## Electric Car Maths

Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, “For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) \$1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x \$1.16 per kwh = \$18.56 to charge the battery. \$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = \$0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. \$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = \$0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car costs about \$25,000 while the Volt costs \$46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!

## Live The Truth

Live The Truth

The only way not to lose a rigged game is not to play.

When the ruling class exempt themselves from the ‘Laws’ they expect us to live by, there is tyranny.

The political, financial and military complexes have become one interwoven system of crporate facism based on lies and deceipt.

It is more vulnerable than people think, as it requires our co-operation for it to maintain its illusion of legitimacy.

When we chose to stop playing the game we dissolve the facade of presumed authority over us.

To destroy a lie, live the truth.

## How to survive a silver-gold sucker punch

Anyone who owns precious metals, mining shares or metals’ ETFs knows the drill.
First, gold and silver begin to establish an uptrend on the charts. Analysts (like us) start writing about how prices are getting ready to make an upside run.
Then “out of nowhere” thousands of highly margined futures contracts hit the market on the short side, “re-painting” the charts, sending terror into the hearts of stackers and those who believe in “honest money.”
The reality is that honest money is being manipulated for personal gain by dishonest traders, enabled by “regulators” who, to put it charitably, look the other way.
It can be disheartening. It can make you feel helpless.
And worse, it can knock you off what David Morgan, Doug Casey, and others believe is destined to become the biggest precious metals and mining stock bull run of our lifetimes.
But you can get back up again and persevere on the path to the Winners’ Table.
Years ago, when I was moving through the Dan ranks in martial arts’ study with my revered Sensei (who unexpectedly passed away last December, ending – at least on this plane – our 33-year relationship), I was given an assignment.
“Choose two or three self defense situations you’ve been in when you felt unable to respond, and design effective, multiple-response counter attacks,” he said.
The late Professor Bradley J. Steiner with David H. Smith.
Remembering how in third grade I had been sucker punched by a supposed friend when I reached out to shake hands, and how terrible that felt, I went to work on a solution.
I trained full-out for five minutes, then stopped, breathed out fully – and held my breath to see what kind of offensive response(s) I could execute.
Surprisingly, even though my lungs were oxygen-deprived, I was able to perform several powerful empty hand and kicking techniques.
In the event, these would have provided an effective self-defense solution, even before breathing in to refill my lungs. (This capability also holds true for run, stop, draw-and-fire sidearm practice.)
Not long ago, when silver was dropping \$2.50 an ounce, with gold down \$75, a metals dealer had this to say:
The Big money always moves way ahead of the crowd. And if you look at what sophisticated money on the planet is doing; they’re using price as a cover; manipulated price as a tool of misdirection, to accumulate.
Today, silver and gold are getting crushed like I’ve never seen (yet) our phones have been ringing off the hook for the past couple of days, as the price has dropped…and no one is selling anything… This is nothing more than a function of a paper price hit-and-run; a paper price drive-by shooting. As soon as the Commercials get to where they can cover, the price will turn around.
The whole concept of the art of war is misdirection.
They (the “Floor traders”) realize that people are so inundated with life that they don’t have time to look under the hood.
So how do you control price or sentiment? You beat the heck out of the price and espouse negative rhetoric across the gamut of big-business-controlled media…
This allows big money to accumulate gold and silver in copius amounts without being crowded out of their trade.
Why did central banks reclassify gold as a Tier 1 (good as cash) asset?
Why have central banks been massively accumulating? (Bloomberg reports, that in the last two years, central banks have acquired more than 1,300 tonnes of gold, which they’ve termed “the biggest gold-buying spree in half a century.”)
Why are the most wealthy and influential people on the COMEX – the “Others” – pulling record amounts (physical gold and silver) off the COMEX?
In a daily column titled, “This is No Time to Give Up on Gold,” Rick Ackerman, of Rick’s Picks, commented about the metal’s swoon:
With gold’s gratuitous, 4% plunge on Friday, bullion has once again affirmed its reputation as one of the nastiest, most frustrating assets an investor can own. Its chief enemy is a global network of shamans, thimble-riggers and feather merchants who make their living borrowing bullion from the central banks for practically nothing, then lending it to everyone else for slightly more.
They are always looking for excuses to pound quotes so that they can replace what they’ve borrowed at a lower price. Helpful to this goal is a story that, however ridiculous, spooks gold bugs into dumping their holdings.
The massive selling of metals is an illusion. And yes, it’s been going on for quite a while.
During a 2010 CFTC hearing, CPM Group’s Jeff Christian testified that: “Precious metals trade in a multiple of a hundred times the amount of the underlying metal.” In other words, prices are manipulated and suppressed with bets placed on tons of imaginary or non-existent metals.
In his book Rigged: Exposing the Largest Financial Fraud in History, Stuart Englert concludes that
More imaginary gold and silver is traded in a few days than is mined in an entire year.
Such large-scale trading is at the heart of the price suppression scheme. This supply illusion causes the paper metals’ price to be manipulated lower, even if demand is rising!
So… how can YOU respond to these periodic “shakedowns”?
Ideally, as Master Miyagi in The Karate Kid movie would say, “Don’t be there.” You can sidestep a lot of the action by not trading on margin, buying your physical in tranches rather than all at once, and saving some capital to deploy during one of these take downs.
Of course, if you have a position, you’ll need to suffer through some short-term pain while prices get back to recognizing true supply/demand reality. But now that you know what’s going on, it should help you dial down the emotions – and certainly not give up!
One of the core principles that David Morgan at The Morgan Report teaches is that “The market is ultimately bigger than any attempts to subvert it.” Keeping this in mind can enable you to “stay long and strong” while the inevitable sorting out takes place, and metals prices bounce back quickly thereafter.

