Garlic breath is often the price you pay for eating delicious food‚ but it doesn't have to be. Try sipping some milk along with your garlic-heavy meal.

Rumors abound that Costco is replacing its food court churro with warm cookies‚ and people are torn. Here's what Costco shoppers are saying about the change.

Arby's has the meats and the sauce. If you wanted to meet your sauce needs with a copycat‚ then it should have the apple cider vinegar.

The platform has been accused of violating the terms of the bloc’s sweeping Digital Services Act. The European Union announced on Monday that it was laumching “formal infringement proceedings” against Elon Musk’s X social media platform over a recently implemented law intended to crack down on illegal content and disinformation online. The announcement of the probe comes weeks after X (formerly Twitter) was asked to provide assurances that it was complying with the terms of the European bloc’s Digital Service Act. Under the law‚ which came into effect in August‚ a company can be fined up to 6% of its annual global income or banned from operating in the EU if it is found to have breached the sweeping legislation. Today we open formal infringement proceedings against @X :⚠️ Suspected breach of obligations to counter #IllegalContent and #Disinformation⚠️ Suspected breach of #Transparency obligations ⚠️ Suspected #DeceptiveDesign of user interface#DSA pic.twitter.com/NxKIif603k— Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton) December 18‚ 2023 “Today we open formal infringement proceedings against X‚” Thierry Breton‚ the EU commissioner responsible for the law’s enforcement‚ wrote in a post on the social network on Monday. Breton added that the move had been taken in response to a “suspected breach of obligations to counter illegal content and disinformation; suspected breach of transparency obligations‚” and “suspected deceptive design of user interface.”Survival Shield X-2 is now 25% OFF! Treat your body with super high-quality nascent iodine &; enjoy one of nature's greatest essentials! The probe will also look at the effectiveness of X’s ‘community notes‚’ in which users can fact-check or provide comments on the accuracy of certain posts. Responding to the charge on Monday‚ X said it was “cooperating with the regulatory process‚” and added that it was “important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law.” The platform‚ which was subject to a multi-billion-dollar takeover by Elon Musk last year‚ said it was focused on “creating a safe and inclusive environment” for its users‚ which it said it balances against “protecting freedom of expression.” At the time of the takeover‚ Musk branded himself as a “free speech absolutist.” On October 10‚ the EU warned X in a formal letter that it had received “indications” that the social media platform was “being used to disseminate illegal content and disinformation in the EU” related to Hamas’ attack in Israel on October 7. In a letter to Breton‚ X chief executive Linda Yaccarino responded to say the firm was “working to address the operational needs of this fast-moving and evolving conflict.” She added that X had removed hundreds of Hamas-affiliated accounts from the service. Earlier this year‚ X was among several tech giants to sign up to an EU code of conduct to prepare for the launch of the Digital Services Act in August. However‚ X withdrew from the agreement in May‚ prompting backlash from Breton. “You can run but you can’t hide‚” he warned Musk and X.

