Daily Archives: October 20, 2015

There Will Be Blood: Socialist Professor

There Will Be Blood: Socialist Professor Says America’s Gun Owners Should Be Shot: “It’s Very Simple”

The following report was originally published by Alex Thomas at Intellihub.

firingsquad-nazis(Pictured: Nazi soldiers execute Polish prisoners, presumably for resisting the police state. Circa 1941)

They want you dead: Liberal Professor compares law-abiding gun owners to slaveholders, calls for them to be shot
By Alex Thomas


In what will go down as one of the most disgusting, hate filled articles ever published on the hard left clickbait rag Salon.com, an author and liberal college professor has written a piece that calls for all gun owners to be shot. 

No, you did not read that incorrectly and this is not hyperbole.

The article, written by Coppin State University teacher D. Watkins, not only calls for all gun owners to be shot but also ridiculously compares them to slaveholders while claiming that there is no legitimate reason to own a weapon.

Starting out the article with the writers dreams of charging five thousand dollars per bullet, Watkins then makes his position on gun ownership in America startlingly clear.

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop. Watching cable news now in days makes me physically ill.

Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people. Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our elected officials remain clueless.

He then goes on to attack the usual right wing boogeyman (Carson and Trump) before making yet another patently false statement that shows his complete ignorance on the actual facts of gun ownership. Watkins, like so many other clueless authoritarian liberals, simply does not understand gun ownership and its connection to freedom and liberty.

Bullets are extremely hot and they hurt. I saw them paralyze, cut through faces, pierce children and take life. I have friends, relatives and loved ones be gunned down. Guns break apart families and ruin lives.

Other than giving a coward the heart to stand tall, what’s the positive part of gun ownership? Other than the people in rural areas who use them to hunt for food, I have only seen them destroy, both in the suburbs and in our inner cities.

Watkins only sees them destroy so the millions and millions of other American citizens who do not share his opinion should be shot!? It’s almost as if Watkins has decided to lift the veil and publish a piece chalked full of the actual thoughts that liberal authoritarians share with each other on a regular basis.

Not wanting to have his call for all gun owners to be shot to be the only unbelievably messed up thing in his hate piece, Watkins then compares all gun owners to slaveholders in a transparent attempt to label those he disagrees with as racists. (a tried and true tactic of the authoritarian left)

Gun praisers are just like the people who were in favor of slavery back in the day–– the elite, lazy and ignorant who weren’t being beaten, raped or in the field doing the work, so they were perfectly okay with involuntary servitude, which is a problem and why I think gun owners need to feel more––they need a taste of the other side.

Got that gun owners. You are elitists, you are lazy, you are ignorant, and most of all you are like a slaveholder for owning those terrible firearms!

In case the reader thought that they may had just misread what the author meant in the beginning of the article, Watkins closes by reiterating his belief that all gun owners should be shot. (emphasis again mine)

So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. You need to feel a bullet rip through your flesh, and if you survive and enjoy the feeling­­––then the right to bear arms will be all yours.

Ironically, this hate piece was published by a news outlet that routinely labels anyone that they disagree with as dangerous, violent racists. Apparently they are not worried about calling for millions of Americans to be shot just as long as those Americans are on the other side of the political isle.

The above quoted piece is a perfect example of how gun control advocates really feel about millions of America gun owners and should be a wake up call to anyone still on the fence over whether or not gun control fanatics are just calling for “common sense” reform rather than full-scale confiscation and attacks on actual gun owners.

It is also important to note that the call for gun owners to be shot is possibly tied directly to the recent promotion of Australian style gun control by the mainstream media. Australia initiated a massive mandatory buyback program (also known as confiscation by government force) after a mass shooting and one can imagine Americans would not be so keen to turn in their weapons if a similar law were passed in this country.

Attempting to implement this type of gun control in the United States is an obvious recipe for civil war and gun owners who refuse to go along with the confiscation would be subject to violence at the hands of the government. (see all gun owners being shot)

But hey, we are all just crazy right wing extremists for worrying about gun control, even as the media calls for mass confiscation and gun owners across the country to be shot.

