In this issue:
Good News | Product Highlight | Brainpower | Finances | Security | Health/Fitness |
Factoid | Thought 4 the Day
Please forward this to others who might find
it useful. If you have a
social media acct (Facebook, etc.), please add our link:
1. Good News
Item 1. The Department of Labor announced on Friday the 8th that there
were 222,000 new jobs were added in June. This was higher than experts predicted
and higher than the monthly average over the past year. Employers have added
about 863,000 new jobs since the beginning of the year. Several factors
contributed to this, most notably that Barry Soetoro is no longer in the White
House feverishly signing job-destroying executive orders. President Trump has
been feverishly undoing those job-destroying executive orders, thus the results
Item 2. Another powerful weapon against cancer. Read the full story here:
Please note that the vast majority of cancer is avoidable by adopting a sensible
diet. For example, prevent esophageal cancer by eliminating softdrinks. Prevent
colon cancer by eliminating hydrogenated oil and by eating eggplant (not fried
or breaded) regularly. Vastly reduce the inflammation that leads to many kinds
of cancer by eliminating corn and wheat from your diet.
Item 3. You know those obnoxious robodialer calls we all hate so much? A
company called Youmail estimates that American consumers are harassed by 2.5
billion of these each month (about 83 million per day!). And the FCC is finally
going to do something about it. Read the full story, here:
What can you do in the meantime? Always hang up the very moment you realize
you're being robocalled. Then use your call blocking feature to block that
number. Long-standing practices like blowing a whistle into the phone have no
effect on these automated callers. Even getting an unlisted number is no cure;
the robodialers go through a computer generated list. And unless there's an
error message (e.g., that number is no longer in service) they will continue
dialing it so you can't even use the old method of screening your calls to get
them to stop. Nor can you call them back to complain; the number on Caller ID
does not accept incoming calls.
2. Product Highlight
Wizcom WizRead Software and Exam Pen Bundle
An exclusive money-saving offering
from Mindconnection, LLC
- Wizread is PC software that puts the reading fluency aids of the
ReadingPen onto your PC.
- The pen scans and reads aloud, but does not provide dictionary
definitions. This means it allows students with reading difficulties to take
exams on their own.
- Both are easy to use.
- Perfect reading aid for people with dyslexia or anyone with reading
- Box includes Exam Pen, protective carry case,
user manual, 2 AAA 1.5V batteries, clip-on scanning trainer, and software
- No computer required.
Perfect for anyone with reading disabilities. Also great for kids whose
parents want them on the learning fast-track.
it on eBay
You can buy from us with confidence. We've been making online customers happy
3. Brainpower tip
Right now, the libtards are spewing the lie that if the Unaffordable Care Act,
which is collapsing as you read this, is repealed then 23 million people will
lose their insurance. They base this on the fact that 23 million people are (if
I understand correctly) presently buying their (in most cases worthless) medical
insurance on the exchanges. But their conclusion is a non-sequitor. These are
libtards, so no surprise there.|
They don't look at the composition of the 23
million people or even ask about it. For example, how many of those people have
the insurance only because the individual mandate compels them to? How many
would have another, less expensive option available if only the UCA were not
jacking costs sky high? And so on.
A Congressional committee has looked at this very issue. Maybe 1/3 of those
people would be kicked off the insurance rolls. And a replacement law could
provide a safety net for them (as the one currently before the House does).
What the libtards have done is impose a set of fictional, artificial
constraints on a problem. In this case, one of the constraints is that the 23
million people all have the same outcome if there is repeal. The only outcome
under consideration (yet another artificial constraint) is that they will not
have any way to pay for medical care if the Unaffordable Care Act is repealed.
Another artificial constraint is the millions of people who don't have
insurance due to the jacked up rates caused by the UCA still won't be able to
afford insurance when the UCA is repealed. This crystal ball certainty is
delusional, at best.
The reality is that with the UCA repealed, more people will be covered than
are covered with it in place. At least more who want to be covered. And if the
current House plan is enacted, some of those 23 million will change places with
people not presently counted among them; it won't be the same 23 million people.
