prepareforchange--2020-01-19--Smoking During Pregnancy (SDP) – 2019 Statistics & How to Stop It?

According to Wikipedia , for every 100 U.S adults , age 18 or older , more than 15 smoked cigarettes in 2016 .
In other words , there are about 37.8 million cases of cigarette smokers in the United States .
Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States , accounting for approximately 443,000 deaths , or 1 of every 5 deaths , in the United States each year .
Everyone knows the harmful effects of smoking on smokers because these things are constantly being pointed out by the media and newspapers .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect a pregnant woman , especially affecting her child ?
Every year in the United States , there are millions of women who smoke during their pregnancy and this causes a great effect on the babies in the womb .
This article will show those consequences and give orientations on how to quit smoking for pregnant mothers .
Overview Of Smoking While Pregnancy In The US The Risks And Impacts Of SDP The risks that mothers and babies may have when mother smoke during pregnancy Harmful Chemicals in Cigarettes that can be transferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

Authored By Tiffany Simmons
According to Wikipedia, for every 100 U.S adults, age 18 or older, more than 15 smoked cigarettes in 2016. In other words, there are about 37.8 million cases of cigarette smokers in the United States. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for approximately 443,000 deaths, or 1 of every 5 deaths, in the United States each year.
Everyone knows the harmful effects of smoking on smokers because these things are constantly being pointed out by the media and newspapers. However, have you ever wondered how cigarettes will affect a pregnant woman, especially affecting her child?
Every year in the United States, there are millions of women who smoke during their pregnancy and this causes a great effect on the babies in the womb. This article will show those consequences and give orientations on how to quit smoking for pregnant mothers.
Overview Of Smoking While Pregnancy In The US
Ethnicity of SDP woman Non-Hispanics/ Native Americans account for 19.7% of women that smoke during pregnancy, ranking as the highest ethnicity
10.5% of white women smoked, 6.0% of pregnant women were black
4.5% were Native Hawaiian.
Only 0.6% Asian-American is the lowest ethnicity of all smoke while pregnant, the lowest ethnicity of all. Age of SDP woman About 7.5% of all pregnant women smoke during pregnancy.
10.7% of pregnant women of age 20-24 smoke during pregnancy, ranking as the highest age group.
After 25, pregnant women tend to stop smoking as they getting older. Educational Level of SDP woman 11.7% of less than high school educated women smoked during pregnancy
12.2% of highschool educated women smoked during pregnancy
7.9% of women with some college or an associates degree SDP.
1.0% with a bachelors degree smoked during pregnancy
0.4% with a master or higher SDP. Portions of each period of pregnancy About 11.6% of mothers smoke before pregnancy.
Only 5.7% of mothers continue smoking after pregnancy.
About 1 in 3 women who quit during their pregnancy relapse after they giving birth a new baby.
Portions of SDP woman by states
The prevalence of smoking during pregnancy was highest in West Virginia (25.1%) followed by Kentucky (18.4%).
Montana (16.5%), Vermont (15.5%), and Missouri (15.3%) are the next stages that have the highest portions.
These 5 states account for more than half of the total women in the US smoke during pregnancy. Only 1.6% woman in California smoke during pregnancy. This state is the one that has the lowest portions of mothers smoke during pregnancy.
The South-West states have a very low portion of SDP women
The Risks And Impacts Of SDP
The risks that mothers and babies may have when mother smoke during pregnancy
About 25% of mothers that smoke during pregnancy gives birth to a low weight baby. Compared to the non-smoking mothers’ babies, these babies are 320g lighter on average.
47% of stillbirths are caused by SDP. Mothers who smoke ≥21 cigarettes a day doubles the risk of stillbirth as compared with those that never smoke.
The risk of SIDS increases by 10%. Infants of mothers who smoked during pregnancy had a greater risk of death. Preterm membrane rupture accounts for 14% of births due to SDP. Smoking cigarettes resulted in an increased risk of the preterm membrane at about 4%
6.8% of smoking mothers experience hypertension
28.1% of smoking mothers will experience bleeding
29.6% of smoking mothers will experience premature labor
10% of smoking mothers will experience infant deaths.
Harmful Chemicals in Cigarettes that can be transferred into the baby
Nicotine Interferes with brain and lung development Carbon Monoxide Causes fetal death or fetal brain damage Tar Lowers the amount of oxygen that is reaching the baby Butane Causes setups brain abnormalities Cyanide It will cause a diabetogenic effect on you and the baby Menthol Can inflame your child’s airways
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-01-19--Pro Tip: Mentally Replace All Uses Of “Conspiracy Theorist” With “Iraq Rememberer”

Are you an Iraq Rememberer ?
I watched the film Official Secrets the other day , which I highly recommend doing if you want to rekindle your rage about the unforgivable evil that was the Iraq invasion .
Which is a good thing to do , in my opinion .
Absolutely nothing was ever done to address the fact that a million people were murdered with the assistance of government lies just a few short years ago ; no new laws were passed mandating more government transparency or accountability with its military operations , no war crimes tribunals took place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
No one even got fired .
In fact we ’ ve seen the exact opposite : the people responsible for unleashing that horror upon our species have been given prestigious jobs in government and media and the US government is currently collaborating with the UK to set the legal precedent for charging under the Espionage Act any journalist in the world who exposes US war crimes .
The Same Regime Change Mentality Behind the Iraq War is Behind US Empire Wars Today The corrupt mechanisms which gave rise to the Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , and its consequences continue to ravage the region to this very day .
The Iraq war isn ’ t some event that happened in the past ; everything about it is still here with us , right now .
So we should still be enraged .
You don ’ t forgive and forget something that hasn ’ t even stopped , let alone been rectified .
Apart from the howling rage surging through my veins during the film , the other thing I experienced was the recurring thought , “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that a conspiracy is.
” And , I mean , of course it is .
How weird is it that we don ’ t use that word to describe what the architects of that war did ?
Conspiracy is defined as “ a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
” From the secret plan between the NSA and GCHQ to spy on and blackmail UN members into supporting the illegal invasion which is the subject of Official Secrets , to the mountain of other schemes and manipulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world about Iraq , it ’ s absolutely insane that that word is never used to describe the conspiracy within the Bush and Blair governments to manufacture the case for war .
The engineering of the Iraq war was a conspiracy , per any conceivable definition .
So why isn ’ t that word reflexively used by everyone who talks about it ?
Easy .
Because we haven ’ t been trained to .
The use of the word “ conspiracy ” is studiously avoided by the narrative managers of the political/media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of teaching us how to think about our world , except when it is to be employed for its intended and authorised use : smearing skeptics of establishment narratives .
The pejorative “ conspiracy theory ” has been such a useful weapon in inoculating the herd from dissident wrongthink that the propagandists do everything they can to avoid tainting their brand , even if it means refraining from using words for the things that they refer to .
MSM Uses “ Collusion ” to Describe Real Conspiracies , Saving “ Conspiracy Theorist ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ collusion ” was continuously and uniformly used throughout the entire Russiagate saga , for example .
It was a narrative about a secret conspiracy between the highest levels of the US government and the Russian government to subvert the interests of the American people , yet the word “ conspiracy ” was meticulously replaced with “ collusion ” by everyone peddling that story .
Syria narrative managers on Twitter have been in meltdown for a week ever since the Rolling Stone podcast Useful Idiots featured oppositional journalist Max Blumenthal talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Syrian war and its pervasive propaganda campaign against that nation .
The entire site has been swarming with high-visibility blue-checkmarked thought police demanding the heads of the show ’ s hosts Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper for giving this evil “ conspiracy theorist ” a platform to say we ’ re being deceived about yet another US-led regime change intervention in yet another Middle Eastern nation .
Narrative managers use the “ conspiracy theorist ” pejorative to shove skepticism of establishment narratives into the margins of political discourse , far away where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herd .
Whenever you see a dissenting interpretation of events getting too close to mainstream circles , as with Blumenthal appearing on a Rolling Stone podcast , Tulsi Gabbard saying on national television that the US government has armed terrorists , or Tucker Carlson interviewing Jonathan Steele about the OPCW leaks , you see an intense campaign of shrieking outrage and public shaming geared at shoving those dissident narratives as far into the fringe as possible by branding them “ conspiracy theories ” .
My suggestion then is this : whenever you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied to anyone who questions an establishment narrative about Syria , Russia , Iran or wherever , just mentally swap it out for the term “ Iraq rememberer ” .
When you see anyone shouting about “ conspiracy theories ” , mentally replace it with “ Iraq remembering ” .
It makes it much easier to see what ’ s really going on : “ Oh those damn Iraq rememberers !
