Discount Gold and Silver Trading

American Survival Newsletter:
Combining the World of Finance, Health & Politics

American Gold

A weekly newsletter brought to you by
Discount Gold & Silver 800-375-4188
Edited by Alfred Adask
Friday, February 12, AD 2016
From Friday, February 5th, A.D. 2016, to Friday, February 12th, A.D. 2016, the bid prices for:
Gold rose 5.5 % from $1,173.50 to $1237.90
Silver rose 4.9 % from $15.01 to $15.75
Platinum rose 4.8 % from $910 to $954
Palladium rose3.6 % from $502 to $520
Crude Oil fell 6.2 % from $31.02 to $29.08

US Dollar Index fell 1.0 % from 96.99 to 96.00

DJIA fell 1.4 % from 16,204.83 to 15,973.84
NASDAQ fell 0.6 % from 4,363.14 to 4,337.51
NYSE fell 1.7 % from 9,390.36 to 9,229.68
Interestingly, this is the second week in a row when all four of the precious metals we follow rose and all five of the other indicators we follow fell.


"Only buy something that you'd be perfectly happy to hold
if the market shut down for 10 years." --Warren Buffett 

"If the markets shut down for 10 years, what investment would you dare to hold-- 
other than gold"? --Alfred Adask

Interest Rate Manipulation Fails

by Alfred Adask
On February 9th, Business Insider Australia published "CARNAGE IN JAPAN:  Nikkei's largest fall in years, yen spikes, government bond yields below 0%" which said in part:
"On Monday [February 8th], the benchmark Nikkei 225 index lost more than 900 points, closing the session at 16,085.44.  The 5.4% one-day decline was the largest since June 13, 2013 . . . .  Since January 29th, the day the Bank of Japan adopted a negative-interest-rate policy, the Nikkei index has lost more than 10%."
Since mid-December, when the U.S. Federal Reserve increased the U.S. interest rate by 0.25%, the U.S. stock market has also suffered a significant decline.
Japan lowered its interest rates to zero-and then to a negative interest rate-their stock markets fell
The U.S. raised interests from 0.25% to 0.50%, and the US stock markets fell
The world's stock market indices are falling. Judging by the US and Japanese recent experiences with raising-and lowering-interest rates, interest rate manipulation is insufficient to overcome whatever forces are causing the market declines.   
This implies that neither the Bank of Japan nor the Federal Reserve has any viable tools including interest rate manipulation that can reliably stimulate the economy and withstand the forces of economic depression.
QE (Quantitative Easing; the distribution of "free" currency to banks) in both nations has also failed to stimulate their economies. 
What tools are left to "simulate" the economy except (allegedly) negative interest rates (NIRP)-and NIRP will almost certainly fail to have any positive effect other than to make people laugh or cuss. 
NIRP is a fantasy or a fraud designed to encourage the public to have (false) confidence in the central banks' ability to control the world's economies.  NIRP is almost certainly a device whose primary purpose is to hide the fact that the central banks have lost their ability to control their economies and are just waiting for, and dreading, the moment when the world recognizes that truth.
"While concerns over the outlook for the global economy contributed to the decline, renewed strength in the Japanese yen . . .  was also a major factor behind the Nikkei's decline."
"Renewed strength in the Japanese yen" is evidence of deflation.
Deflation is a hallmark of economic depression
Both the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen have been growing stronger-which is evidence that the world's #1 and #3 economies are in deflation and on the brink of, or perhaps already in, an economic depression.  And, so far, they've shown no tools able to prevent that deflation.
"While continued easing of monetary policy by the Bank of Japan, along with renewed global growth fears, saw yields on benchmark 10-year Japanese government debt fall below 0%, taking them tolows never witnessed before."
"Lows" in Japanese bonds "never witnessed before" is surely bad news for Japan.  But will Japan's misfortune also afflict the U.S. economy?
Anyone who supports the New World Order and Global Free Trade must also support further integration of the U.S. economy into the economies of other countries.  Insofar as the U.S. economy is integrated into Japan's economy, there will be economic contagion between those two countries.  Thus, it appears that Japan's economic depression can infect the U.S. economy with the same disease.
Insofar as the U.S. economy is integrated into the world's, the U.S. economy can be damaged by economic contagion spinning off from other countries like Japan, China, and the EU.
Do we really want to be integrated into a world economy where the U.S. economy's health depends on the health of foreign economies?  Isn't our integration into foreign economies a little like contracting to take blood transfusions from a blood bank located in a gay neighborhood?
It may be that, formerly, the risks created by such contracts were "acceptable" insofar as we believed the central banks had the tools to quickly cure any transmissible diseases.  But as it becomes increasingly clear the central bank "doctors" have no cures for what currently ails our economies, do we really want to risk further economic integration?  Or should we opt for more independence and even economic isolation?