There will be more winners than losers. And the savings will permit more of a
safety net for the losers.
Nor does it follow that, just because the UCA threw millions of people under
the bus its repeal or replacement will throw even more--or any--people under the
bus. Yet, this outcome is a core Libtard spewing point.
In the libtard viewpoint, those who have been priced out of having insurance
either do not matter or do not exist; yet another artificial constraint. And on
and on it goes, until there is no solution possible because the artificial
constraints make a solution impossible.
It's important to avoid imposing artificial constraints onto a problem. Yet,
this is exactly what most people do (even if they aren't libtarded).
When someone approaches a problem based on what is actually there, this is
often referred to as "thinking outside the box." But what is really going on is
the person is thinking with no box present. It's not a matter of thinking inside
or outside of a box, but of eliminating the box.
Any time you see an aggregate number, find out what the aggregate is composed
of. That one technique will help you avoid those artificial constraints. And
when someone is talking aggregate numbers, with no breakdown as to the
composition, be alert for constrained "thinking."
We can take this example further, to demonstrate another brainpower tip. The
whole "debate" is about the wrong question. Medical care has become enormously
expensive. A better application of brainpower would be to solve the problem of
the high costs, rather than (as is presently the focus) try to figure out how to
spread those costs around and pretend we aren't paying for them. Ultimately, the
consumer pays for those costs so the real issue is the costs themselves.
Congress could help with that. For example, we know hydrogenated oil is
powerfully carcinogenic. It is such a huge risk factor for colon cancer that
it's considered a cause of it. We ban rat poison from the list of ingredients in
baked goods because it kills people, but we permit hydrogenated oil to be used
even though it kills millions of people. And very expensively; it can easily
surpass $100,000 once all the colon bypass, chemo, and other ultimately futile
measures are taken. Why not just eliminate a few million cases of this cancer by
banning its primary cause?
Then there's esophageal cancer. Again, one huge primary cause. We put warning
labels on cigarette cartons that they cause cancer, and that's good. We know
that soda causes thousands of cases of esophageal cancer every year but there's
no warning label; how can that possibly be good?
The American Cancer Society 2017 estimate for esophageal cancer in the United
States is about 16,940 new esophageal cancer cases diagnosed (13,360 in men and
3,580 in women). You think those don't cost money? Of course you don't. You and
I both know those cancer victims will consume massive resources from the medical
system. And in so doing, they will help drive costs higher for everyone.
I'm not sure that Congress could ban soda, even though it also causes
osteoporosis and tooth decay, not just cancer. It's too visible. But
hydrogenated oil could easily be banned.
Am I thinking "outside the box" here or am I simply removing the box and
thinking about the actual problem?
Dramatically reducing the demand for medical care would, of course, bring the
cost down quite a bit. And there are other ways to lower the cost. We just need
to think about them. After removing the box.
4. Finance tip
5. Security tip
Do you have retirement assets such as mutual funds? Many people have some
sort of savings. The problem is those savings can be vaporized in an
Here's one scenario. There are scammers who pretend to have
injuries by falling on a person's porch or staging a low-speed automobile
accident. Then they sue you. Whatever your insurance doesn't cover becomes a
target in the judgment. Typically, your home and automobile are off-limits.
But that mutual fund you were counting on? It's gone.
How do you protect
yourself? It's simple:
- Go to www.irs.gov (sorry, you will
have to involve those people). Apply for an EIN, and make sure you write
it down before closing your browser window.
- Form an LLC or Subchapter S with your state.
- Open a free business checking acct somewhere, using the EIN and
business name from the first two steps.
- Purchase your shares in the name of that business.
If you have an existing account in your own name, all that money is
at risk. You need to move it to the account(s) held by your business.
