HS 79 – Don’t Trust a Lie Detector with George Maschke

Welcome to the holistic survival show with Jason Hartman. The economic storm brewing around the world is set to spill into all aspects of our lives. Are you prepared? Where are you going to turn for the critical life skills necessary to survive and prosper? The holistic survival show is your family's insurance for a better life. Jason will teach you to think independently, to understand threats and how to create the ultimate action plan. Sudden change or worst scenario, you'll be ready. Welcome to holistic survival, your key resource for protecting the people, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Ladies and gentlemen, your host, Jason Hartman.

Welcome to the holistic survival show. This is your host, Jason Hartman, where we talk about protecting the people, places and prophets you care about in these uncertain times. We have a great interview for you today and we will be back with that in less than 60 seconds on the holistic survival survival show. And by the way, be sure to visit our website@holisticsurvival.com you can subscribe to. Our blog, which is totally free, has loads of great information and there's just a lot of good content for you on the site. So make sure you take advantage of that@holisticsurvival.com we'll be right back.

What's great about the shows you'll find on jasonhartman.com is that if you want to learn about investing in and managing income properties for college students, there's a show for that. If you want to learn how to get noticed online and in social media, there's a show for that. If you want to know how to save on life's largest expense, there's a show for that. And if you'd like to know about America's crime of the century, there's even a show for that. Yep, there's a show for just about anything only from jasonhartman.com or type in Jason Hartman in the iTunes store.

My pleasure to welcome George Mashke to the show. He is an expert on the subject of polygraphs, otherwise known as lie detectors. He's with antipolygraph.org and I think you're going to be pretty amazed at some of the stuff you learn here today. There's a lot around this subject. It's rarely discussed, rarely talked about until it might affect someone listening personally, whether it be for a job interview, any kind of background check, maybe a criminal investigation. You know, we're talking to people all over the world, so we're not just talking about U.S. law here and something important to know and just downright interesting, frankly. George, welcome how are you?

Very well, thanks. Good to speak with you, Jason.

Well, likewise. Now, where are you located that we're talking to you from today?

I'm in the Hague, the Netherlands, where I've been working for the past decade.

So, the Hague, that's the famous. The famous place where all these war crime trials go on, right?

That's correct. It's the seat of the International Criminal Court as well as a special court for the former Yugoslavia.

Fantastic. And were you involved with the Hague in some way that the polygraph issue is going? Tell us about your background, if you would.

Well, I'm a former army intelligence officer and interrogator and a Middle Eastern language linguist. I have working proficiency in Arabic and Persian, and so I'm here in the Hague working as a legal translator.

I would assume that your work is. Your skills are very in demand right now with the quote, unquote, war on terror, right?

Well, yes, yes, indeed they are, but I'm not participating in the war on terror because of the polygraph.

Well, tell us about the polygraph and why it shouldn't be trusted. You have a digital book out entitled the Lie behind the Lie Detector, and it's in its fourth edition.

That's right. The main reason that the polygraph should not be trusted is that it simply doesn't work. There's a widespread perception, especially among Americans, that the lie detector is admittedly imperfect, yet a pretty good indicator of whether a person has spoken the truth or not. But that is a myth, a myth that is perpetuated by the polygraph operators themselves, by federal, state and local government agencies, and by an uncritical press, as well as Hollywood movies and popular culture. The lie detector was developed not by scientists, but by interrogators as an adjunct to interrogation. And that's something everyone needs to know. The lie detector is not a test for truth. It's a way of getting people to talk, of getting people to maybe divulge more information than they might if the polygraph wasn't being used.

So let's just talk about that for a moment. And let's talk from the basis, if we can, just to kind of get into this, of those who believe in the lie detector. I remember, George, when I was a kid, I got a little lie detector from Radio Shack. It had two things, things that you put on your fingers, one on each finger, and it detected your. What's called your galvanic skin resistance. Right. And, you know, I know that real lie detectors do more than that. They do breathing and heart rate and all Kinds of stuff, I suppose, but that's one aspect of it. I mean, there's some science behind it. I mean, right, your. Your galvanic skin resistance and your heart rate and your perspiration levels do change. Your eye movements change, don't they? Or not at all?