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/geopolitics/how-to-survive-a-silver-gold-sucker-punch/

## Forest Garden With 500 Edible Plants Requires Only a Few Hours of Work Per Month

Historically, farms and forests have been at odds. Conventional wisdom says we have to cut down the forest to make way for agriculture.

But a growing movement called agro-forestry “capitalizes” on the free services forests provide farmers and gardeners.

Not only do trees protect more delicate edible plants from the elements and extreme weather, they provide nutrients, water, pest control and pollination services.

Although you might not find all your traditional annual veggies in a forest garden, you will discover hundreds of new varieties of edible plants you never knew existed, that are often more nutrient-dense and flavorful.

And if you choose your plants carefully, they will propagate themselves each year and live symbiotically among the hundreds of diverse species around them, requiring no tilling, planting, fertilizing, weeding or watering.

This is what Martin Crawford has done in his 2-acre forest garden in England for over 20 years — let it do the work for him for the most part, after a few years of research and legwork.

While the initial planting of the forest required years of research and watering, Crawford now has over 500 varieties of food growing wild in his garden, which requires very little work other than plucking and eating the fruits of his “labor.”

From time to time, he adds a new exotic species to his garden or stomps on some overgrown cow parsley to give other herbs a chance to catch up, but for the most part, he’s “playing and tinkering” in his garden, rather than doing anything that resembles work.

In his book Creating a Forest Garden, he describes how a complete garden should include 7 layers:

1. Tall trees

2. Smaller trees

3. Shrubs

4. Perrenials

5. Groundcover

6. Root crops

7. Climbing vines

It includes directly useful plants like fruit trees, nuts, tubers, vegetables, medicinal herbs, timber. It also includes indirectly useful plants that help the system function better like nitrogen fixers, mineral accumulators, plants that attract beneficial insects that eat pests.

Because almost all of the plants are perennial, there’s no need to “dig the soil.”

“Not digging the soil is really important in terms of sustainability because every time you dig the soil, a load of carbon goes into the air,” Martin says in the video below:

Additionally, digging or tilling the soil to plant annual crops, releases nutrients, and kills bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms that keep the soil alive by exposing them to the sun.

The soil in a forest garden is extra rich because the deep tree roots breakdown minerals deep in the subsoil and bring the nutrients up to the topsoil. They also drop leaves, which act as a natural compost.

Also, the canopy layer of the trees keeps moisture from evaporating out of the garden, so that as your forest grows denser you will have to do less and less watering. When forests grow big enough, they create their own rainfall, eliminating the need for irrigation altogether.

And… Crawford notes, the forest attracts wild game, so if you’re into meat, you don’t have to raise it, you can just shoot it.

So, in short, don’t clear the forest to start a farm, let the forest grow your food for you.

For a more in depth tour of Crawford’s garden, check out this longer video and buy one of his books:

Forest Garden With 500 Edible Plants Requires Only a Few Hours of Work Per Month

## It’s now Labor’s ‘bail-in’

Ask Anthony Albanese: why are you protecting Scott Morrison instead of our bank deposits?

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese is more intent on protecting Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s position on “bail-in” than Australians’ deposits. Why? Call him today to demand he stop protecting Morrison and instead support the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 to explicitly protect Australian bank deposits from any sort of bail-in. Unless he does, this is now Labor’s bail-in—if Labor refuses to oppose the government on important banking policies, they will be held to account.

Call or email Anthony Albanese today! Electorate: (02) 9564 3588 Canberra: (02) 6277 4022 A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au

As Citizens Party Research Director Robert Barwick told Digital Finance Analytics’ Martin North on a 23 November Walk the World episode, It’s Deposit Bail-in “D” Day, the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 that Senator Malcolm Roberts introduced in February cuts through the arguments over whether bail-in is possible by making the law explicit that deposits can never be bailed in, to remove all doubt.