This won't give you immediate protection, because (depending upon the
circumstances) there is a "look back" period of (in most cases) five
years. So get started on this transfer process right away.
transfer the whole amount all at once. To avoid "false conveyance"
issues if sued, set up automatic withdrawals of a reasonable "I spent it
all" amount. For example, if you have an auto withdrawal of $500/month
it's reasonably something you could have spent. This also is not
guaranteed protection, but it helps. Generally if you have a large
amount saved up you should transfer most of it right away then proceed
with the small withdrawals on some remainder you can move over a
Now, here is an issue that arises. Your city
may obtain a list of LLCs or Subchapter S entities that are registered
to a home address. Some cities charge a business tax regardless of why
that entity exists, and they often throw in some grueling red tape.
You can avoid that by using an address out of state or using a state
like Rhode Island or Nevada for your business (you can probably obtain a
forwarding address in each state, also). Other options also exist. For
example, offer a small business owner (zoned in a business zone) a small
annual fee to let you use THEIR address. You can then file a forwarding
address with the Post Office so the mail for your business comes to your
6. Health tip/Fitness tips
A reader wondered why I am so "old school" about body building. The short
answer is the laws of physics haven't changed in over 13 billion years.
Thousands of years before any of us were born, warriors were developing
impressive physical prowess using the same principles that successful body
builders have been using ever since.
Yes, there is debate over the details. Much of that debate exists because
we don't all have the same goals, genetics, and body type.
For example, Bruce Lee trained in specific ways that Arnold did not. They
were from the same era. Which man was right?
Both were. Both used the basic principles, but in different ways for
Arnold also used anabolic steroids, but he had impressive results before
he started doing that.
The "new school" methods are, in my opinion, a joke. I've never been a
Mr. Olympia, so does my opinion help you? Well, Lee Haney was Mr. Olympia
eight times. He has the same opinion.
Mr. Haney and I are obviously not on the same end of the body building
spectrum. We are also in spectacular shape for our age (he's a couple of
years older than I am).
We differ in how we approach body building; he trains for hypertrophy and
I don't. But we are not just two people with different goals. Consider
professional sports teams, which have millions of dollars per player at
stake. They are also "old school." Olympics, ditto.
Some of the basic principles:
- Put the muscle under continuous tension during the rep.
- Work the concentric rather than letting the weight fall (or tension
release, if training without weights).
- Do big compound exercises to stimulate a massive endocrine response.
- Do isolation exercises to develop specific body areas.
- Follow a split routine, rather than a "complete" workout all on the
- Focus on overloading the muscle, not on how much weight you can lift
(or reps you can do).
- Use different exercises for the same muscle, targeting a different
range of motion with each.
These principles work. Variations in technique, volume, and intensity
produce different results as desired.
Top photo taken 16SEP2016, just days before 56th birthday;
bottom photo taken 3 days after 56th birthday
The "alternative" methods that are hyped up as being some kind of secret,
shortcut, or new discovery tend to avoid these principles.|
One reason for
that is following these principles is hard work. Which is what gives you the
adaptive response. It is axiomatic that the body responds to the hard work,
and that's why all serious athletes go through such hard workouts. But "work
hard" is hard to sell to many people; they prefer to be lied to in search of
some non-existent "easy way."
The typical "alternative" method of weight lifting involves tossing
weights up and down, totally ignoring actual training of the muscles. The
same "easy way" approach is seen in other types of training, too. The "easy"
way does achieve results, they just aren't the results any sane person
Some of the harmful results that "alternative" methods achieve:
- Loss of lean mass. Why: The muscles simply are not stimulated to
grow. In many cases, they are stimulated to SHRINK because the method
elevates cortisol instead of elevating testosterone.
- Damage to connective tissue. Why: Consider the recent fad of "fast
twitch training." The effect of this is to bang the protective tissue
over the joint faces (and when it's destroyed, banging the actual joint
faces) while not putting significant tension on the muscle.