How Governments React to Bankruptcy

by Alfred Adask
Michael Snyder ( writes:
"The crisis in Puerto Rico continues to spiral out of control."
 I don't regard Puerto Rico's plight as big news. I don't see Puerto Rico as the domino that starts the chain reaction that will, eventually, topple the U.S. economy.
 Even so, Puerto Rico's reaction to its default is interesting as an indicator of what may happen to the US when the U.S. government also inevitably defaults on its debts.
*  According to Michael Snyder, "The following is an excerpt from a letter that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent to Congress:"
"Although there are many ways this crisis could escalate further, it is clear that Puerto Rico is already in the midst of an economic collapse. . . . Puerto Rico is already in default."
P.R. isn't paying its existing debts.
"1.  It is shifting funds from one creditor to pay another . . . ."
P.R. is robbing Peter to pay a more politically-connected Paul; the political favorites who are "too chummy to fail" will be paid as long as possible.
"and P.R. has,
"2.   Stopped payment altogether on several of its debts."
Those who are mere investors and not particularly chummy with government are already losing the cash owed to them.
"3.  Creditors are filing lawsuits."
The creditors who sue P.R. better pack a Snickers bar because they're going to be in court for a long time before they ever get paid.  In the end, they'll probably receive only a relatively small percentage of the debt due (take a "haircut"). 
P.R. creditors have no more chance of collecting all of the money owed them than do the creditors who loaned money to Greece.  What can't be paid, won't be paid.
Puerto Rico's Government Development Bank, which provides critical banking and fiscal services to the central government, only avoided depleting its liquidity [exhausting its supply of cash and becoming openly insolvent]by:
"1.   Halting lending,"
The Puerto Rican "Government Development Bank" didn't actually "halt lending" by choice.  They ran out of cash.  The P.R. "Government Development Bank" is broke.
"2.  Sweeping in additional deposits from other Puerto Rico governmental entities."
So far, it's easier for P.R.'s territorial government to rob the city and county municipal accounts than it is to rob the Puerto Rican people.  But, you can bet that as soon as the municipal accounts are exhausted, the Puerto Rican government will start to rob the people's savings accounts and other bastions of private savings.
*  In broad strokes the Puerto Rican reaction to their government defaults is:
1.  Rob its creditors by stopping payment on debts due.  There aren't many creditors and nobody likes 'em anyway because they're rich.  Governments can rob rich creditors without causing much adverse political reaction.
2. Robbing smaller governmental agencies and entities.  Nobody likes government, either.  Therefore, robbing cities and counties will create only a little more political heat than robbing rich creditors, but not as much as will be created when the government robs the people.
3.  Ignore the resulting lawsuits since most are filed by creditors without political clout and they'll take years to settle.
4.  Rob the ever-dangerous and unpredictable Puerto Rican people-and hope they don't riot and burn the island down to the water line and/or hang the government officials.
*  Implication?  Faced with bankruptcy, most governments (including that of the United States) will first rob those with the least political clout (rich creditors), then rob those with some political clout (smaller governmental entities) and only as a last resort, risk robbing the people who have the most political clout and just might riot.
There's a good chance that when the US defaults-as it must since the National Debt can't be paid in full or even substantially-we'll go through a very similar set of steps:  1st, rob its rich creditors; 2nd, rob smaller governmental savings accounts, and finally, 3rd, rob the American people of their savings.
Repaying the debt is all about politics
If you're a creditor and politically connected, you might get paid. 
If you lend money to the government, but you're not politically connected, the probability that you'll be robbed by the national government is high.