Investors who started second-guessing positions they took after the Fed meeting likely drove the drop in the price of gold. After the Federal Reserve effectively surrendered to inflation at its December meeting‚ projecting three rate cuts next year‚ New York Fed President John Williams tried to walk the surrender back. In his podcast‚ Peter Schiff analyzed Williams’ more hawkish comments and compared them to Powell’s dovish stance after the FOMC meeting. Williams said‚ “We aren’t really talking about rate cuts right now‚” and that it’s premature to expect rates to fall in the opening months of 2024. We’re very focused on the question in front of us‚ which as chair Powell said… is‚ have we gotten monetary policy to sufficiently restrictive stance in order to ensure the inflation comes back down to 2%? That’s the question in front of us.” Williams tried to pivot back to the “data-dependent” mantra. It is looking like we are at or near that in terms of sufficiently restrictive‚ but things can change. One thing we’ve learned even over the past year is that the data can move and in surprising ways‚ we need to be ready to move to tighten the policy further‚ if the progress of inflation were to stall or reverse.”Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine! Gold had rallied to close to $2‚050 before Williams’ open-mouth operations. After his comment‚ gold dropped‚ closing around $2‚019 on Friday. Peter said Williams’ comments were “kind of a shock.” Two days after Powell talked so much about rate cuts‚ to have another FOMC member saying we’re not even talking about rate cuts. Well‚ what the hell just happened during the press conference?” In effect‚ Williams tried to put rate cuts on the back burner. Powell moved them to the front of the stove on Wednesday. So‚ he’s now pushing them back‚ saying‚ ‘No‚ No! We’re still focused on inflation and whether or not we’ve whipped its butt‚ and if our policy is still tight enough or if we have to tighten some more.’ This caught a lot of people off guard.” Peter said investors who started second-guessing positions they took after the Fed meeting likely drove the drop in the price of gold. But he said he doesn’t read a lot of significance into Williams’ comments. Peter said he didn’t think Williams was trying to do “damage control‚” but was just trying to temper the optimism. I think maybe after Powell really saw the reaction in the markets to his statement‚ he thought maybe we ought to backtrack a little and maybe send out a bad cop‚ because‚ you know‚ Powell is the good cop giving the markets what they want – rate cuts. And now we have this bad cop that can say‚ ‘Maybe not so fast. Maybe we’re not going to have those rate cuts‚’ trying to restrain the enthusiasm and the try to slow down the markets front-running those rate cuts.” Peter said he doesn’t think any of the Fed officials go out and talk completely off the cuff. So‚ I think he was sent out there to kind of push back a little bit‚ but I don’t think that indicates that what Powell said on Wednesday has been negated. No‚ no‚ no. I think a lot of thought went into those FOMC minutes‚ and the press conference and the Q&;A.” And regardless of what Williams said‚ Peter said he thinks “it’s clear” the Fed is done hiking interest rates. Now‚ they want to pretend they’re still data-dependent on inflation. But if they really were data-dependent‚ the data doesn’t support cuts that they’re talking about. In fact‚ as far as I’m concerned‚ the data still argues for more hikes. So‚ they’re not really data-dependent‚ but they can’t let that cat out of the bag. They still have to get the markets thinking that they’re vigilant and they’re on the job‚ and that if they do see some inflation‚ why‚ they’re willing and ready to hike rates. But they’ve indicated they’re not going to do that.” The dot plots support Peter’s contention. If the FOMC wasn’t planning for rate cuts‚ the dot plots wouldn’t show falling interest rates. The Fed funds rate doesn’t just arbitrarily move around. The only way the Fed funds rate will be as low as the FOMC members believe it will be a year from now‚ two years from now‚ is if they in fact vote to reduce the rate.” Nevertheless‚ Peter said he isn’t certain the Fed will be able to deliver cuts as deep as projected because of dollar weakness. If the markets start marking down the dollar in advance of the first rate cut‚ that actually makes it harder for the Fed to cut. … If the Fed cuts rates into a weakening dollar‚ it will just accelerate that weakness.” Regardless‚ Peter said he thinks Powell’s comments after the FOMC meeting were far more significant than what John Williams said on Friday. Smashing The A.I. Threat Matrix: How Humanity Defeats Skynet