Well, sure, eye movements are not measured by the polygraph instrument. However, yes, the polygraph instruments do measure changes in skin conductivity or resistance, depending on the model, in blood pressure and heart rate as well as breathing. However, these indices are not correlated in any systematic way with deception in humans. So, you know, it's not adequate to measure, well, that which should not be measured at all.

Okay, interesting. Now, I guess the, maybe the ultimate lie detector, if one ever does work, will be the fmri, the functional magnetic resonance imaging device that, you know, is just starting to be used. I mean, will there ever be a reliable lie detector? Is that one of them, the fmri? Because that seems like almost a mind reading device, frankly.

Well, I don't know. It seems to me that with regard to fmri, the marketing is way ahead.

Of the science, which is so typical in today's culture, isn't it?

Indeed, indeed. So I think if a working lie detector is ever to be developed, it will probably lie in examination of processes within the human brain.

There are a lot of interesting statements on your website, George, about uses of lie detectors. And really, people who have been really burned, I mean, even referenced as, quote, unquote, collateral damage. Tell us about some of those stories.

Well, sure. And perhaps the audience might be interested in knowing a little bit about my own background and how I came to speak publicly about polygraph matters, which is something, you know, for me, when I was on active duty in the army, the word activist was a dirty word and the last thing that I ever wanted to be. So my introduction to the polygraph. Well, actually, my first introduction was working as an interpreter for the interrogation of an intelligence source that had been recruited by the US army, army intelligence, plainclothes in East Berlin during the Cold War. So I traveled to a West Berlin hotel room where he was to be polygraphed to make sure that he was working for us and not for the East Germans. So I translated. And at the end of the polygraph session, the polygraph operator wasn't sure whether he was telling the truth or not. So he asked me what was my gut feeling. So I told him anyway. That left me not feeling very good about the reliability of polygraphs right there, you know, that the polygraph operator would ask me for my gut feeling. You know, didn't the machine work? Anyway, so some years later, I got a commission in the Army Reserve. I had a Top Secret clearance as a tactical intelligence officer. And I got mobilized to work with the FBI on two different operations. One was with the Anti Terrorist Task force in Washington, D.C. during the first Persian Gulf War. And the second time was to work with the task force in New York in connection with the investigation of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. So that experience working with the FBI on counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases made me think that I'd like to work with the FBI as a career working counter terrorism. So I applied to be an FBI Special Agent, and when I went in and took the polygraph, I was accused of deception on the counterintelligence questions. These are questions like, have you ever released classified information to anyone who was unauthorized to receive it? Have you ever had an unauthorized contact with a representative of a foreign government? Did anyone direct you to seek employment with the FBI? So I was found deceptive with regard to all of these questions. It's basically an accusation of being a spy, although it wasn't put in exactly those words. As a result, I was disqualified from FBI employment for life, and eventually I had my security clearance revoked by the Army. The adjudicator who made the decision to revoke my clearance openly speculated. I know this because I requested my file under the Freedom of Information Act. He speculated that I might be involved in a international narco trafficking ring.

Wow. Scary.

Yeah. Based on nothing more than polygraph chart readings, which is. Yeah, it's really scary. My polygraph operator didn't tell me this at the time, but I was also found deceptive on all of the drug questions, having, you know, ever used or sold illegal drugs and whether I had falsified my application or not. So I was found deceptive on everything. And I should state here that I was truthful on everything. I didn't lie with regard to any of those questions. I never did any of the behaviors regarding which I was accused of deception. So my polygraph examiner told me that the polygraph was 98% accurate. And I was kind of gullible then. I guess I still am, as are most people. And that's a good thing to be aware of about oneself, that we humans are gullible and generally fairly easily deceived. So I took that at face value. I didn't think an FBI agent would lie to me about the accuracy of the polygraph. So I went to the research library at my university I was a graduate student at UCLA at the time of my polygraph, and I read everything I could find about polygraphs. And I learned, to my shock and dismay, that the Polygraph is not 98% accurate, as my polygraph operator claimed, but rather that the view. The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing isn't even a scientific procedure at all. That a error rate for it is not really knowable because of the lack of standardization, but that in practice, it's quite common for truthful people to be falsely accused of deception. And in the context of criminal investigations, for example, that error rate may be as high as 50%. And it turns out that 50% is also, to close approximation, the failure rate of FBI applicants on the polygraph. It's one of the requirements for the job. You have to pass the polygraph. So about half of people who apply for jobs with the FBI are failing the polygraph. The same goes for the CIA. Same goes for the Los Angeles Police Department, and actually for numerous police departments across the country. In some cases, the failure rate is even higher. For example, the Customs and Border Patrol, which has a big recruiting effort going on now, they're trying to expand their numbers. They're introducing polygraph screening for all applicants. And their reported polygraph failure rate is on the order of 60%. And bear in mind these are people who have been screened in advance.