Why can ’ t they just trust their media and government about what ’ s happening in Syria instead of indulging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions secretly coordinating with each other to do evil things is the absolute worst-case scenario for the rest of the population ; it is precisely the thing we fear when we allow people and institutions to have power over us .
We need to be able to talk about that worst-case scenario occurring , especially since we know for a fact that it does indeed happen .
Powerful people do conspire to inflict evil things upon the rest of us , and we do need to use thoughts and ideas to discuss how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not meant to think about this , which is why we ’ re meant to forget about Iraq .
The Iraq invasion was like if a family were sitting around the dinner table one night , then the father stood up , decapitated his daughter with a steak knife , then sat back down and continued eating and everyone just went back to their meals and never talked about what happened .
That ’ s how absolutely creepy and weird it is that the news churn just moved on after a conspiracy within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to the murder of a million human beings , and now we ’ re all somehow only supposed to care about Trump ’ s rude tweets .
Never forget the Iraq war conspiracy , no matter how hard they try to make you .
They did it before , they ’ ve done it again in Libya and Syria , and they ’ ll continue to attempt it in the future .
When you sound the alarm about this they will call you a conspiracy theorist .
All they ’ re really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those annoying pests who just won ’ t shut up and forget about Iraq .
Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

By Caitlin Johnstone,
Are you an Iraq Rememberer?
I watched the film Official Secrets the other day, which I highly recommend doing if you want to rekindle your rage about the unforgivable evil that was the Iraq invasion. Which is a good thing to do, in my opinion. Absolutely nothing was ever done to address the fact that a million people were murdered with the assistance of government lies just a few short years ago; no new laws were passed mandating more government transparency or accountability with its military operations, no war crimes tribunals took place, no new policies were put into place. No one even got fired. In fact we’ve seen the exact opposite: the people responsible for unleashing that horror upon our species have been given prestigious jobs in government and media and the US government is currently collaborating with the UK to set the legal precedent for charging under the Espionage Act any journalist in the world who exposes US war crimes.
The Same Regime Change Mentality Behind the Iraq War is Behind US Empire Wars Today
The corrupt mechanisms which gave rise to the Iraq invasion still exist currently, stronger than ever, and its consequences continue to ravage the region to this very day. The Iraq war isn’t some event that happened in the past; everything about it is still here with us, right now. So we should still be enraged. You don’t forgive and forget something that hasn’t even stopped, let alone been rectified. Apart from the howling rage surging through my veins during the film, the other thing I experienced was the recurring thought, “This was a conspiracy. This is the thing that a conspiracy is.”
And, I mean, of course it is. How weird is it that we don’t use that word to describe what the architects of that war did? Conspiracy is defined as “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” From the secret plan between the NSA and GCHQ to spy on and blackmail UN members into supporting the illegal invasion which is the subject of Official Secrets, to the mountain of other schemes and manipulations used by other government bodies to deceive the world about Iraq, it’s absolutely insane that that word is never used to describe the conspiracy within the Bush and Blair governments to manufacture the case for war.
The engineering of the Iraq war was a conspiracy, per any conceivable definition. So why isn’t that word reflexively used by everyone who talks about it?
Easy. Because we haven’t been trained to.
The use of the word “conspiracy” is studiously avoided by the narrative managers of the political/media class who are tasked with the assignment of teaching us how to think about our world, except when it is to be employed for its intended and authorised use: smearing skeptics of establishment narratives. The pejorative “conspiracy theory” has been such a useful weapon in inoculating the herd from dissident wrongthink that the propagandists do everything they can to avoid tainting their brand, even if it means refraining from using words for the things that they refer to.
MSM Uses “Collusion” to Describe Real Conspiracies, Saving “Conspiracy Theorist” for Pejorative Uses
This is why the word “collusion” was continuously and uniformly used throughout the entire Russiagate saga, for example. It was a narrative about a secret conspiracy between the highest levels of the US government and the Russian government to subvert the interests of the American people, yet the word “conspiracy” was meticulously replaced with “collusion” by everyone peddling that story.
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1200585490434592768?s=20
Syria narrative managers on Twitter have been in meltdown for a week ever since the Rolling Stone podcast Useful Idiots featured oppositional journalist Max Blumenthal talking about the US-centralized empire’s involvement in the Syrian war and its pervasive propaganda campaign against that nation. The entire site has been swarming with high-visibility blue-checkmarked thought police demanding the heads of the show’s hosts Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper for giving this evil “conspiracy theorist” a platform to say we’re being deceived about yet another US-led regime change intervention in yet another Middle Eastern nation.
Narrative managers use the “conspiracy theorist” pejorative to shove skepticism of establishment narratives into the margins of political discourse, far away where it can’t contaminate the mainstream herd. Whenever you see a dissenting interpretation of events getting too close to mainstream circles, as with Blumenthal appearing on a Rolling Stone podcast, Tulsi Gabbard saying on national television that the US government has armed terrorists, or Tucker Carlson interviewing Jonathan Steele about the OPCW leaks, you see an intense campaign of shrieking outrage and public shaming geared at shoving those dissident narratives as far into the fringe as possible by branding them “conspiracy theories”.
My suggestion then is this: whenever you see the label “conspiracy theorist” being applied to anyone who questions an establishment narrative about Syria, Russia, Iran or wherever, just mentally swap it out for the term “Iraq rememberer”. When you see anyone shouting about “conspiracy theories”, mentally replace it with “Iraq remembering”. It makes it much easier to see what’s really going on: “Oh those damn Iraq rememberers! Why can’t they just trust their media and government about what’s happening in Syria instead of indulging in Iraq remembering?”
The regime changers have been melting down for days bc @kthalps and @mtaibbi interviewed @MaxBlumenthal on their @RollingStone podcast. They can’t stand seeing an antiwar voice anywhere near the mainstream. Check out the episode that’s driving them mad https://t.co/nXbGMjSRPl — Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) December 1, 2019
Powerful people and institutions secretly coordinating with each other to do evil things is the absolute worst-case scenario for the rest of the population; it is precisely the thing we fear when we allow people and institutions to have power over us. We need to be able to talk about that worst-case scenario occurring, especially since we know for a fact that it does indeed happen. Powerful people do conspire to inflict evil things upon the rest of us, and we do need to use thoughts and ideas to discuss how that might be happening. We are not meant to think about this, which is why we’re meant to forget about Iraq.
Be an Iraq Rememberer
The Iraq invasion was like if a family were sitting around the dinner table one night, then the father stood up, decapitated his daughter with a steak knife, then sat back down and continued eating and everyone just went back to their meals and never talked about what happened. That’s how absolutely creepy and weird it is that the news churn just moved on after a conspiracy within the most powerful government in the world led to the murder of a million human beings, and now we’re all somehow only supposed to care about Trump’s rude tweets.
Never forget the Iraq war conspiracy, no matter how hard they try to make you. They did it before, they’ve done it again in Libya and Syria, and they’ll continue to attempt it in the future. When you sound the alarm about this they will call you a conspiracy theorist. All they’re really saying is that you’re one of those annoying pests who just won’t shut up and forget about Iraq.
Source: https://thefreedomarticles.com
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-01-19--Monsanto Emails: ‘Let’s Beat the S*** Out of’ Moms Worried About Cancer-Linked Weedkiller

How is it that Monsanto ’ s Roundup herbicide is still on North American shelves being sold in a number of places ?
The answer is simple , I believe it ’ s deceit and corruption .
Corporations like Monsanto ( Bayer ) , have completely undermined our federal health regulatory agencies , making them nothing short of a cesspool of corruption .
The pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress .
They ’ re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C..
They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined .
They give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbying entity is , which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats .
They ’ ve captured them ( our regulatory agencies ) and turned them into sock puppets .
They ’ ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science .
– Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ( source ) There are no shortage of examples of corruption , the list is long , one of many examples I like to use commonly comes from a few years ago , when more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies .
They were referred to as the Spider Papers .
Another more recent example that ’ s specific to Glyphosate comes from Europe , where EU regulators decided to relicense glyphosate , and it came based on an assessment that was plagiarized from industry reports .
It ’ s quite backwards that for years , health regulators have been relying on the scientific reports from the company that manufactures these products , instead of seeking out independent scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring your attention to a piece published by the Environmental Working Group that also shed light behind the mentality of this company as well as their employees : A Monsanto executive said he wanted to “ beat the shit out of ” a mothers ’ group that urged the company to stop selling its Roundup weedkiller , according to internal emails obtained by lawyers for victims who say the pesticide caused their cancer .
The July 2013 emails , reported today by New Food Economy , reveal an exchange between Dr. Daniel Goldstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to respond to an open letter from Moms Across America , a grassroots advocacy group .
The emails were obtained during the discovery process for litigation against Bayer , Monsanto ’ s parent company , over Roundup , which three separate juries have found caused cancer in people .