This article originally appeared on Intellihub.com.

Over A Year Before 9/11, Trump Wrote Of Terror Threat With Remarkable Clarity

trump looking up


“I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers.”

In 2000, 19 months before Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Trump wrote extensively of the terrorism threat the United States was facing.

Trump, who at the time was considering a presidential bid on the Reform Party ticket, went so far as to say that an attack on a major U.S. city was not just a probability, but an inevitability.

“I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers,” wrote Trump in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. “No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen.”

Trump even mentions Osama bin Laden by name, in a criticism of an American foreign policy that too quickly jumps from one crisis to the next.

“One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan,” The Donald wrote. “He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”

Trump started a full-on war with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Friday, when he suggested Bush’s older brother and former President George W. Bush is to blame for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Jeb Bush took to Twitter to defend his brother, calling Trump’s attack “pathetic,” and told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday that Trump talks about foreign policy like he’s still on his reality show, The Apprentice.

Four years before The Apprentice ever aired, Trump devoted an entire section of his book to keeping America safe from terrorism, arguing our ignorance of the threats we faced from terrorism was the biggest threat to national security.

“I may be making waves, but that’s all right,” wrote Trump. “Making waves is usually what you need to do to rock the boat, and our national-security boat definitely needs rocking. Let’s point fingers. The biggest threat to our security is ourselves, because we’ve become arrogant. Dangerously arrogant. It’s time for a realistic view of the world and our place in it. Do we truly understand the threats we face? And let me give a warning: You won’t hear a lot of what follows from candidates in this campaign, because what I’ve got to say is definitely not happy talk. There are forces to be worried about, people and programs to take action against. Now.”

“We face a different problem when we talk about the individual fanatics who want to harm us,” The Donald continued, discussing the threat from individual terrorist organizations that despised American culture.

Trump said such people were determined to attack us.

“We can kid ourselves all we want by mocking their references to the Great Satan, but also keep in mind that there is no greater destiny for many people than to deal the Great Satan a major kick in the teeth,” he wrote, adding they despised the U.S. support for Israel.

“Our teenage boys fantasize about Cindy Crawford; young terrorists fantasize about turning an American city (and themselves) into charcoal,” Trump wrote.

Trump predicted a major attack on an American city that would involved weapons of mass destruction, writing, “Yet it’s time to get down to the hard business of preparing for what I believe is the real possibility that somewhere, sometime, a weapon of mass destruction will be carried into a major American city and detonated.”

Trump added that even if the U.S. mobilized, the country probably wouldn’t be able to stop most attacks. Trump said many people would willingly sign up for a suicide mission in America, and that the many U.S. military incursions create more terrorists who want to harm us.

“Whatever their motives — fanaticism, revenge — suffice it to say that plenty of people would stand in line for a crack at a suicide mission within America,” Trump wrote. “In fact the number of potential attackers grows every day. Our various military adventures — some of which are justified, some not — create new legions of people who would like to avenge the deaths of family members or fellow citizens.

“It is one cost of peacekeeping we should keep in mind. I am not a hard-core isolationist. While I agree that we stick our noses into too many problems not of our making and that we can’t do much about, I strongly disagree with the idea that we can pull up the drawbridge to hide from rogue nations or individual fanatics.”

Ted Cruz’s Closest Counselors Are Neocons


There’s a lot about Ted Cruz that should worry constitutionalists considering voting for the senator in the presidential election of 2016.

Recently, Infogram published brief but illuminating biographies of several of Cruz’s key foreign policy advisors. The information disclosed in these revelations could trouble many constitutionalists otherwise keen on the senator and who rely on him to restore the rule of law to the White House.

The first person highlighted in the article is the chairman of Cruz’s foreign policy team, Chad Sweet (shown).


Sweet’s professional and political background betrays Cruz’s claims of being someone who promises “not to continue going in the same direction” and to “bring power out of Washington, and back to we the people.”

Infogram’s biography of Chad Sweet includes the following associations, demonstrating that he is very much a step in the “same direction”:

With a diverse background, starting as Director of the CIA, Chad Sweet went into the world of big banks — from Investment Banker at Morgan Stanley to VP with Goldman Sachs. He would then work for the Department of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration. Currently he is the Co-Founder of Chertoff Group.