Okay, So I just want to clarify that, though, when you say failure rate, that means they're not passing the test, and so they're not getting the job. Right?

Right. But some of them are, no doubt.

Some would say. George. Yeah, I think you're getting to that point. Some would say that. Isn't that the point? We're vetting these people. We're getting the bad apples out because they are lying. Right?

Right. That's the thing. To assume that someone is lying because they have failed a polygraph is erroneous because the polygraph doesn't work. As Dr. Drew Richardson, who was the FBI's senior scientific polygraph expert until his retirement about 10 years ago, as he put it, polygraph operators are involved in the detection of deception to the same extent that someone who leaps from a tall building is involved in flying.

Yeah. Well, that's interesting, the Superman reference there in the U.S. now, I assume you lived in the U.S. at one point, right?

Of course, yes. I was born and raised there, and I'll eventually be going back in the.

United States in court proceedings. And I guess maybe we have to differentiate between criminal and civil lie detectors. Are they ever Used, I mean, I never really hear about them in courtrooms. How does the admissibility work? Or is it completely inadmissible? And maybe they're siding with your philosophy that they're just not credible at all.

The courts have indeed been very skeptical of polygraphs and other purported lie detectors like voice stress tests. However, it would be incorrect to say that there's a blanket bar to the admissibility of polygraph evidence. For example, in some states, in criminal cases, if both the prosecution and the defense stipulate to the admissibility of a polygraph test's results, then that can be admitted at trial. An example where this might happen is where a prosecutor has a weak case, he might say to the suspect, look, if you stipulate in advance that the results of a polygraph test that we will set up for you will be admissible in court, then if you pass, will consider dropping charges. And sometimes suspects grasp at that straw, often to their chagrin. And in that situation, the polygraph test results might be admitted at trial.

That's like a plea bargain, right? Basically, it's sort of a way of doing a plea bargain, almost. Not exactly a plea, it's not a plea, but it's almost like take the test and we'll do this. But then the likelihood is the test is not going to go the way of the accused or the defendant.

Right, right. It's more of a bargaining over admissibility of something that should not be admissible in any court of law. You know, it would be like, it's like negotiating for the admissibility of tea leaf readings at trial or a tarot card, fortune tellers prognostications. And yet it happens. It's truly boggles the mind if you understand just how much of a pseudo scientific sham polygraph testing really is.

You were going to mention one particular state when I asked you about the sort of pre plea bargain issue.

Oh, sure. This happens especially in the state of Ohio, although there are others, especially I believe in the southern portion of the United States. But in Ohio it's not so infrequent. And it's actually. There's a famous case of Floyd Fay, Floyd Buzzfey was his nickname, who took such a deal as this and failed the polygraph. It got admitted at court and he was convicted of first degree murder. It turned out he was completely innocent. And fortunately there was, you know, a good lawyer, did his own investigation and solved the crime, whereas the law enforcement and the prosecutor relied on the lie detector.

Yeah, the scary thing is sometimes law enforcement the DA's office, they just want to. They just want to find the perpetrator and they'll take anybody as a substitute, a patsy, you know, especially if it's like an election year where they're trying to win reelection or there's some political gain to be had, just looks good on their resume. That's really, really scary for an individ citizen, isn't it? Yes.

And the lie detector is the lazy investigator's friend as well as the lazy prosecutor's friend. Because in these, like, stipulated cases that I mentioned, it also gives the prosecutor an excuse for dropping a case against a suspect. If he passes, he can say, well, look, you know, he passed a polygraph, so must be innocent. But there's problems with that because while polygraph testing does have an inherent bias against the truthful, it's also easily beaten by deceptive people. One notorious case is the Green River Killer in the Pacific Northwest. Who? The perpetrator in these cases was a man by the name of, what was it? Gary Leon Ridgway. And he passed a polygraph test in 1984 because he was an early suspect, and so that cleared him. And then he continued his killing spree until he was finally identified by DNA evidence in 2001. So that is 17 years free and continuing his crime spree because the cops believed in the lied attacker. At the same time, an innocent man failed the polygraph test and he became a prime suspect, a guy by the name of Melvin Foster. So he had a cloud over his head from September 1982 until Ridgeway was finally identified as a perpetrator.

