This American system of ours,” shouted the famed gangster Al Capone in a 1930 interview. “Call it Capitalism, call it what you like – gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it.”
Since those untouchable days, Chicago officials have awarded “Public Enemy No 1” status to only one other person: cartel billionaire Joaquín Guzmán Loera, better known – now to the world over – as “El Chapo”.
Nearly seven weeks ago, of course, El Chapo was captured by US and Mexican authorities after 13 years on the lam. Having achieved a cultural stature akin to that of a Bond villain, his capture naturally got all the limelight – while his US backers went more or less unmentioned.
But nearly seven weeks before an overnight capture at a beach resort, the Mexican newspaper El Universal reported how US agencies had armed and financed El Chapo’s Sinaloa criminal empire for at least 12 years. That link has been substantiated by DEA and Justice Department court testimonies, and even US agents confirmed the financing had been approved by high-ranking officials and federal prosecutors. But the American media barely reported how entrenched the American government has become in the Mexican drug trade.
Instead, we got photos of agents leading a shackled Guzman, his head bowed by one of the marines’ gloved hands gripping his neck, toward a US Blackhawk helicopter that would shuttle him off to a high-security prison.
“The choice of news organizations to not make the connection reflects a choice [of] what media would like for us to remember and would like for us to forget,” said Crystal Vance Guerra, a Latin American studies scholar at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. She asked: Why don’t we hold these agents and agencies to the same judgment as organized crime?
As we wait for the biggest gangster trial in years, why, indeed, aren’t we putting American intelligence and drug agencies on trial for financing a drug war?
The latest instalment of the “war on drugs” has killed 100,000 people since its official declaration by Mexican President Filipe Calderon and US President George W Bush in 2006. During this period, the US-El Chapo partnership was reportedly never closer: under the deal, Washington allowed El Chapo’s Sinaloa cartel to carry on business as usual while top Sinaola members, for their part, provided information on their rivals. DEA agents met with their informants more than 50 times, El Universal reported, as the agents offered their whisperers immunity.
American patronage goes well beyond stoking the largest and most powerful of the Mexican cartels (Sinaloa), as well as the most heinous (Golfo and Los Zetas). The US also openly armed and financed even bigger players in this game – Mexico’s state and security forces. Just as the US-El Chapo relationship was at its closest, the Bush administration signed into law the Merida Initiative, a huge militarization package to Mexico under the “war on drugs” Between 2008 and 2012, President Obama increased security aid under the plan – for helicopters, armored vehicles, surveillance equipment and police training programs – totalling $1.9bn….
A letter from Leilah McCracken
On my lower belly is a cesarean scar. It formed there 10 years ago after a needless cesarean. To this day, touching it makes me shudder. Hair doesn’t grow on it; it is without sensation- a white, bumpy, ugly dead strip.
The child who came from it is the only one of my seven children who has ever sucked his thumb, or needed a security blanket.
On my back are little pinprick scars from epidural catheters. They are little bland bumps. I am one of the women who have lifelong back pain from epidural anesthesia; and one of the few women for whom epidural anesthesia doesn’t even work. (I had spinal anesthetic though my epidural catheter for the c-section. My husband’s idea in the OR, by the way… one of the few times in our five hospital births where he was listened to, and not treated like a fourth class citizen.)
My daughter was hurried through my vagina with a Pitocin drip. She has some behavioral difficulties that many children who were born through Pitocin tend to have- almost autistic in nature. Autism is now linked with Pitocin use (see end).
My fourth child was induced at 40 weeks, my shortest pregnancy ever. I am supposed to have ten month pregnancies, as my last two births, sixth and seventh, have shown me. My fourth child is my only violent child; he causes so much heartbreak in my family. Every day he has hurt his younger brother. I wonder if he would have been a bit more gentle in his life if his birth had been more gentle- if he had been allowed to gestate as long as my body requires. (Incidentally the younger brother he beats up was born through a Prostin smearing on my cervix. He was lucky my VBAC uterus didn’t rupture. So am I.)