The only reason to oppose the bill is if you prefer not to clarify the law to put it beyond doubt. And the only reason to prefer not to clarify the law is if you want to retain the option of being able to bail in deposits in a future banking emergency. Why would Labor want that? Ask them!

Labor’s bail-in

Bail-in is the policy devised by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)-based Financial Stability Board (FSB) under orders from the G20, which in 2009 charged the FSB with developing a way to resolve future financial crises without the need for taxpayer bailouts of banks. The FSB’s solution was to propose that banks should be “bailed in” instead of bailed out, by confiscating the funds of the banks’ “unsecured creditors”, including depositors. Labor was in government in Australia at the time, and then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd took credit for persuading the world to adopt a coordinated policy approach through the G20.

Labor was still in government in 2011 when Australia joined the rest of the G20 in endorsing the FSB’s finalised bail-in policy, laid out in its blueprint called Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes, which is explicit that bail-in applies to bank deposits. And Labor was in its final months of government in April 2013—the month after the first bail-in was imposed on depositors in Cyprus—when the FSB noted in a report that “bail-in legislation is in train … in Australia”.

In other words, it was a Labor government that made a commitment to the G20 and FSB to enact bail-in legislation in Australia! They share culpability with the Coalition government. Although Labor have been out of power in the seven years since 2013, the Labor Party has aided and abetted the Coalition government in implementing bail-in powers, and now they are protecting Morrison’s efforts to block Senator Roberts’ bill to clarify the law so bail-in can’t happen.

Albo’s lies

In a 23 November letter to a concerned citizen, Anthony Albanese’s office lied to protect the government.

“The Banking Amendments (Deposits) Bill 2020 has been extensively examined by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee”, Albanese’s letter stated. “Following an extended inquiry, with submissions from many stakeholders, the Committee found that the Bill would not provide any additional protections to Australian deposit holders. As a result, Labor will not be supporting the Bill.”

First, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee did not “extensively” examine the bill. In fact, the Committee did not even hold a public hearing, at which Senators would have been able to question experts who were willing to testify about the risks of bank deposits being bailed in. One of the experts who should have been questioned in a public hearing was none other than the former Policy Director of the Australian Banking Association, Nick Hossack, who is also a former advisor to Liberal doyens John Howard and Alexander Downer. “Senator Roberts has identified uncertainty in the Banking Act 1959 over whether bank deposits can be written off or converted to equity”, Hossack wrote in his submission to the Senate inquiry—specifically contradicting the claims of the government, echoed by Labor, that the law is already certain.

Second, the Albanese letter lied that deposits are already protected by the \$250,000 Financial Claims Scheme guarantee and the Roberts’ bill “would not provide any additional protection”.

When Labor was in government and enacted the FCS guarantee, it hid the fact that both the Council of Financial Regulators, chaired by the Reserve Bank, and the Financial Stability Board had noted that the FCS was useless for protecting 80 per cent of Australian bank deposits—namely the deposits in the Big Four banks—because the \$20 billion provision per bank could not hope to cover the hundreds of billions of deposits in each of the Big Four. Labor also legislated that the FCS must first be “activated” upon the failure of a bank, and that the decision to activate is at the discretion of the government. So it is not an active guarantee, and it does not automatically pay out, as per Labor’s design.

So much for Labor’s idea of deposit protection!

But to say that the Roberts bill would not provide additional protection is a bald-faced lie. The Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 would insert an explicit provision that deposits can never be bailed in, no way no how. No such explicit protection against the specific policy of bail-in exists right now. By definition, this is “additional protection”; in fact, it is a level of protection seldom seen in legislation—it is iron-clad and watertight, with no possibility of loopholes.

If you want a watertight protection against bail-in for your savings, call Anthony Albanese, the other relevant Labor leaders, and all your Senators this week to demand they support Senator Roberts’ bill on 30 November.

6 days to get Labor to vote to end the ‘bail-in’ nightmare

In six days the Senate votes on Senator Malcolm Roberts’ Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020, which would end the threat that Australian bank deposits could be “bailed in” once and for all. The government wants you to take them at their word that deposits won’t be bailed in, but that’s not good enough—the assurance is worthless unless it is written into the law. Therefore, it’s very important that in the next six days you call all the Senators from your state, your local federal MP, and Labor leader Anthony Albanese, deputy leader Richard Marles, and Shadow Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones to demand they vote for the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020.

Ask the Labor leaders: “Why would you protect Scott Morrison on bail-in, instead of making the law explicit that deposits can never be bailed in?”