquisition in the Internet space by any traditional media firm.

Which leads to Citi’s stark condemnation of not only a Twitter purchase, but why most major media M&A in the internet space always fails. It needs no explanation.

Citi did not end there and had various other reasons why a TWTR deal would be negative for Disney, among them core differences in various business models:

If you dig a bit deeper into the social media business model, you’ll find stark differences:

  • First, social media begins with a ‘user sphere’. Firms like Facebook encourage users to set up a relatively tight circle of close friends. At the other extreme, firms like Twitter cast a very wide net. You can get Tweets from anyone.
  • Second, each social media firm receives a different amount of information about the user. Facebook asks for a lot of user information. But, Twitter doesn’t ask for much at all.
  • Third, due perhaps to differences in the user’s sphere, Facebook enjoys much higher levels of user engagement. Users want to know about their close friends. Twitter….at the other extreme….sees far lower user engagement.
  • Fourth, the propensity of these platforms to sign up users – due to the network effect – varies as well. Facebook has 1.71 billion monthly users. Twitter, on the other hand, only has 313 million monthly users.

These subtle differences have significant implications for the level of monetization – and subsequent value – the Street places on each firm. In effect, Facebook is far more valuable than Twitter. And, there is a reason.

Citi goes on to layout all the fundamental reasons why Twitter is a melting icecube, noting that "recent Twitter trends look troubling on two fronts: 1) Key metrics and 2) Recent management changes" adding that "from a profitability perspective, the trend is just as bad."

The acquisition math also does not work:

"traditional media firms usually don’t succeed when they buy Internet firms. And, recent Twitter trends – including MAUs and management turnover – are troubling. But, what does the merger math suggest? If Disney pays a 10% premium to Twitter’s recent stock price, it would imply $18.5 billion of equity value. If we remove Twitter’s cash on hand, the net outlay would be about $15.0 billion.

If Disney pays Twitter’s equity holders 100% cash, at a 4% interest rate, this would result in $600 million of incremental interest expense. And, it would push Disney’s leverage from 1.1x to 2.0x gross debt-to-EBITDA. (We have assumed $500 million in synergies.)

And, if we hold Disney’s P/E multiple constant, it suggests an all-cash offer would reduce Disney’s equity value by about $4-5 per share.

Alternatively, we assumed Disney pays for Twitter via stock. This would result in about 163 million additional Disney shares ($15 billion / $92 per share). And, with $500 million of synergies, it would result in Disney’s equity falling by about $9 per share.

So, whether Disney pays for Twitter in cash or stock – or any combination of the two – we suspect Disney’s equity value would fall.

Citi’s Bottom Line on Disney buying Twitter: it would be a major mistake.

Any way we slice the data, we just can’t get enthusiastic about this potential transaction. As such, we’re maintaining our Buy rating on Disney. But, that means we hope the press reports are wrong and Twitter is acquired by some other firm.


Back in 2009 – seven years ago – we somewhat confidently suggested Disney made a mistake when it acquired Marvel. We were wrong. Marvel was a very successful acquisition for Disney. As such, if Disney is interested in Twitter, they may see something we don’t. And, Disney may be right.


But, any way we slice the data, we just can’t get enthusiastic about this potential transaction. As such, we’re maintaining our Buy rating on Disney. But, that means we hope the press reports are wrong and Twitter is acquired by some other firm.

Then again, in a world in which the cost of debt is virtually non-existent, all of the above may be irrelevant.