Sweet cofounded Chertoff Group with former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Hardly the pedigree of an outsider. In fact, his neocon bona fides could not be better.

As a leader of the Chertoff Group, Sweet “advocated for expanding NSA metadata collection.” Again, this belies Ted Cruz’s public position on the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance of Americans.

“One of the most troubling things we have seen in recent years is an expansion of federal government authority into surveilling American citizens. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act,” Cruz said during a speech in Austin in November 2014.

Despite such public declarations, it’s little wonder that a key member of the Cruz foreign policy team would support dragnet surveillance of Americans given that one of the principals of the Chertoff Group is General Michael Hayden, director of the NSA until 2005.

These sorts of inconsistencies have sunk other campaigns, particularly those of candidates who fly the flag of the Constitution as proudly as Ted Cruz.

When it comes to ending the federal government’s collection of personal data on millions of Americans in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment, it seems Ted Cruz’s lips draw nigh to the Bill of Rights, but his heart (and his personally chosen counselors) are far from it.

Next up on the roster of Ted Cruz’s neocon inner circle is Victoria Coates.

As was the case with Chad Sweet, Coates’s connections with the neocon elite are strong and numerous. From Infogram’s bio:

Having served as director of research for former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and as an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Coates has a track record of supporting a neoconservative foreign policy. In 2012, she was an advisor to Rick Perry, whose campaign was in support of sending troops back into Iraq.

This record of rubbing shoulders with a who’s who of neocon luminaries cannot be comfortable for the constitutionalist wing of the Cruz camp.

Apparently, Coates is no neocon neophyte. Her record reveals that she’s a true believer in the neocon doctrine of using the U.S. military to spread democracy around the world.

In 1979, Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote an essay called “Dictatorships And Double Standards” where the Reagan administration official equated Reagan-era support for anti-communist dictators with the promotion of human rights.

Daily Beast reported in July 2014 that Victoria Coates “asks interns to read that essay when they start working for [Senator Cruz].”

On his campaign website, Ted Cruz promises to “restore our Constitution” and to follow the Founders in looking to the Constitution “to act as chains to bind the mischief of government.”

One would imagine that restoring the Constitution and being bound by its chains would include not using the U.S. military to topple governments — no matter how tyrannical — or to funnel funds from taxpayers to the coffers of the “moderate” extremists who declare their allegiance to the American side in foreign conflicts.

Someone committed to that constitutional tack would certainly not choose neocon interventionists with the resumés of Chad Sweet and Victoria Coates.

All of this should be sufficient to give pause to patriots inclined to support Ted Cruz’s run for the White House. Surprisingly, this is just one layer of the neocon nest surrounding Ted Cruz.

Cruz’s foreign policy advisor is James Woolsey, a player who would be drafted in the first round of any neocon fantasy team owner.

The Infogram bio is enough evidence to convict Woolsey of being neocon to the core:

Woolsey was a national security specialist and former Director of the CIA under the Clinton administration. He heads up many Neoconservative groups including being the Chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Founding Member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

More than just academic advocacy of the military-industrial complex and the global deployment of American troops to force democracy on the world, Woolsey has no problem putting the noose around those who act against the growth of the government.

In a December 2013 interview with Fox News, Woolsey made the following shocking statement when asked about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: “I think giving him amnesty is idiotic,” Woolsey said. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead.”

That’s not just think-tank rhetoric, that’s reign-of-terror-type talk.

Some readers familiar with the associations typical of such neocon movers and shakers might be surprised to not have read the words “Council on Foreign Relations” yet in this piece.

The wait is over.

Ted Cruz’s choice of Elliot Abrams to help craft his foreign policy is disappointing. Like his colleagues on Cruz’s council, Abrams is a leader in the neocon world, and he is a leader of what is perhaps the most powerful and pernicious group in the neocon network: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

While the CFR is the most notorious of the associations of Abrams, it isn’t the only one. He is also a member (or former member) of the Center for Security Policy, Hudson Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, and many more.