Everybody is probably thinking right now, how do you beat a lie detector test? And we've all seen movies and interesting things about that, right?

You'll never see how to really do it in the movies.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm just kind of curious. Like.

It might be part laziness, but you'll never really see how to beat it in the corporate media either, I think, because they're reluctant to give away police secrets. So, you know, a trick that admittedly is sometimes useful for convincing gullible crooks to confess. But I think it's important that people understand how it really works. And it is, in fact, quite easy to fool a lie detector, but you need to understand how it really works, which you won't find mentioned in the movies or on television programs. So let me explain really briefly. The big secret that you're not supposed to know is that while the polygraph operators will tell you that you're supposed to answer all questions truthfully, and any hint of deception will be detected by the machine. They secretly expect that some of your answers are going to be deceptive. They call these questions control questions or comparison questions. And what they're going to do is compare your reaction to the control question to your reaction to the relevant questions, the questions about the thing that they are really interested in. There's also a third type of question called irrelevant questions, questions that the true answer is obvious to everyone. And these just serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and controlled questions. So let me give you some examples. Suppose, Jason, that you were suspected of robbing the bank. A relevant question, a polygraph test set up for you, might be, jason, did you rob that bank?

Then I'd say, no.

You say no. Okay. Now, even if you didn't rob the bank, you might show a strong reaction to that question. Just because.

Because maybe I would. Because I'm thinking about the Federal Reserve and how they're robbing us or the. Or the banksters.

So, yeah, sure, there's. There's any number of reasons why you might show a reaction to that question. And the polygraphers understand that. So they think they've come up with a way to work around that. And that's the comparison question. So when they ask if you've ever. Did you. Did you rob the bank? They'll compare your action to that with your action to the question, did you ever lie to get out of serious trouble?

And most people are going to say yes to that one.

Right? So. Well, and if they're telling the truth, if they're telling the truth, most people will say no in that sort of situation because it'll be introduced. You know, we want to make sure that you're not the kind of person who would rob the bank and then lie to the police about it. And we find that people who lie to get out of trouble tend to go on and get into more trouble and be the kind of person who would rob the bank. So if I ask you if you ever lied to get out of serious trouble, you could answer that no, couldn't you? So they'll lead you on.

Well, I'm just thinking back to childhood when you say ever a long time.

Suppose you make. And most people will have some minor admissions to make. Yeah, I didn't tell my mom about that window I broke. I blamed the neighbors, kid. Okay, so you make your admissions. Okay. And suppose then you feel comfortable that you're telling the truth, say, no, I never lied to get out of serious trouble. Well, your answer to that question is going to still be considered a probable lie, even though you've made some admissions. And what they're going to do is compare your reaction to that question about lying to get out of trouble to your reaction about did you rob the bank? And whichever reaction is stronger is going to determine the outcome of the test. So if you react more strongly when you say that you never lied to get out of trouble or serious trouble, then the inference is going to be that that question bothers you more than the question about robbing the bank, so you must not have robbed the bank. Conversely, if you show a stronger reaction to the question about robbing the bank, then it's inferred that, well, you must have robbed the bank. Now, this methodology is simplistic because there's a multiplicity of reasons why a person might react more strongly to one question or the other. You might realize that the question about lying to get out of serious trouble is not as important a question as the one about robbing the bank. And even though you're innocent, you might just show a stronger reaction to the question about robbing the bank. Similarly, you may have robbed the bank, but maybe with that question about lying to get out of serious trouble, maybe there's something else that you've done in your past where you lied to get out of serious trouble. Maybe you're a career criminal and you actually murdered someone, and that's what's worrying you. Maybe you show a strong reaction to that question and as a consequence, pass even though you did rob the bank. And of course, there's another possibility, and that's where how to beat the polygraph comes in. You can create a reaction to the control question to offset any reaction to the relevant question, to overpower it. Ways you can do this, for example, include solving a math problem in your head as fast as you can. As soon as you recognize that a control question is being asked and that will produce a reaction detectable by the polygraph, it'll register, but it's undistinguishable from a reaction caused by fear of being caught in a lie.