Gun Control Nuts

by Alfred Adask reported in "Meanwhile In Chicago, 120 People Shot In First 10 Days Of 2016" that,
"Even as Obama takes his anti-gun crusade to new highs [by] dispensing executive orders, the president conveniently continues to ignore the state of affairs in his native Chicago-a city in which guns are banned-yet where the shooting epidemic has never been worse. 
"According to the Chicago Tribune, the total number of shootings in the windy city has risen to 120 in just over a week into the new year . . . at least 19 people have been killed and at least 101 more have been wounded. This is three times higher than compared to the same period one year ago.
"Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi released a statement saying, 'Every year Chicago Police recover more illegal guns than officers in any other city, and as more and more illegal guns continue to find their way into our neighborhoods. So it is clear we need stronger state and federal gun laws.'"
That's not "clear" at all. 
What's clear is that the Chicago Police Department is lying or stupid.  As you'll read, there's good evidence indicating that Chicago gun deaths aren't due to Chicago's gun control laws being too weak, but because their gun control laws are too strong. 
Gun control kills.
The cops should know it.  Insofar as the Chicago Police Department advocates more gun control, it's helping to cause, rather than prevent, more deaths.
The Chicago P.D.'s statement continues:
"So far this year, the majority of the gun violence we've seen are a result of chronic gang conflicts driven in part by social media commentary and petty disputes among rival factions."
First, if Chicagoans are dying because of "social media commentary" (the internet) and "petty disputes," is Chicago's real problem gun control or ineffective education and failure to provide young people with some sense of moral values?
More, I'll bet that a majority of those shot or killed were disarmed when the shooting took place.  How many of those victims would've died if the assailants knew they were armed?  Would the killers have all had the nerve to shoot if they knew the victims might shoot back?  Evidence below suggests that the answer is No.
Second, nearly 3,000 Chicagoans were shot in A.D. 2015.  If Chicago's current rate of gun assaults continues throughout A.D. 2016, over 4,000 could be shot and over 800 killed in a city that has powerful, unprecedented gun control laws.
Doesn't the relationship between a high number of shooting victims and a high-powered gun control laws suggest that gun control laws are no more effective at quelling crime than Quantitative Easing is at stimulating the economy?
*  The Washington Times ("White House says stricter gun laws can prevent terrorist attacks") reported that on December 3rd, A.D. 2015 two Muslims killed 14 and wounded 17 in the San Bernardino, California.  President Obama and his spokesmen responded as follows:
"Despite mounting evidence that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the mass slayings in California, the White House said Thursday that stricter gun control could have prevented the attack and vowed to keep "scrubbing" the nation's laws for ways that President Obama can take executive action to restrict gun ownership.
Apparently, it wasn't the "Islamist terrorists" who killed 14 in San Bernardino, it was the guns.  Maybe we should've let the "Islamist terrorists" go and just jailed their guns.
In fact, gun control is President Obama's #1 solution to every problem. 
Got global warming?  Cure it with more gun control.
Leaves falling off trees and clogging your gutters?  Stop it with more gun control.
Unseasonably warm, cold or moderate weather choking the economy?  Gun control will solve your problems.
Too many potholes in the streets?  The answer's obvious:  more gun control.