It is likely that it is because of the membership of Abrams in the CFR that George W. Bush chose him to be his deputy national security adviser for Global Democratic Strategy and that Ted Cruz has chosen to follow his advice on questions of foreign policy.

In fact, it is probably the experience of all these people that compelled Ted Cruz to choose them to be his closest advisors. The problem isn’t that his inner circle is composed of men and women of vast foreign policy experience; the problem is that their experience is in growing government, supporting surveillance, and using American troops as global peacekeepers. As constitutionalists know, each of these endeavors — pursued over and over by Cruz’s chosen advisors — is unconstitutional and not at all consistent with Ted Cruz’s public statements.

Islamic Immigration

My Comments:  I am not at all a fan of Mark Levin, as he is a strong proponent of a Constitutional Convention, and will not even allow any opposition to his stance on his radio program.  Constitutional lawyers have tried to speak to him, and he refuses, which makes everyone believe he is no conservative.



So many threats are happening simultaneously against America. We are worried about an economic collapse…as we should be. We worry about a looming war with Russia and China, and perhaps we should be. We are worried about corruption at the highest levels of our government. We are worried about the subversion of our constitution. We are worried about the brainwashing of American’s through education, culture, etc., and the list goes on and on. I would suggest however that there is even a more immediate threat.
America is about to be altered in a way that will change us fundamentally forever.


Today I want to take another look at Islamic Immigration.
Let’s take a look at what is happening in Europe. We must ask, after three years of war in Syria, why is it that all of the sudden we see all of these “refugees” leaving that region? Why are they just now pouring themselves into Europe? It seems like they have been waiting at the gate, and all of the sudden they have poured over. Well, they have not been waiting at the gate all this time. I believe they have devised a plan to send their soldiers into Europe, disguising them as a Trojan Horse, as refugees, as someone in need of refuge. They are disguised as someone trying to escape the Islamic fighting in the region.
I thought that, to Muslim[s], Europe and America are supposed to be evil nations full of sinful wickedness. Why do they want to come here? Why don’t they go to other Islamic countries that have the same values that they have? Why don’t they go to Saudi Arabia or Jordan? These countries speak languages that they understand and are culturally similar to what they know.
Most of the Muslims that have come here so far, came to find liberty, and most of them are peaceful. Those who are coming in this latest “refugee” crisis are much more fundamental. Once they are here, they will bully the more moderate Muslims and force them to get on board. They will ask if they are really Muslims or are they kufar, and threaten them if they don’t support their militancy.
The Obama administration is working to prepare the ground for the seedlings. That is what they are calling these “refugees.” On today’s broadcast I played the audio of a discussion between Mark Levin and Susan Payne. Susan was invited, unbeknownst to the President, to listen in on a conference call on Islamic immigration. On the broadcast I edited it for times sake. You can listen to the full discussion below.


it should anger you. This is a plan to alter the fabric of America. One thing we must say, Obama is living up to his promise to fundamentally change America.
There are 190 cities in America that are targeted for this Islamic immigration. There are contractors in these cities that the government uses to bring these people in. There is funding from the federal government for about 4 months, and that is it. After that the burden falls upon the local governments. Seattle has 4 of these contractors, the Jewish Family Service, World Relief, the International Rescue Committee, Lutheran Community Services. This would be great if they were evangelizing these people, but since they are receiving federal funds they cannot evangelize them.

Kent, WA has one of these contractors, Tri-Cities has one, Yakima has 2, and Vancouver, WA has one.
It is time for us to be concerned and stop talking. We must do something before it is too late.

Concerned citizen ousted from Convention of States meeting, deemed a “potential disruptive threat”

Call your Senators NOW! Tell them to vote YES on S. 2146, the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act”

More than three months have passed since Kate Steinle was tragically shot and killed in San Francisco by an illegal alien with seven convictions and five previous deportations. Since her July 1 death, Americans across the country have demanded that Congress act to punish sanctuary cities—State and local jurisdictions with policies that obstruct immigration enforcement. Finally, on Tuesday the Senate is prepared to act.