What's the thing about the math problem, just out of curiosity? I don't understand. Because it's complex.

It could be anything that requires mental activity. The thing with the math problem is it should be a difficult problem, and you should try to do it as fast as you can. That will tend to produce a breathing reaction as well as a cardio reaction, a change in heart rate and blood pressure, and possibly an electrodermal reaction too. So it's a good countermeasure. Another one is to bite the side of your tongue in a way that can't be observed. And you can practice this in front of a mirror. If I had my choice, if I were somehow persuaded to take a polygraph test, I would choose mental countermeasures because I don't like pain. But tongue biting is another option. And in peer reviewed studies where the examinees had a maximum of 30 minutes of coaching on how to fool the polygraph, 50% of deceptive examinees succeeded in passing.

Very interesting. Very scary that this technology is used with any degree of credibility. Maybe it's just fun party games, you know, like the Radio Shack thing I bought as a kid. That's maybe where it should be relegated.

And other TV talk shows where, you know, they, they bring in the lie detector as a ratings gimmick. The questions are always about sex somehow. And the result, the outcome of the polygraph almost always is what the audience expects it's going to be. And then people can say, ooh, he was lying.

What about plants? Some science, I guess, behind the idea that plants have feelings and plants have, I guess, galvanic skin resistance. You can, you can put a detector, I don't know what you call it, but the thing, the electrode, I guess, onto the plant's leaves and then next to it. If you destroy a plant and tear it up, it'll have a reaction. And what about plants and people in lie detectors? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Right, yeah. Yeah. Well, one of the luminaries of the polygraph world is Grover Cleveland or Cleve Baxter, who ran a polygraph school in New York City. Actually, his school is still in operation. It's in San Diego now. But he had this idea once in his office that he had a plant, philodendron, I believe, and he gave it some water. And he was curious, how long would it take the water to get from the roots up to the leaves? So he supposed there would be a change in conductivity when that happens. So he connected the finger plates to a leaf of the plant, gave it the water, and just watched what happened, happened. And he got the idea that the plant was reacting to his thoughts. And he became convinced that plants and other living things can sense the feelings and intentions of others. And if this sounds rather kooky, it's because it is. But he became celebrated for it. Scientists were not able to replicate his results in controlled double blind experiments.

I've heard, for example, that with the plant issue, that if you were to Take the plants in your house. Say you have five plants in your house, and you were to attach lie detectors to all of the plants. And then you were to walk over to your kitchen and put a live lobster into the boiling water or shrimp into the boiling water. Every plant in the house reacts.

Yeah, that's the sort of claim that Cleve Baxter makes. However, you know, this has never been replicated in peer reviewed scientific research.

What about the issue of, like, playing classical music for plants and stuff like that? This is probably not your area, but I just thought I'd ask you because they're using lie detectors to read the plant's reaction. So I don't know if you know anything about that one.

Well, I do not know anything about how plants react to music or other sound.

Okay. Just curious about that. So on your website, it asks some interesting questions. You know, the consensus view among polygraphs is that scientific testing has no. Or scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis. The FBI is considered the creator of the lie detector to be phony and crackpot. This is some of the stuff you've covered. And the man who started the CIA's polygraph test program thinks that plants can read human thoughts.

That's Cleve Baxter.

Yeah, right. Amazing. Just really some amazing things here. I mean, what do you think the future holds for polygraphs?

Eventually, polygraphy will go the same way as phrenology. This was a 19th century pseudoscience where that continued into the early 20th century, where it was believed that measuring the bumps on a person's cranium could give you insight into their personality and mindset, or whether they were a criminal type, for example. So that was completely bogus, yet widely believed by many serious people. And now it just seems absurd to anyone who considers it. And I believe that that's the future that awaits. Calligraphy.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, are there any actions one can take or any action items? You know, what should people do hearing this interview? If people have the similar concern that you have anything that they should do? Yes.

Educate themselves. For example, if you're applying for a job that requires polygraph screening and most jobs in the private sector, it's not allowed. Under the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection act, however, the government carved out a blanket exemption for federal, state and government and local government so they can polygraph you, but private employers can't. So if you're applying for such a job, educate yourself, learn how the polygraph test works, how it doesn't, and learn what you can do to mitigate the risks of a false positive outcome. I would say if you're interested in working for the FBI in particular, I would say don't, because the risk is just not worth the reward. If you fail the polygraph, you're barred for life from FBI employment and you're also blacklisted. That is your FBI polygraph failure is a permanent record and one that will come up if you seek positions of public trust with other federal agencies. And while it won't necessarily be bar you from employment with other agencies, it'll be a black mark against you that will make it more difficult.