Moms Across America ’ s letter to then-Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant cited scientific studies linking glyphosate , the active ingredient in Roundup , to cancer .
It also decried the company ’ s marketing of seeds for genetically modified foods : “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you if you put the health of the nation first and stopped selling GMO seeds and spraying Glyphosate ( Roundup® ) and other harsher pesticides , ” the letter said .
In the emails , Goldstein wrote that the group was making “ a pretty nasty looking set of allegations ” and that he had been “ arguing for a week to beat the shit out of them.
” Using identical scatological language , one of the consultants – Bruce Chassy , then a professor at the University of Illinois – also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other consultant – Wayne Parrot , a University of Georgia crop scientist – disagreed : “ You can ’ t beat up mothers , even if they are dumb mothers but you can beat up the organic industry , ” which he falsely claimed “ paid for and wrote that letter.
” “ These ugly emails reveal the utter contempt that Monsanto has for public health and for consumers , including mothers who only want to protect their kids ’ health , ” said EWG President Ken Cook .
“ Bayer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monsanto , and these emails should remind them that they acquired the company that gave us DDT , Agent Orange and PCBs.
” In the same email exchange , Goldstein noted a surge in public comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on its proposed rule to allow higher levels of glyphosate on supermarket produce .
“ BTW – a minor tolerance increase petition for glyphosate on specialty crops got 10,821 negative public comments in the last 48 hours – NOT form letters – individually written comments , ” Goldstein wrote .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate road kill.
” Next week the EPA will close the public comment period for its review of glyphosate ’ s registration , or license for use .
Nearly 7,000 comments have been submitted to date , overwhelmingly opposing any further use of the weedkiller .
In another email , a Monsanto scientist expressed concerns about the health risks from glyphosate .
In May 2014 , toxicologist Donna Farmer warned a company spokesperson against making public comments about the safety of Roundup : “ We can not say it ( glyphosate ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of safe use , used safely etc.
” In March 2015 , the International Agency for Research on Cancer , or IARC , classified glyphosate as “ probably carcinogenic to humans , ” setting off a flurry of activities at Monsanto attacking IARC ’ s assessment .
Monsanto hired a consulting firm to draft a paper refuting IARC ’ s findings , with the working title “ An Expert Panel Concludes There Is No Evidence That Glyphosate Is Carcinogenic to Humans.
” One Monsanto consultant pushed back .
In a November 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Birmingham , warned : “ We can ’ t say ‘ no evidence ’ because that means there is not a single scrap of evidence , and I don ’ t see how we can go that far.
” All of the emails can be found here , courtesy of the law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman .
Trial juries in three California lawsuits against Bayer-Monsanto have found in favor of the plaintiffs , all of whom have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma .
There are now roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. alone .
Since Bayer bought Monsanto last year , the price of its stock has plunged , shareholders are up in arms , and the deal is widely seen as one of the biggest miscalculations in corporate history .
EWG has conducted three rounds of tests of popular oat-based cereals and other foods , including Cheerios , marketed toward children , and detected glyphosate in nearly every sample .
( source ) At the end of the day , awareness in this area is key , because we are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Schools , business and residential areas all are still spraying RoundUp herbicide , but no doubt awareness is playing a key role in helping us create change at the individual level .
In this case , you simply have to vote with your dollar .
Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm @

By
IN BRIEF The Facts:Emails from July of 2013, reported today by New Food Economy, reveal an exchange between Dr. Daniel Goldstein of Monsanto and two outside consultants about how to respond to an open letter from Moms Across America, a grassroots advocacy group.
Reflect On:There’s a reason why Glyphosate is banned by multiple countries around the world. It’s approval highlights the corruption, deceit and control big corporations have over our federal health regulatory agencies who are supposed to protect us.
How is it that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is still on North American shelves being sold in a number of places? The answer is simple, I believe it’s deceit and corruption. Corporations like Monsanto (Bayer), have completely undermined our federal health regulatory agencies, making them nothing short of a cesspool of corruption.
The pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (source)
There are no shortage of examples of corruption, the list is long, one of many examples I like to use commonly comes from a few years ago, when more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations have on government policies. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.
Another more recent example that’s specific to Glyphosate comes from Europe, where EU regulators decided to relicense glyphosate, and it came based on an assessment that was plagiarized from industry reports. It’s quite backwards that for years, health regulators have been relying on the scientific reports from the company that manufactures these products, instead of seeking out independent scientific studies.
“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides… Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions.” – R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014), article ID 179691
The Emails
I’d like to bring your attention to a piece published by the Environmental Working Group that also shed light behind the mentality of this company as well as their employees:
A Monsanto executive said he wanted to “beat the shit out of” a mothers’ group that urged the company to stop selling its Roundup weedkiller, according to internal emails obtained by lawyers for victims who say the pesticide caused their cancer. The July 2013 emails, reported today by New Food Economy, reveal an exchange between Dr. Daniel Goldstein of Monsanto and two outside consultants about how to respond to an open letter from Moms Across America, a grassroots advocacy group. The emails were obtained during the discovery process for litigation against Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, over Roundup, which three separate juries have found caused cancer in people. Moms Across America’s letter to then-Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant cited scientific studies linking glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, to cancer. It also decried the company’s marketing of seeds for genetically modified foods: “We Moms know your Mom would be proud of you if you put the health of the nation first and stopped selling GMO seeds and spraying Glyphosate (Roundup®) and other harsher pesticides,” the letter said. In the emails, Goldstein wrote that the group was making “a pretty nasty looking set of allegations” and that he had been “arguing for a week to beat the shit out of them.” Using identical scatological language, one of the consultants – Bruce Chassy, then a professor at the University of Illinois – also advocated attacking the moms’ group. The other consultant – Wayne Parrot, a University of Georgia crop scientist – disagreed: “You can’t beat up mothers, even if they are dumb mothers but you can beat up the organic industry,” which he falsely claimed “paid for and wrote that letter.” “These ugly emails reveal the utter contempt that Monsanto has for public health and for consumers, including mothers who only want to protect their kids’ health,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Bayer is reeling from its monumental blunder of buying Monsanto, and these emails should remind them that they acquired the company that gave us DDT, Agent Orange and PCBs.” In the same email exchange, Goldstein noted a surge in public comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on its proposed rule to allow higher levels of glyphosate on supermarket produce. “BTW – a minor tolerance increase petition for glyphosate on specialty crops got 10,821 negative public comments in the last 48 hours – NOT form letters – individually written comments,” Goldstein wrote. “We’re on our way to being corporate road kill.” Next week the EPA will close the public comment period for its review of glyphosate’s registration, or license for use. Nearly 7,000 comments have been submitted to date, overwhelmingly opposing any further use of the weedkiller. In another email, a Monsanto scientist expressed concerns about the health risks from glyphosate. In May 2014, toxicologist Donna Farmer warned a company spokesperson against making public comments about the safety of Roundup: “We cannot say it (glyphosate) is ‘safe’… we can say history of safe use, used safely etc.” In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” setting off a flurry of activities at Monsanto attacking IARC’s assessment. Monsanto hired a consulting firm to draft a paper refuting IARC’s findings, with the working title “An Expert Panel Concludes There Is No Evidence That Glyphosate Is Carcinogenic to Humans.” One Monsanto consultant pushed back. In a November 2015 email, Tom Sorahan, an epidemiologist at the University of Birmingham, warned: “We can’t say ‘no evidence’ because that means there is not a single scrap of evidence, and I don’t see how we can go that far.” All of the emails can be found here, courtesy of the law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. Trial juries in three California lawsuits against Bayer-Monsanto have found in favor of the plaintiffs, all of whom have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. There are now roughly 13,000 other cases against Bayer-Monsanto awaiting trial in the U.S. alone. Since Bayer bought Monsanto last year, the price of its stock has plunged, shareholders are up in arms, and the deal is widely seen as one of the biggest miscalculations in corporate history. EWG has conducted three rounds of tests of popular oat-based cereals and other foods, including Cheerios, marketed toward children, and detected glyphosate in nearly every sample. (source)
The Takeaway
At the end of the day, awareness in this area is key, because we are the ones that use these types of products. Schools, business and residential areas all are still spraying RoundUp herbicide, but no doubt awareness is playing a key role in helping us create change at the individual level. In this case, you simply have to vote with your dollar.
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-01-20--US Stock Market More Overpriced and Perilous Than Anytime in History

I ’ m not going to predict when and how the US stock market will crash as I did by laying out the stages of its fall for 2018 .
That was easy , but the times are different now .
Back then , the Fed had laid out a precise schedule for its tightening , and it was apparent to me where the big increases in Fed tightening would be sufficient to bring down the market that the Fed had artificially rigged .