- Posture issues. Why: Reversing the roles of stabilizer muscles and
prime movers does not make stabilizers stronger. It exhausts them; if
done repeatedly, this method progressively weakens them. And it's really
rough on tendons and ligaments, causing inflammation among other
- Osteoporosis. Why: Many "alternative" methods drive testosterone
into the basement. When Lee Haney says, "You have to do your squats" he
is talking about stimulating a massive boost in testosterone. This is
the hormone that triggers your body to store calcium in the bones. Note
also that squats (without weights) are part of training for most, if not
all, "oriental" martial arts. Kung Fu, Karate, and Aikido are prime
- General fatigue. There is no way a person can properly train a given
muscle group three times a week; the human body just cannot recover that
fast even when taking huge quantities of anabolic steroids. The people
who claim to be doing squats twice a week are kidding themselves. The
professional wrestlers based in Kansas City do squats ONCE a MONTH.
Overtraining depletes your energy, making you feel chronically tired.
- Loss of interest. Every year, many people buy a gym membership as
part of their New Year's resolution. After a few months (or even less),
they stop going. Why: No results. But plenty of soreness, joint pain,
My introduction to "old school" weight training began with using the
wheel my grandfather gave me. He didn't just give me a piece of exercise
equipment and hope for the best. He also gave me a demonstration, told me
that was really hard, and then asked me to do what he just did. Ugh. He
wasn't joking! I couldn't do what he did, but he said to keep at it and I'd
be really strong some day. I did, and I am.
Along the way, I've had plenty of tutorials from athletes whose results
were proof that they knew what they were doing. My goal was to be a
performance athlete, not a competitive body builder. And with my thin bones
and light frame, that was the correct choice for me. For some others, a
different choice somewhere on the spectrum would be correct.
But choosing harmful training methods is always an incorrect choice.
There are no shortcuts. They body responds to the stresses put on it:
- If you don't stress the body, it won't adapt to increase strength or
- If you overstress the body, you will only injure it.
Any engineer can calculate the force imparted to a given joint when a
weight is accelerated and then suddenly decelerated at the end of the
movement. The effect is similar to just slamming your joint ends against the
wall, assuming you could pull them out to do that and then put them back in.
Any engineer can also calculate the force per square inch on the joint
surfaces. The joints just are not sized to take those kinds of forces.
Lee Haney is still healthy and pain-free. That cannot be said of Ronnie
Coleman, an "alternative" body builder who has repeatedly won the Mr.
Olympia title after that contest was debauched into a freak show. Mr.
Coleman uses far too much weight, greatly exceeding the design parameters of
his joints. And he tosses it about; you clearly see this in the online
videos where he's deadlifting 800lbs. That's why he's had two hip
Who is the more successful body builder?:
A. The person who can barely walk at 60, and is facing yet another joint
B. The person who has zero joint pain at 70, and is still an active
Make your choice today. How you train will determine which body builder
(A or B) you are.
www.supplecity.com, you'll find plenty of informative, authoritative
articles on maintaining a lean, strong physique. It has nothing to
do with long workouts or impossible to maintain diets. In fact:|
- The best workouts are short and intense.
- A good diet contains far more flavors and satisfaction
than the typical American diet.
The premise of the Jurassic Park book (and movies) was that dinosaurs could be
reconstituted from the DNA found in 90 million year old bones. The problem is
DNA is an organic compound that decays. Most of the oldest samples, found under
ideal conditions (really cold climate), are less than 50,000 years old.
Calculations that assume optimal conditions show a maximum age of 1 million
years. Even Strom Thurmond didn't survive that long.|
8. Thought for the Day
When writing something for the public, the standard is you write at the 6th
grade level. What does this say about today's high school diploma, something
that 90% of the population has?|
Please forward this eNL to others.
The views expressed in this e-newsletter are generally not shared by criminals, zombies, or brainwashed individuals.
Except where noted, this e-newsletter is entirely the work of Mark Lamendola. Anything presented as fact can be independently verified. Often, sources are given; but where not given, they are readily available to anyone who makes the effort.
Mark provides information from either research or his own areas of established expertise. Sometimes, what appears to be a personal opinion is the only possibility when applying sound logic--reason it out before judging! (That said, some personal opinions do appear on occasion).
The purpose of this publication is to inform and empower its readers (and save you money!).
Personal note from Mark: I value each and every one of you, and I hope that shows in the diligent effort I put into writing this e-newsletter. Thank you for being a faithful reader.
Please pass this newsletter along to others.