Call your Senators NOW!
Tell them to vote YES on S. 2146, the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act”

Introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), S. 2146 is a commonsense bill that denies certain Federal funds to jurisdictions that refuse to (1) share information about criminal aliens with the Federal government or (2) recognize ICE detainer requests. Clearly, jurisdictions that obstruct immigration enforcement should not benefit from Federal dollars. Additionally, the bill increases penalties for illegal reentry and requires the Federal government to publish on a website a list of all sanctuary jurisdictions. These important provisions will help keep Americans safe!

One of the most troubling details about Kate Steinle’s death is that the suspect, Francisco Sanchez admitted he went to San Francisco because he knew it is a sanctuary city! Clearly, despite the compassionate sounding term, these jurisdictions pose a serious threat to public safety because illegal aliens know they are protected. As a result, Kate Steinle is dead and more Americans continue to be victimized by illegal aliens who should be locked up or deported.

Call your Senators NOW!
Tell them “sanctuary cities” threaten the safety of Americans!

Tuesday’s vote is incredibly important because it will finally put every Senator on record. The choice is clear: a YES vote on S. 2146 means the Senator wants to protect law-abiding American citizens; a NO vote means they want to protect criminal aliens—individuals who not only violate our immigration laws but our criminal laws as well.

Call your Senators. Tell them:

  • You OPPOSE sanctuary cities which ignore federal immigration laws and jeopardize American lives;
  • You expect them to VOTE FOR the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act” (S. 2146); and
  • You expect them to PRESSURE President Obama into signing the bill into law.

Make your voice heard! To find your Senators, click here.

After you call your Senators, make these same points on their social media accounts.

In Liberty,

Jim Bratten
Director, Hoosier Patriots


Trump Speaks

trump speaks

The TPP is an Assault on our National Sovereignty

Dear Fellow Patriot,

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposal of merging America with eleven Pacific Rim nations. Its terms have been finalized by Obama and the other nations involved and is now awaiting Congressional approval. It is to be voted on by both the House and the Senate.

But, wait a minute! A treaty requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Sure, but Obama couldn’t get that many votes, so he called it a Partnership, and a complacent Congress went along. Then, Congress voted for Fast Track, which facilitates the final vote, making it much easier for it to get passed. It will be voted on without a filibuster or discussion, just a straight up or down vote with only a simple majority.

The gist of TPP is that it would bind our country into a regional government that would be the governing body of America, taking precedence over our Constitution. We would be ruled by its dictates and no longer would we have the protection of our God-given rights that our Constitution provides.

Sound preposterous? That is what happened in Europe. What has become the European Union (EU) was sold in 1952 to the European nations as a simple trade agreement, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), as being something good for jobs and their economy. The ECSC has morphed into the EU, the supranational entity that rules the former independent European nations. They are no longer free countries.

Not only has the EU dictated economic matters, new EU regulations hinder the use of healthy alternative health care options by banning thousands of nutritional supplements and herbal remedies, greatly reducing their availability. Thus is the pattern of these mergers.

Here, TPP is being hyped as a trade pact. A free trade pact could be done in one page. Do we need another trade pact? We have already started down that road by signing on to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Where has that taken us? How often are we frustrated by calling a company only to find ourselves trying to decipher what we are being told by someone who is unable to communicate with proper English? How many people have lost their jobs to someone overseas? These are the result of NAFTA – a free trade agreement. Why would we want any more such partnerships?

And, furthermore, TPP has about five pages on trade out of a total of about a couple thousand pages. Other considerations by the eleven nations of the TPP have been: immigration, climate change, sustainable development, homeland security, the military, and international courts. The terms were debated and a final version was agreed upon, but who knows what is in it? The document is being kept secret from the public. Even the legislators who will be voting on it have been hampered. Before the Fast Track vote, they were allowed to see the then-version only by going to the White House basement where they were given a few pages at a time.

They were not allowed to take any recording devices or take notes. And, they were forbidden from telling any private citizen what they read. Does that sound like something we would be eager to have?