In fact, stricter gun control laws won't work any better than stricter drug control laws or NIRP.  Drugs are here in abundance and the government can't or won't do anything to stop it. NIRP is a last grasp at a flimsy straw.  There's no reason to suppose that stricter gun control laws will work any better to defeat criminal elements.
In fact, there's good reason to believe that the only real effect of stricter gun control laws will be to put more honest Americans in prison for having guns to defend themselves against criminals-or in the grave for following the law and having no gun to defend themselves.
No one seriously believes that stricter gun control laws would've stopped the Jihadists in San Bernardino from acquiring guns to kill 14 and wound 17 last December.
But increasing restrictions on access to guns helped leave the law-abiding 14 who died defenseless.  Gun control left the law-abiding 17 who were injured defenseless.  Those people died or were wounded precisely because they obeyed the existing gun control laws.  Their resulting inability to defend themselves got 14 of them killed.
What if the Jihadists had known that 2, 3 or 10 of the people who they planned to attack were packing heat?  What if they'd known that if they showed up with two AK-47s, they'd have to face off against ten people packing 9mm pistols or 45 semi-automatics?
More gun control would not have saved the San Bernardino victims.  It's gun control that got them killed.
*  That opinion is not radical hyperbole.
The Economist is a highly-respected English news magazine that agrees that gun control is hazardous to your health.  As reported by The Washington Examiner ("The Economist Speaks on U.S. Gun Control"), The Economist has studied the relationship between American gun ownership and gun violence and reached the following conclusions:
"Gun sales have doubled under President Obama while the gun murder rate has beencut in half since 1993, making America "a much safer place," according to a new Economist analysis.
"Over 16 million new guns entered the U.S. marketplace in 2013, up from about 7 million when Obama was elected in 2008.
"'America has become a much safer place over the past two decades, but public sentiment has yet to catch on to the fact.  In 1993, near the peak of America's crime wave, seven out of every 100,000 people aged 12 and up were gunned down. That number has since halved,' it said."
Q:  What's the lesson of the Economist's report? 
A:  More guns in the hands or more people actually make people safer.  The 14 who died and the 17 who were wounded in San Bernardino weren't the victims because gun control laws were too weak-they were the victims because gun control laws were too strong. 
If half a dozen of those victims had had their own guns with them, the death and injury toll on the victims would've been smaller.  It's likely that if the Jihadists had known they were bringing their weapons into a room where their intended targets were also armed, those Jihadists might not have bothered to attack.
The victims who died in San Bernardino didn't die simply because the Jihadists had guns.  The victims died because they didn't have guns. What's true in San Bernardino is also true in Chicago.
*  If President Obama really wanted to protect the American people from gun violence he'd help enact laws that encouraged more people to own fire arms and allowed and encouraged people to carry those firearms in public.
If may be counterintuitive for many to suppose that more guns result in fewer gun fatalities, but that's only because we've been conditioned by government propaganda to believe gun control is a rational agenda.
The evidence is clear.  During the last 23 years, the number of guns in this country has doubled and the number of people killed with guns has fallen by half.
"Gun control nuts" are, at best, ignorant-at worst, treasonous.
The truth is this:  Gun control kills.
Gun control advocates can get you killed. 

