The Obama administration has been carrying out an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, particularly on those who have divulged information that relates to national security. The Espionage Act, enacted during the first World War to punish Americans who aided the enemy, had only been used three times in its history to try government officials accused of leaking classified information — until the Obama administration. Since 2009, the administration has used the act to prosecute six government officials. Meet the whistleblowers. …
If you are pregnant, your doctor may be the greatest threat to your child’s developing brain.
Let me explain.
During pregnancy, your immune response is more prone to systemic inflammation than when you are not pregnant. This type of response may be harmful to the developing fetus and an unintended consequence of your body protecting itself throughout pregnancy.
For example, scientists know that women infected with the flu early in their pregnancy are considerably more likely to give birth to a child with schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, or autism. It was once thought that the mother passed the virus to the baby.
However, it is now known that the mother’s inflammatory immune response to a bacterial or viral infection can injure the baby’s brain. But here’s the catch often ignored by doctors and health agencies.
Data from Caltech researcher Paul Patterson shows that stimulation of the immune system without an infective agent in mice can produce similar results. 
Does this mean doctors can continue to pretend the 25 micrograms of mercury in every flu vaccine is safe?
Regardless, many doctors, professional organizations, and government agencies use a shotgun approach and recommend flu vaccines to all pregnant women in any trimester. 
Instead of a few pregnant women being at risk for excessive immune stimulation, I’m going to show you powerful information that shows the government’s foolish vaccine policy is putting all pregnant women at risk.
Before I show you how vaccines are causing inflammation in pregnant women, though, I think it is wise to consider the counsel of economist Milton Friedman. He once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” …
Because when results consistently contradict stated intentions, then real intentions must be questioned.
This must be the event Alex Jones has been talking about. The first patsy was to be presented to the public and then something happened to change their minds. My assumption is that this first suspect was to have been some kind of angry white guy with a bible and a gun, based on the initial orchestrated conditioning/programming in the media. Something happened to abort this plan, and it wasn’t a bomb scare.
This is an interesting discovery considering Tsarni is at the forefront of the effort to convince the American people that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the alleged and now dead Boston bomber, was “brainwashed” by a shadowy Albanian named Misha.
“This person just took his brain. He just brainwashed him completely,” Uncle Ruslan insisted during a news conference.
“Tamerlan’s relationship with Misha could be a clue in understanding the motives behind his religious transformation and, ultimately, the attack itself,” the Associated Press argued earlier this week.
Problem is, nobody can find Misha to verify the claim. “Efforts over several days by the Associated Press to identify and interview Misha have been unsuccessful,” the AP admits.
Considering the large number of patsies set-up by the FBI and then busted with triumphant headlines used to extend and extoll the manufactured war on terrorism, this possibility cannot be discarded.
“The discovery that Uncle Ruslan Tsarni had spy connections that go far deeper than had been previously known is ironic, especially since the mainstream media’s focus yesterday was on a feverish search to find who might have recruited the Tsarnaev brothers,” writes Daniel Hopsicker.
Tsarni also had connections to USAID – the outfit involved in overthrowing governments and related skulduggery – and Halliburton.
Of course such pertinent details have yet to make their way into the establishment media’s non-stop script reading on the Boston bombings and the orchestrated effort to pin the blame on the Brothers Tsarnaev who are obviously witless patsies.
Ok, I think it’s pretty much a given that this was a false flag event and that the 2 brothers were actually involved, although they may not have placed the bombs. But it seems apparent that something went seriously wrong with the operation after the explosions. The date (tax day) and the initial behavior of the media strongly implies that the original intended target was conservative types, presumably constitutionalists and 2nd amendment proponents especially. This is the demographic which is most dangerous to the banksters’ planned police state takeover and genocide (sorry, I’m not going to mince words here, we’re dealing with fascists with a history of material support for torture and genocide dating back to WWII. Obama is only their smiley faced puppet. See the reference section). But apparently, something happened to wreck their plans and the 2 brothers were the fallback. Alex Jones keeps stating that they had a suspect that they were preparing to present to the press but there was a bomb scare, the press conference was called off, and nothing more was heard about that person. I haven’t been able to substantiate this. (update: Jones is right: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/live-updates-boston-marathon-bombing-day-3/ ) Perhaps there’s a war going on between factions in the government.
– Former Bill Clinton and Obama advisor David Axelrod also hinted on MSNBC that the attack could have been a form of tax protest.
– CNN analysts claimed that “extreme right-wing individuals” are fond of the pressure cooker device featured in al-Qaeda’s magazine that was purportedly used to bomb the Boston Marathon finish line.
– CNN’s Wolf Blitzer stated on live television within one hour after the bombings: “It is a state holiday, in addition to the Boston Marathon. It is a state holiday in Massachusetts today, called Patriots’ Day. And who knows if that had anything at all to do with these twin explosions?”