Well, and you will have wasted your time. That's the big thing. And not only that, who knows? As the power of Big Brother just keeps increasing and the government becomes more and more intrusive, who knows, maybe you'll find it difficult to get on an airplane. Maybe suddenly that database will be shared with tsa. It's just crazy. And isn't that interesting how the hypocrisy of the government. They can use the polygraph for pre employment screening, but the private sector cannot.

There are two other key situations where I could quickly tell listeners what they can do and how to protect themselves. First is if you're ever asked by the police to take a polygraph test, say no. It's not a test, it's an interrogation. An interrogation where your lawyer is not allowed to be present. It's a trick. You're very likely to fail and you may be told that you failed regardless of what the polygraph charts say. Interrogation techniques can be coercive and manipulative. With some agencies like the FBI, they will not be audio or video recorded so that the only record of what transpires in that room is what the polygraph operator says. And he can make things up. It has happened in the past. And if that happens, it's your word. This criminal suspect against the respected federal law enforcement officer.

Yeah, and guess who's paying the polygraph administrator too, right?

Sure, sure. So say no to any offer to take a polygraph. In fact, don't talk to police at all. If you're suspected or questioned about a crime in which you might be considered a suspect. Get a lawyer. And don't talk to the police without your lawyer present.

Yeah, good advice. What's the other situation?

You said there was the other situation and an increasingly comm. Common one is where a spouse or significant other suspects one of infidelity. And people are being influenced by these shows like Dr. Phil or Maury Povich where they use lie detectors all the time. To determine whether someone has been faithful or not. The polygraph is unreliable for this purpose. So don't take the test. Now, refusing to take it will make you look suspicious, won't it? But taking it and wrongly failing it will make you look even more suspicious. What people can do is knowing about the lie detector themselves and how unreliable it is. Share that with their significant other, that polygraph testing is not the solution. It's not going to resolve any trust issues. And in fact, if you do, maybe someone in that situation says, well, I can use your countermeasures to the ones you mention on the site that I mentioned in this interview to pass the polygraph. Well, that's not a sure thing. It can at best mitigate the risk of wrongly failing the polygraph. It cannot totally eliminate that risk. So your best course is just to say no and share with your spouse or significant other the truth about the lie detector and how it's unreliable. And also, if you take the polygraph test, even if you pass it, that significant other might just decide to Google polygraph themselves and then find out how unreliable calligraphy is, how easily fool it is through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraph operators can't detect. And then you're back at square one. But maybe you're out 500 to $1,000, the fee that you paid for the polygraph test.

Good point. Well, hey, this is very interesting. Give out your website, if you would.

It's antipolygraph.org that's one word run all together. And our book there is the Lie behind the Lie Detector. It's free, as is everything on our website.

Fantastic. Well, just out of curiosity, what are you doing this for? Is it just a passion that you have and you really want to. You're just behind the cause of helping people know the truth? I mean, everything's free. It's a good website. You've got lots of great info on there. I just got to ask that, George.

Yeah. We're doing this in the public interest because too much harm is coming from misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy. And the first step to ending it is public education.

Well, fantastic. Well, thank you for doing that and donating this information to the world. And I hope people will check out the website. It's antipolygraph.org and thank you so much for joining us today. Appreciate it.

It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Jason.

Now'S your opportunity to get the Financial Freedom Report. The Financial Freedom Report provides financial freedom self defense in Uncertain Times and it's your source for innovative forward thinking investment property strategies and advice. Get your newsletter subscription today, you get a digital download and even more. Go to Jason hartman.com to get yours today. Thank you for joining us today for the Holistic Survival show Protecting the People, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Be sure to listen to our Creating wealth show, which focuses on exploiting the financial and wealth creation opportunities in today's economy. Learn more at www.jasonhartman.com or search Jason Hartman on itunes. This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company, offering very general guidelines and information. Opinions of guests are their own and none of the content should be considered individual advice. If you require personalized advice, please consult an appropriate professional information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.