Today , the Fed is back to easing — back to doing what it does to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between what central banks do with their balance sheets and what the stock markets do is now almost 100 % .
All of 2019 looks like lockstepping to me .
The Fed , of course , is the primary mover for the US market .
Therefore , US stocks being overpriced in the extreme may not matter so long as the Fed is willing to keep the money pumps redlining at maximum RPM .
However , the more the market ’ s metrics move above all rational and historic benchmarks , as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greater its fall will be if the Fed pulls the plug , AND the more sensitive it will become to the Fed even wiggling the plug .
So , the situation is , in that sense , more perilous than at anytime past because some of the market ’ s most fundamental valuation metrics are now printing at levels never seen before .
Let me lay that out for you .
As I will lay out in my next Patron Post , the Fed has given some indication of a mild return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that could create problems for the market .
The Fed has not , however , laid out any clear schedule for tightening , and it won ’ t get far down that road before it sees market problems , and goes right back to easing because we are now in QE4ever by which I really mean “ QE4ever or die !
” That is because , as soon as the Fed backs away from QE , it will see its dependent child go into paroxysms , and like any parent who knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is highly dependent on continued life support , the Fed will rush back to supporting its baby — the stock market .
Outside of Fed help , the case to be made against the market is huge — as big as it was before the last two major recessions .
The market today looks in almost every way like it did just before the dot-com bust , but the difference , then too , was that the Fed started tightening back then .
Therefore , as long as the Fed continues its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be anything like the dot-com bust , barring a deep recession that busts everything ; but the Fed is now the only thing between the market and a bust .
Here are the similarities that scream market melt-up : The market is overvalued and melting up How high is it ?
The market is a stoner .
As a ratio comparing stock prices to either earnings or sales ( two historic benchmarks for assessing how pricy stocks are ) , the price of stocks is higher right now than it has ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tripping on some pricy hallucinogens .
The PEG is another measure that looks looks for overvaluation by comparing the Price/earnings ratios of stocks to their long-term expected growth in earnings .
It , too , has soared in the past quarter to reach an all-time high : Prices are more overvalued based on these historic metrics than they were before the financial crisis that caused the Great Recession and even in the stratospheric run-up to the dot-com bust .
We have never — ever — been priced this high !
That means fundamentals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to current valuations than at any time in history .
So , what is going to drive stock values up even further … other than the one thing that has been driving them for the past decade to the present perilously overvalued height — the Fed ?
If you know what the Fed is going to do , you might be able to make a safe market bet ; but just recognize that your hope for making money in stocks hangs entirely upon your being right about what the Fed will do in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope of those fundamentals catching up , three quarters of CFOs polled in the US say the market is greatly overvalued .
That will not , of course , prevent them from overvaluing it more with more stock buybacks … financed in good part by the Fed ’ s easy money .
CEO confidence doesn ’ t look any better and disagrees in the extreme with consumer confidence : So , the biggest insiders ( CEOs and CFOs ) are united in their belief that the market is priced to perfection with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from perfect .
Yet , the market is rising at a rate that can only be matched by previous melt-ups .
“ At this level , many things have to go optimally so that the prices are higher at the end of the year , ” comments David Rosenberg on the growing complacency among investors .
The renowned economist and strategist is one of the most profound experts on the U.S. economy and one of the last remaining skeptics to warn of a correction .
His bearish view is based on exorbitantly high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also thinks that the US consumer sector is in worse shape than the consensus believes… .
This is a liquidity and momentum driven market .
It ’ s been that way for the past four months where the correlation between the S & P 500 and the Fed ’ s balance sheet has expanded to a 95 % relationship .
This is a case of a very accommodative Fed policy .
The double-digit growth in the money supply is bypassing the real economy and has entered into asset markets broadly , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Fed is in the game priming the monetary pump , shorting stocks is going to be a very dangerous game to play … but this overall market rally is more a house of straw than a house of brick… .
People will claim that there is no recession .
Statistically speaking that ’ s true as far as GDP is concerned .
But we know for a fact that we actually had a four-quarter earnings recession .
I never quite understood why GDP is so important to an equity investor who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no ticker “ GDP ” on the New York Stock Exchange .
So it ’ s not about the overall level of GDP , it ’ s really about earnings and about the fact that if you look at the 30 % share of the U.S. economy that is outside of the consumer space , we actually have been in a recession in the past two quarters.… [ Does that sound like anything predicted here for 2019 ? ]
On a median basis , the U.S. economy has stopped growing three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer is not as nearly in good shape as people think .
We see signs that the labor market is starting to show some fatigue… .
The Fed would not be cutting interest rates three times and then re-extending its balance sheet at a rate that even exceeds what they were doing with QE3 .
The most important correlation to the stock market today is the Fed ’ s balance sheet .
The power of the Fed has become so acute that it has replaced the economy as a principle influence over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only a 7 % correlation between GDP and the S & P 500 .
Historically , in any given cycle that relationship was anywhere between 30 % and 70 % .
The amount of easing that the Fed has done since the beginning of October by expanding the balance sheet is just about as strong in terms of basis points as the three rate cuts they engineered last year .
They have cut rates almost a 150 basis points when you look at it on an equivalent basis .
Rosenberg points out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s recent emergency liquidity explosion and the main event that triggered the dot-com bust in 2000 : So , here we are in the early part of 2020 with the market strongly surging due to the Fed having juiced the marketplace with “ a lot of liquidity ” for the year change in late 2019 , exactly as it did in 1999 for the Y2K year change , and again the Fed is , at least , talking about starting to draw down liquidity in April or perhaps before as it did shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time also end as “ not a pretty picture.
” In 2018 it was easy to know when the market would go into paroxysms because the Fed had published a set schedule for its tightening .
This time , as Rosenberg says , … Don ’ t let marketeers influence you with their claims that the market is going to rise this year .
You can bet that every single one of them , if alive in 2000 , was saying the same thing then , too .
Though some feared the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , almost no one was calling for it to crash .
As Mark Hulbert , who has been in this game for a long time , recalls , 2008 went the same way .
Anyone remember Goldman ’ s investment advice to its clients just before the 2008 financial crisis implosion ?
Everything it wrote was printed in vampire squid ink : While it sucked everyone dry , it outwardly recommended buying more stocks that would fail , even as it bought up lots of almost everything that would do well when other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a melt-up and the nearing top of a market is when everyone is in — retail investors like mom and pop and the big money or “ smart money ” like institutional funds .
When there is not a lot of money sitting on the sides , only newly created money can push the market up .
When everyone is in , enthusiasm ( or euphoria ) is at its peak .
Beware those who have stocks to sell .
All the big advisors counsel everyone to jump in when MOMO and FOMO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get rid of all their own holdings so close to the peak ?
According to Rolling Stone and many other publications , that ’ s what Goldman did to maintain its Sachs of gold .
That ’ s how it got the name “ Vampire Squid.
” Or is just another round of Goldman , which populates all levels of the Fed with former GS people and others that it recommends , fleecing the flock ?
( As a refresher , read the whole Rolling Stone article quoted above , written at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Money-losing companies are shoving market valuations to the summit One of the big concerns during the final year or two of the market ’ s rise before the big dot-com bust of 2000-2002 was that so many companies that never made a dime were leading the market into the stratosphere .
We ’ re pretty well back to that .
The Journal says these two are two very different exemplars of profitless companies in today ’ s stock market .
Tesla has never made a dime , and is now one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market , and GE is a megalithic dinosaur of great value in the past that has been losing money for years .
The Journal article says that 40 % of listed companies in the U.S. are currently losing money quarter after quarter .
The biggest area of massive-money-losers in the dot-com gold-rush was the IPO segment of the market .
The same is true today : Maybe it would be good to reflect on what took the market leaders ( the “ Nifty Fifty ” ) higher and higher in the prelude to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overflowing , so is the pouring of money into safe-haven bonds .
If the current net flow of money into bonds were to continue all year , it would look like this compared to any other year since the Great Recession began : Of course , the flow of money into bonds probably will not continue at that rate all year , although several years shown above did continue at the same rate most or all of the year .
Still , many others did not and even turned downward partway through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rise in the first two weeks of January exceeds that seen at the start of any year on the chart , except maybe 2015 .
Bonds aren ’ t the only safe havens rising as a warning sign alongside soaring stocks .
Precious metals are , too : David Rosenberg notes why he believes gold is on the rise and should be : It ’ s no secret that the Fed ’ s new money and low interest , and the US government ’ s one-time allowance for low taxes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the market higher .
Over a trillion dollars has been spent on stock buybacks by twenty companies over the past five years to push up the values of the markets leaders .