– MSNBC’s Chris Matthews also theorized that the bombing could be the result of a protest against federal income taxes. “As you point out, and I just forgot, I filed already. It’s filing day for the federal income tax, which does cause some emotions around the country – sometimes in the wrong parts of the brain anyway,” Matthews said during his show.
– BBC News coverage suggested that “chatter within the intelligence services” indicates that right wing extremists could be behind the attack, with analysts noting that the bombing occurred on Patriot’s Day, the holiday that commemorates the first battles of the American Revolutionary War.
– In comments to the media, Richard Barrett, the former United Nations co-ordinator for the al-Qaeda and Taliban monitoring team said that the timing of the attack on Patriots’ Day and the relatively small size of the devices suggested the work of a domestic extremist.
– Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce also made the connection, noting that Monday is the “official Patriots Day holiday” in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord. He also pointed out that April 19, the actual date of the battles, is connected to Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh, who apparently considered himself a “waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.”
– Former FBI agent Brad Garrett said he wouldn’t be surprised if the bombing had been carried out by a domestic extremist “patriot” group or individual in an attempt to make a statement.
– Huffington Post blogger and Al Sharpton radio producer Nida Khan also blindly speculated that “all these anti-gov groups” could be behind the attack.
This pattern is in keeping with the most recent staged gun massacres and the overall context of the push to repeal the 2nd amendment in preparation for the engineered economic collapse.
The Centers for Disease Control has been quietly rolling out a nationwide program called the Immunization Information Systems (IIS), registering your vaccine information into a database.  This effort has been run in parallel with state vaccine registry implementations.
What is the intention of such programs?
My colleague Leslie Manookian, writer and director of the movie The Greater Good, wrote in a recent article, the “CDC has openly stated that vaccine registries are a tool to identify areas of ‘undervaccination’ so that they can be ‘addressed’ and brought into ‘compliance.’” 
I would also add to Leslie’s statement that since the government purchases a large bulk of the vaccines (for example, the Vaccines for Children program), it is in their financial interest to make sure vaccines are consumed regularly.
If you exempt your child from being vaccinated, your refusal is also being tracked and put into the database. If you want to know why this is a big deal, read on. …
“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”—-Bertrand Russell,1953
See the links on vaccines in the reference section. Also see:
… Weirdly, I was uncovering that the US oil industry was using its full political mojo to prevent their being handed ownership of Iraq’s oil fields. That’s right: The oil companies did NOT want to own the oil fields – and they sure as hell did not want the oil. Just the opposite. They wanted to make sure there would be a limit on the amount of oil that would come out of Iraq.
There was no way in hell that [James] Baker’s clients, from Exxon to Abdullah, were going to let a gaggle of neo-con freaks smash up Iraq’s oil industry, break OPEC production quotas, flood the market with six million barrels of Iraqi oil a day and thereby knock its price back down to $13 a barrel where it was in 1998.
Big Oil simply could not allow Iraq’s oil fields to be privatized and taken from state control. That would make it impossible to keep Iraq within OPEC (an avowed goal of the neo-cons) as the state could no longer limit production in accordance with the cartel’s quota system..
The problem with Saddam was not the threat that he’d stop the flow of oil – he was trying to sell more. The price of oil had been boosted 300 percent by sanctions and an embargo cutting Iraq’s sales to two million barrels a day from four. With Saddam gone, the only way to keep the damn oil in the ground was to leave it locked up inside the busted state oil company which would remain under OPEC (i.e. Saudi) quotas.
The James Baker Institute quickly and secretly started in on drafting the 323-page plan for the State Department. In May 2003, w ith authority granted from the top (i.e. Dick Cheney), ex-Shell Oil USA CEO Phil Carroll was rushed to Baghdad to take charge of Iraq’s oil. He told Bremer, “There will be no privatization of oil – END OF STATEMENT.” Carroll then passed off control of Iraq’s oil to Bob McKee of Halliburton, Cheney’s old oil-services company, who implemented the Baker “enhance OPEC” option anchored in state ownership.
Some oil could be released, mainly to China, through limited, but lucrative, “production sharing agreements”.
And that’s how George Bush won the war in Iraq. The invasion was not about “blood for oil”, but something far more sinister: blood for no oil. War to keep supply tight and send prices skyward. …
Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks. …
I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking, specifically fractional reserve banking.
Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some money to instil in you the good habit of money management.
And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute. Your money in the bank would earn an interest income.
And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think that you had transferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the warehouse.
However, this belief is and has always been a lie. You were led to believe this lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance. …
But … your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with the bank is transferred to the bank and all you have is the right to demand its repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing. …
You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system.
So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.
In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors. When that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that such confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?
It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.
Let me explain.
Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).
You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.
This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848. …