I always thought there was no other way for me to give birth- that I was a birthing failure; incapable of birthing without an induction jumpstart or a surgical incision. For five childbirths I always “needed” my doctors to create my birth experiences for me, and to save me from my own birthing inefficiency and hopelessness. (I was actually addicted to their “helping” me, and was always effusive in my gratitude for their efforts.) But then with my sixth, I just couldn’t do it again- I couldn’t go back to another hospital to give birth… I was just too hurt and broken inside.
I found a lay midwife, and had the beautiful, easy birth that I am intended to have. I finally gave birth as a full, luscious woman- all my own hormones, in my own safe place- with no fingers in me, or straps on my belly. (Or knives in my belly.) I simply pushed my baby out and went to bed.
This birth healed me… it fulfilled me, enraged me, and propelled me to begin writing and to help heal birth for other women- help them see that the childbirth theories of men in white lab coats are wrong. I created my website (birthlove.com), and soon discovered that millions of women feel just as I did- hopeless; inept; incapable; less-than fully female; not deserving of gentleness or birthing bliss: and that there is no other way to give birth. Millions of women bear terrible scars of the body, soul and psyche from processed, assembly-line birth… millions of women are heartbroken from the loss of what could possibly have been the most beautiful moment of their lives.
What seems to you like a routine day of work impacts entire lives- decades are affected by what happens in the few hours of giving birth. Later drug addiction comes with one’s own drugged childbirth; an increased risk of later violent suicide comes with one’s own violent, painful childbirth. (See references to Bertil Jacobson’s work below.) Terrible infirmities come to women who have had cut, manipulated childbirths… I know women who can’t control their bowel movements because of episiotomy cuts. I know women for whom hemorrhoids cause lifelong pain and severe loss of freedom because of their vacuum extractors and forceps deliveries. I know women who are suicidal in their awful depths of self-hatred and worthlessness: they have a despair that ricochets through their souls from being strapped down like meat to be palpated and probed by anyone who wants to touch their bodies in childbirth. I know women who never realize their full potential as women- as artistic, sentient, feeling women- because they have not given birth powerfully and joyfully.
I know of women who are not even living anymore because of their hazardous hospital births… I know of the doctors who are not held accountable for their deaths. I also know of doctors not held accountable for babies’ deaths.. and I know of thousands of women who have been lied to by doctors, and told that their difficult births were somehow their own fault- that they were too disproportionate, incompetent, or failures at progressing for birth at all without medical assistance (the same meddling, intimidating assistance that stunted their spontaneous birthing in the first place).
How can I tell you to stop hurting families? How can I tell you that giving birth matters? How can I tell you that your procedures cause more harm than good? Why would you believe me? Who am I to you- some “nut” on the Internet who will impact as deeply and personally as a passing, uneventful comet? The women still come to you. They fill up your waiting rooms with their passiveness, endless patience and willingness to follow your orders. They think you know best- they think you are the expert in human childbirth. But how can I tell you that you’re not? You won’t believe me; your medical degree and your years of managing childbirth in hospitals may suggest to you that you deserve the position of societal expert of childbirth.
But listen: the birth you know is incorrect. The birth you have studied and mastered is false; how most women give birth today- with unproven interventions and invasive, humiliating procedures being the norm- is wrong. The birth that doctors see and understand is caged birth; free birth resembles nothing of the stop-and-start, bizarre, agonizing births of the hospital LDR. Birth as it is meant to be given is as straightforward and obvious as any other act of elimination. And as are other eliminatory acts, birth is best given in absolute privacy. (Never flat on one’s back with spectators and bright lights.)