What happens when those companies have used up all the foreign profits they had to repatriate or when interest rises so debt to fund buybacks is not longer cheap or when those “ trillion-dollar babies ” just reach the maximum amount of debt they feel comfortable taking on … or reach the maximum amount for which ratings agencies feel comfortable selling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down due to the fourth-quarter reporting period .
Repatriation money is also likely running out for many companies , because it has been two years since cheap repatriation of former foreign profits was allowed under the revised tax code as part of the Trump Tax Cuts .
It feels like 2018 all over again I still think , as I wrote in December , that the following is a strong contender to become the market ’ s peak before it hits a wall : I ’ m not predicting 30,000 is the major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noting that I think it is a strong psychological milestone that is quite near in the present melt-up stage as both the brass ring for investors to reach for and then perhaps to fade … or even flee if people see a lot of fading happening .
It will deepened onhow many other things are going bad at the same time or on one thing going bad — Fed support .
( Don ’ t say it can ’ t happen .
It did in 2018 when the Fed should have known better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let me point the last time we neared a milestone of this kind ( Dow 20,000 ) .
You can see in the graph below that it was both a magnet , sucking stocks upward and then a two-month bench to rest on .
However , the steep final rise to that level was not a melt-up because a “ melt-up ” is meant to imply things are about to melt down : 30,000 will be a natural place to catch one ’ s breath , but what happens at that point will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events happen when the market takes a pause bringing momentum to a halt — say if buybacks fade for the reasons above or if earnings estimates sink more than expected or a very low GDP print ; BUT it relies far more than anything on whether the Fed fades its current easing .
After December , I got out of stocks to sit this mile-marker and possible Fed transition point out .
( I don ’ t even like being in stocks now , given how insane the market is ; but my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were based on Fed tightening , so a return to easing changed things for the last few month . )
As for what happens in a Fed tightening regime , the graph above also bears testimony to just how much the market changed in January of 2018 for the remainder of that year and how it remained below its January blow-off top with some hard bouncing even through the first three quarters of 2019 as the Fed ’ s quantitative tightening continued … even though the Fed stopped raising interest rates .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did the market finally sustain a rise above its two 2018 high mark .
As for what happened back then when the Fed tightened and how it compares to now , The only failsafe red indicator now that the market is ignoring all economic the metrics of all economic/business fundamentals is the light on the power cord to the Fed .
Everything depends on the Fed and what it does , and right now the Fed is not all that clear about what it will do .
It is certainly not clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at reversing it .
The big thing to use as your red light is any attempt or mention of an upcoming attempt by the Fed to prove it is not financializing the US debt by moving back toward tightening … or even just stopping the money pumps .
( It , of course , won ’ t mention the “ financializing ” part , as it doesn ’ t want you to even think about that , but look for hints of tightening that it can use to support its argument that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who calls it to task . )
Bear in mind the only way the Fed can maintain its lie that it is not illegally financing the national debt with QE4ever is if it can prove that its recent massive asset purchases were just temporary emergency monetary responses .
Lack of “ temporary ” = QE4ever = the Fed monetizing the US debt by soaking up US treasuries forever … or until the Fed decides to crash the entire economy by tightening again .
( It is only 4ever if the Fed wants the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as the Fed even shows it is going to do nothing more than hold its existing treasuries for years to come , it is , at least , guilty of monetizing that much of the US debt .
Throughout QE , the Fed ’ s sole argument that it was not monetizing the debt rested on its QE being temporary .
The Fed has a great need to quit its repo recovery actions so that the Fed can prove it is not financing the US government by sopping up its debt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make any difference that the Fed is only buying short-term treasuries , as it now claims for its excuse , if it rolls those short-term treasuries over forever .
That is just short-term dressing in name only on permanent monetization of the debt .
So economists , analysts and politicians will be questioning the Fed ’ s “ not QE ” if they see that the Fed simply can not stop .
The Fed is fully aware of that .
As I noted in last year ’ s early Patron Posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing trust in 2018 .
At the same time , this market has nothing left to keep it up but Fed fumes .
Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

By David Haggith,
I’m not going to predict when and how the US stock market will crash as I did by laying out the stages of its fall for 2018. That was easy, but the times are different now.
Back then, the Fed had laid out a precise schedule for its tightening, and it was apparent to me where the big increases in Fed tightening would be sufficient to bring down the market that the Fed had artificially rigged.
Today, the Fed is back to easing — back to doing what it does to juice markets up. And the correspondence between what central banks do with their balance sheets and what the stock markets do is now almost 100%.
All of 2019 looks like lockstepping to me.
The Fed, of course, is the primary mover for the US market. Therefore, US stocks being overpriced in the extreme may not matter so long as the Fed is willing to keep the money pumps redlining at maximum RPM.
However, the more the market’s metrics move above all rational and historic benchmarks, as I’ll show they now have, the greater its fall will be if the Fed pulls the plug, AND the more sensitive it will become to the Fed even wiggling the plug. So, the situation is, in that sense, more perilous than at anytime past because some of the market’s most fundamental valuation metrics are now printing at levels never seen before.
Let me lay that out for you.
Market madness still being Fed
As I will lay out in my next Patron Post, the Fed has given some indication of a mild return to tightening in the near future, and that could create problems for the market. The Fed has not, however, laid out any clear schedule for tightening, and it won’t get far down that road before it sees market problems, and goes right back to easing because we are now in QE4ever by which I really mean “QE4ever or die!”
That is because, as soon as the Fed backs away from QE, it will see its dependent child go into paroxysms, and like any parent who knows he or she has a sickly child that is highly dependent on continued life support, the Fed will rush back to supporting its baby — the stock market.
Outside of Fed help, the case to be made against the market is huge — as big as it was before the last two major recessions. The market today looks in almost every way like it did just before the dot-com bust, but the difference, then too, was that the Fed started tightening back then. Therefore, as long as the Fed continues its present path of easing, there may not be anything like the dot-com bust, barring a deep recession that busts everything; but the Fed is now the only thing between the market and a bust.
Here are the similarities that scream market melt-up:
The market is overvalued and melting up
How high is it?
The market is a stoner. As a ratio comparing stock prices to either earnings or sales (two historic benchmarks for assessing how pricy stocks are), the price of stocks is higher right now than it has ever been in history. This market is tripping on some pricy hallucinogens.
(EV/EBITDA compares an enterprise’s value to its actual earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization. Typically a value below 10 is considered healthy.)
The PEG is another measure that looks looks for overvaluation by comparing the Price/earnings ratios of stocks to their long-term expected growth in earnings. It, too, has soared in the past quarter to reach an all-time high:
Prices are more overvalued based on these historic metrics than they were before the financial crisis that caused the Great Recession and even in the stratospheric run-up to the dot-com bust. We have never — ever — been priced this high! That means fundamentals have further to go to catch up to current valuations than at any time in history.
Investors should keep in mind that market valuations stand nearly three times the historically run-of-the-mill valuation levels from which stocks have historically generated run-of-the-mill long-term returns. In fact, the highest level of valuation ever observed at the end of any market cycle in history was in October 2002, and even that level is less than half of present valuation extremes. So how do you get to historically run-of-the-mill valuation norms? The answer is simple: Wait nearly 30 years, allowing both the U.S. economy and U.S. corporate revenues to grow at the same rate as the past two decades, while stock prices remain unchanged, with no intervening periods of recession or investor risk-aversion, or alternatively (and far more likely), watch the S&P 500 lose two-thirds of its value over the completion of this market cycle. My view is that the first 30% market loss from recent highs will be the beginning, not the end of the bear market ahead…. To be clear, a two-thirds market decline would not even drive the most historically reliable valuation measures below their historical norms. John Hussman, president of the Hussman Investment Trust, in his latest note to investors
So, what is going to drive stock values up even further … other than the one thing that has been driving them for the past decade to the present perilously overvalued height — the Fed? If you know what the Fed is going to do, you might be able to make a safe market bet; but just recognize that your hope for making money in stocks hangs entirely upon your being right about what the Fed will do in the months ahead.
As for any hope of those fundamentals catching up, three quarters of CFOs polled in the US say the market is greatly overvalued. That will not, of course, prevent them from overvaluing it more with more stock buybacks … financed in good part by the Fed’s easy money.
Chief financial officers at big U.S. companies entered 2020 on a cautious note, with almost all anticipating an economic slowdown against the backdrop of an overvalued stock market, according to a survey released Thursday…. 82% anticipate taking more defensive actions, like reducing discretionary spending and headcount, as a way to stave off the looming headwinds. CNBC
CEO confidence doesn’t look any better and disagrees in the extreme with consumer confidence:
So, the biggest insiders (CEOs and CFOs) are united in their belief that the market is priced to perfection with a business future immediately ahead that looks far from perfect. Yet, the market is rising at a rate that can only be matched by previous melt-ups.