It is most unfortunate that the US government‚ with good intentions to increase college attendance‚ ever became mired in this student loan morass. Mises Wire contributor Kevin Van Elswyk‚ in his November 29 article “Student Loans: The Continuing Crisis That Is Getting Worse‚” nicely summarizes the current confusion and scandal of federal student loan programs‚ which at this point appear a miasma that will likely turn into an outright student grant program as more and more of these loan balances are forgiven. It is most unfortunate that the US government‚ with good intentions to increase college attendance‚ ever became mired in this student loan morass. The effort originally began in the 1960s when economists observed that college graduates typically earn higher lifetime incomes than those who ended their formal education with high school. Thus Congress included in the Higher Education Act of 1965 a federal policy to encourage as many Americans as possible to attend college and created several need-based programs with this mind. As Milton Friedman told us‚ “If you want more of something‚ subsidize it; if you want less of it‚ tax it.” In this case‚ the “it” is college attendance‚ and the “subsidy” takes the form of student financial aid‚ particularly federal student loans. The Higher Education Act gave us Pell grants (originally called Basic Educational Opportunity Grants)‚ the Guaranteed Student Loan program‚ and several other accompanying forms of assistance. College financial aid offices were left to “package” this assistance when they made offers of admission to applicants. Guaranteed Student Loans were private bank loans‚ not federal government loans. Students applied directly to banks for these loans‚ which the federal government guaranteed against default‚ and paid the interest while students were enrolled full-time in college degree programs. Defaults and repayment were considered manageable‚ and most of these loans have now been repaid. But the ground rules changed dramatically when legislative decisions were made in the final moments of passing the Affordable Care Act (known as Obamacare) in 2010. In order to make the healthcare insurance provisions of that legislation pay for themselves‚ as required by congressional rules‚ the final Affordable Care Act bill included a new federal student loan program in which the US Department of Education became the lender. That program was in theory designed to make enough profit on direct federal student lending to pay for subsidized Obamacare health insurance premiums.URGENT! Keep Alex Jones in the fight against the NWO! Please pray &; contribute at DefendJones.com today! Fast-forwarding to more recent years‚ it became apparent that not only was the federal student loan program not making a profit as anticipated but was‚ in fact‚ becoming an albatross around the government’s neck as marginal returns on investment in college degrees didn’t automatically produce more favorable earnings for college graduates after all‚ and borrowers were struggling to make their required monthly loan payments. We began hearing stories of women’s studies graduates taking jobs as Starbucks baristas. Many sympathetic Americans began saying these loan repayment burdens were unfair to younger generations‚ preventing them from buying houses and starting families. Meanwhile‚ higher education tuition levels began increasing dramatically some years ago. An example from my own alma mater‚ an elite‚ private eastern women’s college (now coed for over fifty years)‚ makes the point. Tuition and room and board during my senior year in 1963–64 was $2‚800. Using the US Labor Department’s consumer price index inflation calculator‚ it is easy to calculate that $2‚800 in 1964 is equivalent to $28‚061.20 in 2023 dollars. Thus‚ the consumer price index tells us that the general price level has increased by a factor of ten over those sixty years. But here is the shocking part of the story: the current tuition and room and board at my alma mater for the academic year 2023–24 is $85‚220‚ about three times the factor of ten if those college costs had increased only at the rate of the general economy-wide consumer price index. This trend is typical among Ivy League and other elite institutions‚ as well as other less competitive institutions. Similar trends are evident among public institutions‚ though in some cases the tuition increases may result from reduced state budget allocations to public institutions. Thus‚ Americans are justified in complaining about the higher cost of attending college today‚ costs that have far outstripped prices elsewhere in the economy. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni have shown that much of the increased tuition revenue has paid for administrative bloat such as expanded diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion staff rather than educational efforts such as hiring more faculty or buying more library books. There is a direct relationship between student financial aid—particularly student loans—and rising tuition. Simple microeconomic supply and demand analysis reveals that when demand functions increase (shift rightward on a standard diagram) without a commensurate increase in supply‚ the market-clearing price will inevitably rise. And this is exactly what has happened in American higher education. It has become clear in recent years that the existence of federal student loans has given colleges and universities an open invitation to increase tuition. Institutional financial aid offices can simply include more loan financing in the aid packages offered to students. And it is becoming a concern that many students (and quite possibly their parents as well) do not realize the borrower responsibilities they are taking on when agreeing to the financial aid packages offered by their desired colleges. In their enthusiasm to attend their favored institutions‚ students may tend to ignore their future obligations. Amidst their excitement about offers of admission and financial aid‚ they may fail to appreciate how borrower obligations could cloud their futures. Identifying the federal student loan problem is easier than proposing an appropriate solution. It is clearly not acceptable to forgive outstanding loan balances‚ forcing all taxpayers—including those who did not attend college at all‚ or who attended college without the benefit of loan financing‚ or who attended college on loans and have now repaid them—to bear the cost. In the meantime‚ students continue to sign up for these loan subsidies‚ and the costs only accumulate into the future. The federal program must be ended soon‚ or at a minimum be drastically reformed. As Elswyk concludes in his article‚ “This system cannot continue as a loan program. It will not end well.” Smashing The A.I. Threat Matrix: How Humanity Defeats Skynet

by Ethan Huff‚ Natural News: New research published in the journal Cureus reveals that the vast majority of people 64 years of age and younger in Japan who got “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) and died did so within the first 10 days following injection. Upwards of 70 percent of all COVID jab deaths involving the Pfizer […]