Birth is also the ultimate act of reproduction. It is transcendentally sexual- like a big, luscious orgasm: wild; uncontrollable once you get to the point of no return. That is… if you’re able to get to that point of no return… reaching this state of wild animal release- the optimal state of mind/being for birth- can only come if no one is disturbing you, and if you feel secure and are free from harm. If there is no external schedule imposed on your own intrinsic orgasmic schedule. This is how birth is- highly sensitive to external stimuli; becoming erratic, stunted and pathological if a woman senses her environment isn’t safe and accepting of her own unique way of opening up for birth (equate opening up for birth with ecstasy/release). And this is why so many hospital births “need” doctors’ drugs and intervention- because of how sexually constipating the hospital birth environment is….
For all those who’ve declared the autism-vaccine debate over – a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.
The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled “Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review.” The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.
Ratajczak’s article states, in part, that “Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain.”
The article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. “What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, “the body’s immune system being thrown out of balance.”
University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak’s review, he told us he doesn’t find it remarkable. “This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant.”
Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn’t been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That’s right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.
Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: “Because it’s human DNA and recipients are humans, there’s homologous recombination tiniker. [tiniker? The journal article just refers to homologous recombination. Lost in translation? -rw] That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it’s changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it’s an ongoing inflammation. It doesn’t stop, it continues through the life of that individual.”
Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, “It does not matter…Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism.” Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open….
Strom served on the IOM vaccine advisory panel and didn’t know human DNA was in vaccines or understand why it might be a problem?? Why does common sense seem to be so rare among medical researchers? Is idiocy too strong a term? It seems taking your child to a medical doctor is like having your lear jet maintained by a lawnmower repair shop. Except this lear jet constructs itself from fuel and fun and tunes itself to perfection in the vast majority of cases. Why bother?
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS’s top investigative reporter: gone, resigned, floating free, unchained, now viewed by the news establishment as an outsider, a defector, a weirdo with an axe to grind.
Among the controversial stories she covered at CBS: Benghazi. Just as she was digging below the surface of the Obama coverup, she was cut off and shut down by her network bosses.
Here’s the crux. The Rhodes brothers.
Ben Rhodes, David Rhodes.
Ben is a deputy national security advisor to Obama and writes speeches for him. In September 2012, Ben was “instrumental,” according to ABC News, in changing the White House talking points (the story) on what happened in Benghazi.
Ben’s brother, David, is president of CBS News. Attkisson was working for David. She was investigating all the changes (12) in the Benghazi talking points. She was shut down.
Nothing to see there, move along, eyes straight ahead, go back to sleep, zombie-zombie, it’s all good don’t worry, be happy, hope and change, the audacity of whatever.
Now, on top of this, Attkisson’s computers, at work and at home, were hacked while she was still at CBS. The network acknowledged this and said “they were investigating.” They’re still investigating. So are other unnamed entities.
Who hacked her computers? CBS? The White House? NSA?
Attkisson covered other stories at CBS that were highly problematic for the White House. Fast&Furious, for example. And in the summer of 2009, Attkisson struck gold on Swine Flu. You know, the pandemic that wasn’t. She discovered that the CDC, which is tasked with tracking numbers of cases of outbreaks, had, get this, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Stopped.
But the CDC was still trumpeting the extreme danger of Swine Flu, with no way to measure its true impact.
Dr. Peter Doshi, long after the whole Swine Flu dud was over, wrote a stunning report for the British Medical Journal Online. Seems that every year, hundreds of thousands of samples from suspected and diagnosed flu patients are sent to labs for analysis—and only about 16% of these samples turn out to be positive for the flu.
That’s a killer of a revelation. Among other things, it means that most people who are told they have the flu couldn’t possibly have been protected by any flu vaccine, even assuming the vaccines are useful and effective…because these people don’t have the flu.
I wrote Attkisson about Dr. Doshi’s finding, and she got back to me, in essence saying, well, yes, this is why the CDC stopped counting Swine Flu cases.
Huge numbers of people who were being diagnosed with Swine Flu didn’t have any kind of flu at all.
CBS shut down Attkisson on both the Fast&Furious story and the Swine Flu story.