“At this level, many things have to go optimally so that the prices are higher at the end of the year,” comments David Rosenberg on the growing complacency among investors. The renowned economist and strategist is one of the most profound experts on the U.S. economy and one of the last remaining skeptics to warn of a correction. His bearish view is based on exorbitantly high equity valuations and over-optimistic earnings expectations. He also thinks that the US consumer sector is in worse shape than the consensus believes…. This is a liquidity and momentum driven market. It’s been that way for the past four months where the correlation between the S&P 500 and the Fed’s balance sheet has expanded to a 95% relationship. This is a case of a very accommodative Fed policy. The double-digit growth in the money supply is bypassing the real economy and has entered into asset markets broadly, and specifically into equities. So as long as the Fed is in the game priming the monetary pump, shorting stocks is going to be a very dangerous game to play … but this overall market rally is more a house of straw than a house of brick…. People will claim that there is no recession. Statistically speaking that’s true as far as GDP is concerned. But we know for a fact that we actually had a four-quarter earnings recession. I never quite understood why GDP is so important to an equity investor who is buying an earnings stream. There’s no ticker “GDP” on the New York Stock Exchange. So it’s not about the overall level of GDP, it’s really about earnings and about the fact that if you look at the 30% share of the U.S. economy that is outside of the consumer space, we actually have been in a recession in the past two quarters.… [Does that sound like anything predicted here for 2019?] On a median basis, the U.S. economy has stopped growing three quarters ago. Also, the U.S. consumer is not as nearly in good shape as people think. We see signs that the labor market is starting to show some fatigue…. The Fed would not be cutting interest rates three times and then re-extending its balance sheet at a rate that even exceeds what they were doing with QE3. The most important correlation to the stock market today is the Fed’s balance sheet. The power of the Fed has become so acute that it has replaced the economy as a principle influence over the stock market to the point where there is only a 7% correlation between GDP and the S&P 500. Historically, in any given cycle that relationship was anywhere between 30% and 70%. The amount of easing that the Fed has done since the beginning of October by expanding the balance sheet is just about as strong in terms of basis points as the three rate cuts they engineered last year. They have cut rates almost a 150 basis points when you look at it on an equivalent basis. The Market
Rosenberg points out an interesting corollary between the Fed’s recent emergency liquidity explosion and the main event that triggered the dot-com bust in 2000:
We have a template of what happened when the Fed provided a lot of liquidity juice to the marketplace with the Y2K special lending facilities in late 1999. At that time, the market strongly surged, and kept on rallying into the early part of 2000. Then, the Fed started to withdraw that liquidity and it wasn’t a pretty picture.
So, here we are in the early part of 2020 with the market strongly surging due to the Fed having juiced the marketplace with “a lot of liquidity” for the year change in late 2019, exactly as it did in 1999 for the Y2K year change, and again the Fed is, at least, talking about starting to draw down liquidity in April or perhaps before as it did shortly after the Y2K year change.
Will this time also end as “not a pretty picture.”
In 2018 it was easy to know when the market would go into paroxysms because the Fed had published a set schedule for its tightening. This time, as Rosenberg says,…
It’s tough to time when the Fed is finally going to sit back and say: “Ok, you know what: I’m not handing any more candy to the kindergarten class”. My sense is that the response to the Fed no longer priming the pump could be significant.
We’re now “all in”
Don’t let marketeers influence you with their claims that the market is going to rise this year. You can bet that every single one of them, if alive in 2000, was saying the same thing then, too. Though some feared the ridiculous heights the market hit in 2000, almost no one was calling for it to crash.
As Mark Hulbert, who has been in this game for a long time, recalls,
On Jan. 14, 2000, the Dow DJIA … hit its bull-market high prior to the bursting of the internet bubble. And, yet, you’d have never known it by reading what the newsletter editors then were saying. In fact, after reading through my newsletter archives from January 2000, I was struck by the similarities between now and then. MarketWatch
2008 went the same way. Anyone remember Goldman’s investment advice to its clients just before the 2008 financial crisis implosion? Everything it wrote was printed in vampire squid ink:
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. Rolling Stone
While it sucked everyone dry, it outwardly recommended buying more stocks that would fail, even as it bought up lots of almost everything that would do well when other things crash.
One strong sign of a melt-up and the nearing top of a market is when everyone is in — retail investors like mom and pop and the big money or “smart money” like institutional funds. When there is not a lot of money sitting on the sides, only newly created money can push the market up. When everyone is in, enthusiasm (or euphoria) is at its peak.
Beware those who have stocks to sell. All the big advisors counsel everyone to jump in when MOMO and FOMO hit their peaks. How else will they get rid of all their own holdings so close to the peak? According to Rolling Stone and many other publications, that’s what Goldman did to maintain its Sachs of gold. That’s how it got the name “Vampire Squid.”
We’re now “all in”:
Contrary to several goalseeked indicators which erroneously repeat week after week that whales and other prominent institutional traders remain “on the fence” despite the now daily record highs in the S&P, the truth is that virtually everyone is now all in: from simple human-driven discretionary, to macro funds, all the way to algo and CTAs…. “Equity positioning … has run far ahead of current growth as investors price in a global growth rebound….” The question is, are people starting to feel more upbeat about the global economy or is this just another round of central bank dovishness designed to propel asset prices higher? The answer appears to be, yes. Weakness will be met with overt accommodation. Strength with silence. Zero Hedge
Or is just another round of Goldman, which populates all levels of the Fed with former GS people and others that it recommends, fleecing the flock? (As a refresher, read the whole Rolling Stone article quoted above, written at the end of those desperate times.)
Money-losing companies are shoving market valuations to the summit
One of the big concerns during the final year or two of the market’s rise before the big dot-com bust of 2000-2002 was that so many companies that never made a dime were leading the market into the stratosphere. We’re pretty well back to that.
Tesla Inc. shares have doubled in three months, while General Electric Co. shares are up 44%. The pair are the two most valuable loss-making companies, part of a shockingly high proportion of listed companies that have been losing money—despite, or perhaps because of, the long bull market. The Wall Street Journal
The Journal says these two are two very different exemplars of profitless companies in today’s stock market. Tesla has never made a dime, and is now one of the most highly valued companies in the market, and GE is a megalithic dinosaur of great value in the past that has been losing money for years.
The Journal article says that 40% of listed companies in the U.S. are currently losing money quarter after quarter. The biggest area of massive-money-losers in the dot-com gold-rush was the IPO segment of the market. The same is true today:
Maybe it would be good to reflect on what took the market leaders (the “Nifty Fifty”) higher and higher in the prelude to the dot-com bust:
The Nifty Fifty appeared to rise up from the ocean; it was as though all of the U.S. but Nebraska had sunk into the sea. The two-tier market really consisted of one tier and a lot of rubble down below. What held the Nifty Fifty up? The same thing that held up tulip-bulb prices long ago in Holland – popular delusions and the madness of crowds. The delusion was that these companies were so good that it didn’t matter what you paid for them; their inexorable growth would bail you out. Forbes Magazine, 1977, The Nifty Fifty Revisited
Bonds overflowing
While stocks are overflowing, so is the pouring of money into safe-haven bonds. If the current net flow of money into bonds were to continue all year, it would look like this compared to any other year since the Great Recession began:
Of course, the flow of money into bonds probably will not continue at that rate all year, although several years shown above did continue at the same rate most or all of the year. Still, many others did not and even turned downward partway through the year. Regardless, the steepness of the rise in the first two weeks of January exceeds that seen at the start of any year on the chart, except maybe 2015.
Bonds aren’t the only safe havens rising as a warning sign alongside soaring stocks. Precious metals are, too:
David Rosenberg notes why he believes gold is on the rise and should be:
When you compare the new supply of gold against the supply of money coming into the system from Central Banks, to me it’s a very clear cut case that you want to have very high exposure to bullion…. Gold demand is predicated on the final act which is going to be right-out debt monetization. When we get to the lows of the next recession, we’re going to find that these Central Banks that already have been extremely aggressive are going to engage in what is otherwise known as the “debt jubilee” or a right-out debt monetization which was actually the final chapter of the Bernanke playbook. Remember, Ben Bernanke got his nickname “Helicopter Ben” because in a speech in 2002 he suggested that helicopter money could always be used to prevent deflation. So we’re going to have helicopter money. The Market
Buyback bonanza is slowing down
It’s no secret that the Fed’s new money and low interest, and the US government’s one-time allowance for low taxes on the repatriation of overseas cash hoards has fueled the market higher.