How Republics Perish
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday - February 13, 2016
If you believed America's longest war, in Afghanistan, was coming to an end, be advised: It is not.
Departing U.S. commander Gen. John Campbell says there will need to be U.S. boots on the ground "for years to come." Making good on President Obama's commitment to remove all U.S. forces by next January, said Campbell, "would put the whole mission at risk."
"Afghanistan has not achieved an enduring level of security and stability that justifies a reduction of our support. ... 2016 could be no better and possibly worse than 2015."
Translation: A U.S. withdrawal would risk a Taliban takeover with Kabul becoming the new Saigon and our Afghan friends massacred.
Fifteen years in, and we are stuck.
Nor is America about to end the next longest war in its history: Iraq. Defense Secretary Ash Carter plans to send units of the 101st Airborne back to Iraq to join the 4,000 Americans now fighting there,
"ISIS is a cancer," says Carter. After we cut out the "parent tumor" in Mosul and Raqqa, we will go after the smaller tumors across the Islamic world.
When can Mosul be retaken? "Certainly not this year," says the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart.
Vladimir Putin's plunge into the Syrian civil war with air power appears to have turned the tide in favor of Bashar Assad.
The "moderate" rebels are being driven out of Aleppo and tens of thousands of refugees are streaming toward the Turkish border.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be enraged with the U.S. for collaborating with Syrian Kurds against ISIS and with Obama's failure to follow through on his dictate - "Assad must go!"
There is thus no end in sight to the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, nor to the U.S.-backed Saudi war in Yemen, where ISIS and al-Qaida have re-arisen in the chaos.
Indeed, the West is mulling over military intervention in Libya to crush ISIS there and halt the refugee flood into Europe.
Yet, despite America's being tied down in wars from the Maghreb to Afghanistan, not one of these wars were among the three greatest threats identified last summer by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
"Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security" said Dunford, "If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia ... if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming."
Dunford agreed with John McCain that we ought to provide anti-tank weapons and artillery to Ukraine, for, without it, "they're not going to be able to protect themselves against Russian aggression."
But what would we do if Putin responded by sending Russian troops to occupy Mariupol and build a land bridge to Crimea? Send U.S. troops to retake Mariupol? Are we really ready to fight Russia?
The new forces NATO is moving into the Baltic suggests we are.
Undeniably, disputes have arisen between Russia, and Ukraine and Georgia which seceded in 1991, over territory. But, also undeniably, many Russians in the 14 nations that seceded, including the Baltic states, never wanted to leave and wish to rejoin Mother Russia.
How do these tribal and territorial conflicts in the far east of Europe so threaten us that U.S. generals are declaring that "Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security"?
Asked to name other threats to the United States, Gen. Dunford listed them in this order: China, North Korea, ISIS.
But while Beijing is involved in disputes with Hanoi over the Paracels, with the Philippines over the Spratlys, with Japan over the Senkakus - almost all of these being uninhabited rocks and reefs - how does China threaten the United States?
America is creeping ever closer to war with the other two great nuclear powers because we have made their quarrels our quarrels, though at issue are tracts and bits of land of no vital interest to us.
North Korea, which just tested another atomic device and long-range missile, is indeed a threat to us.
But why are U.S. forces still up the DMZ, 62 years after the Korean War? Is South Korea, with an economy 40 times that of the North and twice the population, incapable of defending itself?
Apparently slipping in the rankings as a threat to the United States is that runaway favorite of recent years, Iran.
Last fall, though, Sen. Ted Cruz reassured us that "the single biggest national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran."
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded," wrote James Madison, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Perhaps Madison was wrong.
Otherwise, with no end to war on America's horizon, the prospect of this free republic enduring is, well, doubtful.
Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?
   Let us know how we are doing - Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
Share Pat's Columns:
Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at
   -- Sign up for Pat's email updates, follow on Twitter, FaceBook and Pat's YouTube Channel.... Plus all of his syndicated columns and more!
Get Pats Books...  Signed by Pat Buchanan!
Please Support the Funding of Our Email List and Website:

PLEASE NOTE: To send mail to Pat Buchanan via the US postal service view instructions here:

The legal landscape for the sale and transplantation of human organs is changing. Human organ transplants started in 1954. By the 1970's, it was a popular option. The current laws in place, which prevent the black market selling or purchasing of human organs, could also change. With over 100,000 patients waiting for new organs in the US on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, a large percentage will not receive a transplant. According to the Hoover Institute, patients needing a kidney are on the list an average of 4.5 years and only 17% receive a transplant. Compared to ten years ago, there are now more people on the organ list pushing up the wait time and reducing the likelihood of getting an organ transplant.
The US has current laws protecting people from having their organs harvested without their consent and prohibiting a free marketplace for organ sales for cash. In 1984, the US Congress enacted the National Organ Transplantation Act. This law made it a crime for hospitals or anyone to procure human organs for the purpose of making money on organ transplantation outside of the legal organ transplant laws, which prohibits cash payments for organs.
We live in a new era of no common sense and nonsensical laws. The US Health and Human Services along with the US Attorney General have been encouraged to look at ways they can circumvent the National Organ Transplantation Act and make way for a free marketplace to sell human organs. There is a lot of money to be made in the trafficking of human organs and there are more than enough patients currently waiting for transplants. Sick patients would mortgage their homes and sell everything they have for a second chance. With diabetes running rampant in the US, the kidney transplant is the organ that is in most demand. If authorities are successful in establishing a legal free market for human organs, we could see healthy people willing to sell a kidney. Currently transplant organs are donated. The medical expense associated with the organ is the prep work, harvesting and then the transplant itself. According to, the cost of a kidney transplant is currently $262,900. If people expect to be paid for one of their organs, the cost of transplants will go up and be passed on to the recipient. Why would we expect that? There is a complication health risk for the person donating the organ and the statistics are that 3 in 10,000 cases will have complications. That means the person selling a piece of themselves may need to absorb significant medical expenses. This organ free market could impact many industries including medical and life insurance. However, if the US Attorney General wanted to steer clear of any appearance of a black market and exploitation issues they will need to prohibit private organ sales and sales would be regulated by the non-profit United Network for Organ Sharing.
"We call for the swift initiation of evidence-based research on ways to offer benefits to organ donors in order to expand the availability of transplants."(Alleged letter sent by influential people to the US President, US Attorney General and Health & Human Services Secretary)
If the federal government approves of the changes regarding the human organ market, it may try to deflect some of the expenses the free market may inflict. Other forms of donor payment have been suggested such as; free healthcare, free funeral and disability insurance. The government may even allow the donor a special tax credit, a perk on a retirement plan or a special donation to his or hers favorite charity. I wonder how many people would seriously consider parting with a body part for that. Some countries, such as Singapore and Australia, have allowed limited payments to "live" donors. For example, a kidney may net $4,000 and extra pay for lost work time. Another consideration to improve supply and demand of all kinds of organs, such as heart and lungs, is to allow donors to sell them when they are alive but the organ will be harvested when they die. I think they are calling this plan "selling forward." Why would authorities in the medical system want this? It is because that some organ donors after they die have family which blocks the harvesting of the organs and if the donor received compensation ahead, this would give the medical establishment grounds to take what they have paid for. Slick move, however it is repugnant. What if someone impersonates you, sells your organs forward and for some reason your organs upon death cannot be used? What then? Identity organ theft could become a real problem. Or what if you sell your organs forward and then have an accident and the organ is damaged? You'd have to give the money back.
You have to wonder how a free market in organ sales will operate. Could this open a new job career of organ brokers to protect the best interests of the donor and recipient? It is a sale transaction and in essence it is a personal real estate transfer. I would think this would create a new law specialty to represent those who were misrepresented, lied to and otherwise exploited.
When you have a free marketplace there is the old tradition that money talks and cash is king. Will more affluent patients be given special treatment? Will there be a system set up for the recruitment of human organs from healthy people? Will this put head injury patients who are in comas at more risk of having their organs prematurely removed? Head injury/coma patients can run medical bills into the millions. At the risk of sounding macabre, could medical insurance companies be influenced by the organ free market to refuse to pay for treatment and suggest organ harvesting to help cover the patient's bill?
If we follow the money it can answer a whole lot of questions why the push for a free market for organs. In many instances, medical treatments for patients with failing organs can sometimes be more expensive than a transplant. For instance, a kidney transplant cost approximately $263,000 and can extend the life of the patient about 20+ years. Compared to kidney dialysis over a 4 to 5 year period can cost $350,000. Insurance companies know this.
In the US it has been established that hospitals must have informed consent from the patient, (donor) or their family before harvesting organs for transplantation. Informed consent is a legal declaration of the donor's wishes. However, there is a push to change that to what is called "implied consent." Some countries which have switched over to implied consent are; Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile and Denmark. Switching to implied consent is a plan to narrow the gap between supply and demand of human organs. In the countries with implied consent it means that after a person dies their organs can be harvested. If a family does not want the organs taken, they have to make sure they have filed the correct paperwork to block the harvesting. In the US, the harvesting of organs is billed to the donor. The cost of harvesting an organ ranges from $65,000 to over $130,000. A kidney costs $ 67,200 to harvest. The hospital gets a free organ to transplant into a patient making hundreds of thousands of dollars and also gets paid for the harvesting of it.
Some people may say free market for human organs will never happen. If Planned Parenthood can exploit the unborn selling body parts and avoid punishment, what makes you think that modern medicine wouldn't follow in their footsteps?
It is much easier to take care of the original equipment God gave us than to rely on body parts from someone else. Organ cleansing is a nontoxic and gentle way to remove impurities which create cellular stress on organs and encourage failure or disease. A car that never has its fluids changes will soon have an engine that fails. Maintenance is a requirement for humans and nothing cleanses the human system as well as medicinal herbs. Apothecary Herbs has been specializing in organic herbal cleanses for over 15 years. Call the experts in organ cleansing, call Apothecary Herbs 866-229-3663, International 704-885-0277, because if you're serious about herbs you need Apothecary Herbs. Free catalog. Herb saving coupons on their website. VALINTINE SPECIAL - Save 10% and FREE ground ship on US orders of $50+ with code: FEBV16. Hurry! Expires 2/14/16.