Political pundits have said that Obama has pushed far more for this than he has for any other piece of legislation. You can be sure he would not be doing that for a simple trade bill, nor would he keep the terms secret.

The labor unions, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders all oppose TTP but only because of the lost jobs effect, not the rest of the terms. Some Republicans are sold on it, thinking that it is a good trade deal that would counter Chinese exports. They should know that once TPP is in place, China can be admitted to TPP and we can do nothing to stop it.

Can it be stopped? The Globalists’ proposals for merging countries into regional units that can then be merged into the United Nations are nothing new. One such was during George Bush the younger’s term when the proposal was to merge Canada, America and Mexico into one regional government, the North American Union (NAU). But a massive educational effort by the John Birch Society and their allies brought enough opposition to bear so that the NAU failed to materialize. The globalist powers-that-be put it on the back burner and are subsequently pushing for other plans: The Treaty of the Sea (global control of the oceans), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (merging America into the EU), Trade in Services Agreement (adversely affecting our jobs in services), and the one up for passage right now, the TPP.

We can stop it again. You may think that asking your legislators to oppose TTP is a wasted effort. And, true, in some instances, it may not change their vote, but it would still have an impact. Before legislation is brought up for a vote, the promoters take notice of how much opposition there is to it. If it is sufficient, they will postpone the vote or come up with a different angle.

This was the case in the 1970’s when the plan was to merge all the countries in the world directly into the United Nations (UN). But, there was sufficient exposure of the UN, spearheaded by The John Birch Society, that it was necessary for the globalists to abandon that plan; and, as a result, we have been given all these years of freedom as an independent nation. Plan B then became the formation of regional governments that can then be merged into the UN. We now see that being implemented.

So, spread the word and ask others to do what you have done, which is to contact your Representative and two Senators in D.C. and urge them to vote NO to TPP.

Sue Long for the Committee for Constitutional Government, Post Office Box 972, Gloucester, VA   23061 4theconstitution@va.metrocast.net

Ethnic Cleansing of Jews from the Arab World

My Comments:  Islam will not stop with the murder of Jewish folk, their goal is to murder anyone who doesn’t bow to Islam, Jews, Christians and any other “infidels.”  We need another Thomas Jefferson.

ethnic cleansing of Jews

WARNING: These common meds can turn your mind to mush

Note taken from: Daily Dose with Jack Harrison 10/17/15

These days there’s a med for every mood — so no matter what you’re feeling, you can pop a pill to make sure you STOP feeling it.

Stressed? Swallow this pill.

Anxious about tomorrow’s flight? Try one these.

Too much on your mind and can’t settle down? This med should do the trick.

Can’t sleep? You know the drill by now.

We’re well on our way to the “Brave New World,” my friend, where everyone will be medicated into a constant state of blissful stupidity. (One look at who’s been voted into office lately and you might think we’re already there.)

The main class of meds doctors use to drug folks into oblivion are called benzodiazepines, or “benzos” for short, and include some of the most popular drugs in the nation: Valium, Xanax, Ativan, Klonopin and more.

But you can’t turn your brain into a chemistry set and not expect to suffer the consequences — and if you’re a little older, these drugs can scramble your gray matter like eggs at a diner.

One new study finds that the more you take benzos, the higher your risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Take any of these drugs for just six months, and your risk of developing dementia jumps by a third. Take them any longer, and your risk positively skyrockets by 84 percent, according to one of the studies in the new analysis.

That’s not a risk at that point. That’s almost a guarantee!

And if the drugs don’t turn your mind to mush that’s probably because something else happened first: These same meds can cause you to become so unsteady that they’ll increase your risk of a potentially devastating fall.

One study a couple years back found these drugs can even cause car wrecks!

Bear in mind that few people take these meds for three to six months. Many take them for years, and some have even been on them decades.

Some folks can’t get through a day without popping some Xanax!

The best way to beat common mood conditions will depend on the cause, which is why you should work with a naturopathic doc. But if you want some help getting started, this free report from my friends at Healthier Talk has some of the best time-tested cures for problems with sleep, stress and more.

Lifting your mood, not knocking you down,
Jack Harrison