Over a trillion dollars has been spent on stock buybacks by twenty companies over the past five years to push up the values of the markets leaders. What happens when those companies have used up all the foreign profits they had to repatriate or when interest rises so debt to fund buybacks is not longer cheap or when those “trillion-dollar babies” just reach the maximum amount of debt they feel comfortable taking on … or reach the maximum amount for which ratings agencies feel comfortable selling good ratings?
Currently buybacks are slowing down due to the fourth-quarter reporting period. Repatriation money is also likely running out for many companies, because it has been two years since cheap repatriation of former foreign profits was allowed under the revised tax code as part of the Trump Tax Cuts.
It feels like 2018 all over again
I still think, as I wrote in December, that the following is a strong contender to become the market’s peak before it hits a wall:
The market has a highly attractive 30,000-foot altitude marker in the sky to hit on the Dow. That attractive goal will tend to suck the market quickly up another 5% until it nears that target. Once the market gets to that target, however, that number tends to become resistance as everyone starts to wonder if it can break it and if it will hold or crash in fear of such great heights. 30,000 is a much stronger number psychologically than 29,000 was because it breaks into a new 10,000-foot level. The human psyche likes big, fat, round numbers like that. Once it gets to that level, however, it can generate a lot of fear because of how perilously high the market suddenly feels, which makes it an ideal number for an ultimate blow-off top “Santa, No Longer Tariffied, May Rally for Christmas“
I’m not predicting 30,000 is the major breaking point. I’m just noting that I think it is a strong psychological milestone that is quite near in the present melt-up stage as both the brass ring for investors to reach for and then perhaps to fade … or even flee if people see a lot of fading happening. It will deepened onhow many other things are going bad at the same time or on one thing going bad — Fed support. (Don’t say it can’t happen. It did in 2018 when the Fed should have known better then, too.)
First, let me point the last time we neared a milestone of this kind (Dow 20,000). You can see in the graph below that it was both a magnet, sucking stocks upward and then a two-month bench to rest on. However, the steep final rise to that level was not a melt-up because a “melt-up” is meant to imply things are about to melt down:
30,000 will be a natural place to catch one’s breath, but what happens at that point will depend a lot on what kinds of events happen when the market takes a pause bringing momentum to a halt — say if buybacks fade for the reasons above or if earnings estimates sink more than expected or a very low GDP print; BUT it relies far more than anything on whether the Fed fades its current easing.
After December, I got out of stocks to sit this mile-marker and possible Fed transition point out. (I don’t even like being in stocks now, given how insane the market is; but my predictions of the market’s fall were based on Fed tightening, so a return to easing changed things for the last few month.)
As for what happens in a Fed tightening regime, the graph above also bears testimony to just how much the market changed in January of 2018 for the remainder of that year and how it remained below its January blow-off top with some hard bouncing even through the first three quarters of 2019 as the Fed’s quantitative tightening continued … even though the Fed stopped raising interest rates. Only when the Fed moved deep into QE4ever did the market finally sustain a rise above its two 2018 high mark.
As for what happened back then when the Fed tightened and how it compares to now,
Stock market investors could be setting themselves up for a nasty fall … according to Mark Newton, a popular independent market technician, in a Friday note to clients. “US stocks have moved up at a clip that’s eerily reminiscent of January 2018,” he wrote. “No news really matters to shake markets, and bad economic news or earnings, not to mention geopolitical threats matter for a few hours only before the relentless rally continues unabated,” he wrote.” The S&P 500 index … fell more than 10% between Jan. 26 of 2018 and Feb. 9 of that year, after rallying more than 27% between the start of 2017 and the Jan. 2018 top. “Make no mistake, this market move is NOT normal, and is NOT something which should be able to continue technically into and through February without a major hiccup,” he added. “Markets truly seem to be near exhaustion using traditional methods, but it’s proper to wait on the sidelines until the break gets underway, which should prove swift and severe….” That said, it’s incredibly difficult to predict exactly when euphoric sentiment will take a turn for the worse. “Indicators don’t flash red when the market is at a top,” Newton warned. “It’s hard to go out there and really trumpet a big bearish call, which makes you wonder if its probably the right thing to be doing.” MarketWatch
BEAR in mind,
Most initial bear market declines are accompanied with versions of Herbert Hoover’s 1929 statement that “the fundamental business of the country is on a sound and prosperous basis.” John Hussman
The only failsafe red indicator now that the market is ignoring all economic the metrics of all economic/business fundamentals is the light on the power cord to the Fed. Everything depends on the Fed and what it does, and right now the Fed is not all that clear about what it will do. It is certainly not clear that QE4ever will continue without a failed attempt at reversing it.
The big thing to use as your red light is any attempt or mention of an upcoming attempt by the Fed to prove it is not financializing the US debt by moving back toward tightening … or even just stopping the money pumps. (It, of course, won’t mention the “financializing” part, as it doesn’t want you to even think about that, but look for hints of tightening that it can use to support its argument that it is not monetizing the debt with anyone who calls it to task.)
Bear in mind the only way the Fed can maintain its lie that it is not illegally financing the national debt with QE4ever is if it can prove that its recent massive asset purchases were just temporary emergency monetary responses. Lack of “temporary” = QE4ever = the Fed monetizing the US debt by soaking up US treasuries forever … or until the Fed decides to crash the entire economy by tightening again. (It is only 4ever if the Fed wants the economy to keep going.)
So long as the Fed even shows it is going to do nothing more than hold its existing treasuries for years to come, it is, at least, guilty of monetizing that much of the US debt. Throughout QE, the Fed’s sole argument that it was not monetizing the debt rested on its QE being temporary.
The Fed has a great need to quit its repo recovery actions so that the Fed can prove it is not financing the US government by sopping up its debt to roll over in perpetuity. It doesn’t make any difference that the Fed is only buying short-term treasuries, as it now claims for its excuse, if it rolls those short-term treasuries over forever. That is just short-term dressing in name only on permanent monetization of the debt. So economists, analysts and politicians will be questioning the Fed’s “not QE” if they see that the Fed simply cannot stop. The Fed is fully aware of that. As I noted in last year’s early Patron Posts, the Fed expressed great concern about losing trust in 2018.
At the same time, this market has nothing left to keep it up but Fed fumes.
Source: http://thegreatrecession.info
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-01-20--To ‘Make America Great Again’ Trump Added a $1 TRILLION Deficit in 2019—Just Like Obama

The Trump administration ran an Obamaesque budget deficit of over $ 1 trillion in the 2019 calendar year .
It was the first budget deficit over $ 1 trillion in any calendar year since 2012 .
The budget shortfall from January through December totaled $ 1.02 trillion , according to the latest report issued by the Treasury Department .
That was a 17.1 percent increase over the 2018 deficit , which was a 28.2 percent increase over 2017 .
The budget deficit for fiscal 2019 ( October 2018-September 2019 ) came in just under $ 1 trillion at $ 984 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GDP , the highest percentage since 2012 .
It was the fourth consecutive year in which the deficit increased as a percentage of GDP .
The debt-to-GDP ratio is estimated to have increased a hefty 26 percent over last year .
The CBO estimates the budget deficit for fiscal 2020 will eclipse $ 1 trillion .
These are the kind of budget deficits one would expect to see during a major economic downturn .
The federal government has only run deficits over $ 1 trillion in four fiscal years , all during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that number today , despite having what Trump keeps calling “ the greatest economy in the history of America.
” Generally , during economic expansions , government spending on social programs shrinks and tax revenues climb with increased economic activity .
Revenues have increased over the last year , but they haven ’ t kept pace with the increase in government spending .
The spending didn ’ t slow in the first quarter of fiscal 2020 .
Through the first three months of the current fiscal year , the deficit ballooned to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11.8 percent increase from a year ago .
In just three months , Uncle Sam blew through $ 1.16 trillion .
Spending through the first three months of FY2020 is up 6.5 percent over the spending through the first three months of fiscal 2019 .
Meanwhile , the national debt has climbed to $ 23.2 trillion .
To put that into perspective , last February , the national debt topped $ 22 trillion .
When President Trump took office in January 2017 , the debt was at $ 19.95 trillion .
That represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt in just over two years .
The borrowing pace continues to accelerate .
The Treasury borrowed $ 800 billion in just two months late last summer .
( If you ’ re wondering how the debt can grow by a larger number than the annual deficit , economist Mark Brandly explains here . )
During the presidential campaign , Trump promised to deal with the skyrocketing national debt .
In fact , he said he could take care of it “ fairly quickly.
” But the president hasn ’ t even played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling for more outlays for the military and championing paid parental leave for government employees .
Trump supporters have mostly offered up excuses , shifting the blame for the ballooning national debt to “ Democrats in Congress.
” This ignores the fact that 2019 spending was approved the previous year when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress .
They also minimize the White House ’ s role in the budgeting process .