Here’s an interesting bombshell. On April 1, 2011, Attkisson authored a piece for CBS News, “Vaccines and Autism: a new scientific review.” She dispelled the notion that the vaccine-autism connection was a dead issue. All sorts of red flags went up the flagpole. Mainstream media are supposed to treat vaccines, all vaccines, as holy sacraments of the medical cartel. Praise them, bow down to them, never accuse them of doing harm of any kind.
Sumner Redstone, the executive chairman of CBS, Attkisson’s employer, has a very significant stake in vaccines. His Foundation, on its site, states: “The Sumner M. Redstone Foundation’s contribution to the Global Poverty Project raising $118 million in pledges for vaccines…”
Redstone’s Foundation has also donated $1 million to a charity called Autism Speaks, which supports genetic testing for the diagnosis of Autism. You can be sure this charity has zero interest in reviving the vaccine-Autism debate and exposing the fact that there is most definitely a connection….
The priority seems to be that the bio labs run by the corporate government continue to have unfettered access to our bloodstreams. I wonder why?
The former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler is re-writing rules in favor of the telecom giants – not you, me or the internet. Here’s what you can do to stop him
In January, a federal appeals court rejected regulations designed to assure some measure of fairness in the way America’s internet service providers (ISPs) handle information traveling through their networks. The problem, according to the court, was not so much that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) couldn’t insist on what is called “network neutrality” – the idea that customers, rather than ISPs, should decide priorities for information they get online. No, the issue was that the FCC had tried to impose broadband rules under the wrong regulatory framework. And the court all but invited the FCC to fix its own mistake and rewrite its own updated rules.
The FCC’s new chairman, the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, said he would comply, rather than appeal. “Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency,” he said in a February statement.
Now, based on a slew of frightening news reports last night and a “clarification” from the FCC late this morning, we know how the agency – or at least the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler – proposes to respond: it won’t exercise its supreme regulatory authority in the manner the court suggested.
No, not at all.
Rather, the FCC will say – loud and proud – that it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, by providing a so-called “fast lane” for carriers to hike fees on sites trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you and I start paying more to use those sites – if we aren’t already.
This is a potentially tragic turning point in American politics and policy. We are on the verge of turning over the internet – the most important communications system ever invented– to telecoms that grew huge through the government granting them monopoly status. Barring a genuine shift in policy or a court stepping in to ensure fair treatment of captive customers – or better yet, genuine competition – companies like Verizon and Comcast will have staggering power to decide what bits of information reach your devices and mine, in what order and at what speed. That is, assuming we’re permitted to get that information at all….
The emerging generation of unvaccinated children will be among the healthiest in the world, and they’ll have their parents to thank. The refusal of significant numbers of parents to vaccinate their children has created a sizable population numbering in the millions around the world and has raised a number of important public health issues, namely why do we continue to vaccinate at all. Unvaccinated children will never have dangerous, immune suppressing, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and infertility promoting chemicals pumped into their bodies. These include those chemicals that are found in almost every FDA approved vaccine.
According to Dr. Buchwald, “the reason vaccinations are promoted with such intensity is to prevent people from realizing that vaccines do not protect and also in the event of an outbreak or an epidemic the vaccinated are as much at risk of becoming infected as the unvaccinated. The truth can be kept hidden if people’s vaccination status remains unknown and if everyone is vaccinated, making a comparison with unvaccinated people impossible. This is also the real reason for the relentless push to vaccinate as many children as possible.”
“I have not seen autism with the Amish,” said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century. “You’ll find all the other stuff, but we don’t find the autism. We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is.”
More educated parents are less likely to vaccinate, which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don’t vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed…
A new quantitative study by Princeton’s Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page finds that America is not a democracy … but is an oligarchy.
Here’s a quick visual overview from the study:
(here I think the horizontal axis represents the support enjoyed by the policy proposals “stacked” in that column for the given income group. In other words 10% of the proposals had around 85% approval among the elites in the table above and and those proposals were passed around 55% of the time -rw)