Herbalist Wendy Wilson on Herb Talk Live
Saturday morning show:
7 am EST on GCN
Weekday show:
7 pm EST on AVR
Shortwave show 8 pm EST WWCR 4840
Go to Herb Talk Live & Radio Archive area for network link access and past shows to download and share. For Android users you can download a FREE app for Herb Talk Live on GCN. See the download link under radio archives at top of page at
at Apothecary Herbs 
MORE HERB SECRETS IN THE POWER HERBS e-BOOK. By popular demand The Power Herbs e-book is available with symptom/herb reference guide, information on organ cleansing and how to make your own herbal tinctures plus a whole lot more. You must have email to order and receive the e-book a PDF version of The Power Herb book for just $14.99. At this time, we do not offer this title in hard copy. The book is now available in KINDLE and IPAD formats. Select the book you need on the drop down.
Try Dandelion Root Tincture for inflammation, blood purification, respiratory infections, digestion and cancer protection at Apothecary Herbs 866-229-3663 
MALE & FEMALE ORGAN CLEANSES KITS - Don't give disease a foothold. You will have the power to cleanse the bowel, urinary, liver, gall bladder and blood system with this cleanse package. For added cleansing, ask about how you can upgrade your order to include the prostate cleanse for men or the Kidney/Bladder cleanse for females.  Go to or call their 24-hour live customer service line 866-229-3663, International 704-885-0277.
The information contained herein is not designed to diagnosis, treat, prevent or cure disease. Seek medical advice from a lincensed medical physician (if you dare) before using any product or therapy. 
All content is copyright Independent News Journalist Disclaimers of FARE USE

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "Fair Use" Allowance is made for purposes such as: Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship, and Research. "Fair Use" is a use permitted by Copyright Statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, Educational or Personal use tips the balance in Favor of "Fair Use". Conclusions drawn from these articles or audio files do not necessarily represent the Opinions/Beliefs of those subjects People/Musicians/Participants/Entities therein. "Fair Use" says it all....Produced by FREELANCE AUTHOR.