In fact , the president has significant power and input in that process While Congress does ultimately pass spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before they become law .
He doesn ’ t have to sign bills that have spending he doesn ’ t want .
If reining in debt and deficits was a priority , Trump would have vetoed these bills and insisted on spending cuts .
Instead , he called for more spending , particularly for the military .
Republicans will argue that increased defense spending is necessary for “ national security.
” But unsustainable budget deficits pose a significant threat to national security , especially considering China ranks as one of the biggest buyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also plays an integral role in the budgeting process .
Executive branch departments submit spending requests that Congress uses to set spending levels .
The president has complete control over how much money various departments request .
Finally , the president ’ s near-complete silence on deficits and debt indicates that it ’ s not a priority .
Trump didn ’ t even mention the national debt during the last State of the Union address .
Congress does in fact bear a great deal of responsibility for Uncle Sam ’ s fiscal malfeasance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His supporters need to quit making excuses , hold his feet to the fire and insist that he deal with the debt .
The spending trajectory is unsustainable .
If we are running $ 1 trillion deficits now , what will the country ’ s financial situation look like when the next recession hits ?
Congress and the president can continue to kick the can down the road , but they are about to run out of pavement .
Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

By: Mike Maharrey,
The Trump administration ran an Obamaesque budget deficit of over $1 trillion in the 2019 calendar year.
It was the first budget deficit over $1 trillion in any calendar year since 2012.
The budget shortfall from January through December totaled $1.02 trillion, according to the latest report issued by the Treasury Department. That was a 17.1 percent increase over the 2018 deficit, which was a 28.2 percent increase over 2017.
The budget deficit for fiscal 2019 (October 2018-September 2019) came in just under $1 trillion at $984 billion. That represented 4.7 percent of GDP, the highest percentage since 2012. It was the fourth consecutive year in which the deficit increased as a percentage of GDP. The debt-to-GDP ratio is estimated to have increased a hefty 26 percent over last year.
The CBO estimates the budget deficit for fiscal 2020 will eclipse $1 trillion.
These are the kind of budget deficits one would expect to see during a major economic downturn. The federal government has only run deficits over $1 trillion in four fiscal years, all during the Great Recession. We’re approaching that number today, despite having what Trump keeps calling “the greatest economy in the history of America.”
Generally, during economic expansions, government spending on social programs shrinks and tax revenues climb with increased economic activity. Revenues have increased over the last year, but they haven’t kept pace with the increase in government spending.
The spending didn’t slow in the first quarter of fiscal 2020. Through the first three months of the current fiscal year, the deficit ballooned to $356.6 billion. That’s an 11.8 percent increase from a year ago. In just three months, Uncle Sam blew through $1.16 trillion. Spending through the first three months of FY2020 is up 6.5 percent over the spending through the first three months of fiscal 2019.
Meanwhile, the national debt has climbed to $23.2 trillion.
To put that into perspective, last February, the national debt topped $22 trillion. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the debt was at $19.95 trillion. That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. The borrowing pace continues to accelerate. The Treasury borrowed $800 billion in just two months late last summer. (If you’re wondering how the debt can grow by a larger number than the annual deficit, economist Mark Brandly explains here.)
During the presidential campaign, Trump promised to deal with the skyrocketing national debt. In fact, he said he could take care of it “fairly quickly.” But the president hasn’t even played lip-service to reining in spending, instead, calling for more outlays for the military and championing paid parental leave for government employees.
Trump supporters have mostly offered up excuses, shifting the blame for the ballooning national debt to “Democrats in Congress.” This ignores the fact that 2019 spending was approved the previous year when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. They also minimize the White House’s role in the budgeting process. In fact, the president has significant power and input in that process
While Congress does ultimately pass spending bills, the president must sign them before they become law. He doesn’t have to sign bills that have spending he doesn’t want. If reining in debt and deficits was a priority, Trump would have vetoed these bills and insisted on spending cuts. Instead, he called for more spending, particularly for the military.
Republicans will argue that increased defense spending is necessary for “national security.” But unsustainable budget deficits pose a significant threat to national security, especially considering China ranks as one of the biggest buyers of U.S. debt.
The executive branch also plays an integral role in the budgeting process. Executive branch departments submit spending requests that Congress uses to set spending levels. The president has complete control over how much money various departments request.
Finally, the president’s near-complete silence on deficits and debt indicates that it’s not a priority. Trump didn’t even mention the national debt during the last State of the Union address.
Congress does in fact bear a great deal of responsibility for Uncle Sam’s fiscal malfeasance, but so does the president. His supporters need to quit making excuses, hold his feet to the fire and insist that he deal with the debt.
The spending trajectory is unsustainable. If we are running $1 trillion deficits now, what will the country’s financial situation look like when the next recession hits? Congress and the president can continue to kick the can down the road, but they are about to run out of pavement.
Source: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-01-20--Disney+ Promotes Transgender 12-Year-Old Boy in Marvel Series

‘ It ’ s really important to have a transgender kid in one of these companies ’ The popular new streaming service Disney+ has released a Marvel documentary series called Hero Project featuring an episode highlighting a 12-year-old transgender boy who goes by the name Rebekah .
Each installment of the show focuses on the accomplishments of a young person and gifts them with a comic book illustrating their “ selfless acts of bravery and kindness.
” In the Hero Project episode titled “ Mighty Rebekah , ” a young boy from New Jersey who started identifying as a girl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into activism .
The show focuses on Rebekah Bruesehoff and his mother Jamie who supports Rebekah ’ s transition and activism .
Rebekah ’ s father , who is a Christian pastor , also supports the child ’ s transition from male to female .
After the group Garden State Equality started campaigning for state guidelines regarding transgender kids in public schools , Rebekah attended and spoke at his first rally at age ten .
“ It was kind of nerve-wracking because it was my first time speaking there .
Speaking anywhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She was just a natural , ” Rebekah ’ s mother Jamie said .
“ All these people were impressed by her bravery and the clarity of ‘ this is who I am and I deserved a safe school.
’ Suddenly people cared and wanted to hear your voice.
” “ They wanted to hear what I had to say on the matter of me being me , ” Rebekah added .
It ’ s part of a much bigger agenda : BBC ’ s Children Show ‘ Just a Girl ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blocking Drugs Rebekah was shocked to be selected as a Marvel “ hero , ” telling The Advocate “ It ’ s really surprising and cool .
But I also think that it ’ s really important to have a transgender kid in one of these companies because representation is really helpful for kids who are going through their transition to know that they are not alone and that there are people fighting for them.
” Continuing , Rebekah also explained that famous transgender teen Jazz Jennings helped him transition , saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role model for kids like me to help them come out and transition.
” In the following video , Jamie describes how she introduced the idea of transgenderism to her then eight-year-old boy .
Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

By Kelen McBreen,
‘It’s really important to have a transgender kid in one of these companies’
The popular new streaming service Disney+ has released a Marvel documentary series called Hero Project featuring an episode highlighting a 12-year-old transgender boy who goes by the name Rebekah.
Each installment of the show focuses on the accomplishments of a young person and gifts them with a comic book illustrating their “selfless acts of bravery and kindness.”
In the Hero Project episode titled “Mighty Rebekah,” a young boy from New Jersey who started identifying as a girl at age eight explains how he got into activism.
The show focuses on Rebekah Bruesehoff and his mother Jamie who supports Rebekah’s transition and activism.
Rebekah’s father, who is a Christian pastor, also supports the child’s transition from male to female.
After the group Garden State Equality started campaigning for state guidelines regarding transgender kids in public schools, Rebekah attended and spoke at his first rally at age ten.
“It was kind of nerve-wracking because it was my first time speaking there. Speaking anywhere,” she explained.
“Holy moly. She was just a natural,” Rebekah’s mother Jamie said. “All these people were impressed by her bravery and the clarity of ‘this is who I am and I deserved a safe school.’ Suddenly people cared and wanted to hear your voice.”
“They wanted to hear what I had to say on the matter of me being me,” Rebekah added.
It’s part of a much bigger agenda: BBC’s Children Show ‘Just a Girl’ is About a Transgender Child Taking Hormone Blocking Drugs
Rebekah was shocked to be selected as a Marvel “hero,” telling The Advocate “It’s really surprising and cool. But I also think that it’s really important to have a transgender kid in one of these companies because representation is really helpful for kids who are going through their transition to know that they are not alone and that there are people fighting for them.”
Continuing, Rebekah also explained that famous transgender teen Jazz Jennings helped him transition, saying, “She inspires me by being a role model for kids like me to help them come out and transition.”
In the following video, Jamie describes how she introduced the idea of transgenderism to her then eight-year-old boy.
Source: https://humansarefree.com
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage