Category: Government Overreach


 photo justiceshreddedbygov_zps626d7c63.jpg

Political  double standards  ? 

24-year-old New York anarchist Jerry Koch is jailed for invoking his 5th Amendment rights after  being  recalled  4 years later to  be questioned once  again in a case where  he  initially  testified that  he knew nothing of what had transpired in the  bicycle bombing being investigated. 

Lois  Lerner of the IRS  is called to testify she  invokes her  5th  Amendment right and goes on  to  claim that  she did nothing wrong or illegal.  However, she  is  still  free.

I  suppose  it   was helpful that  she  defied Legislators and not  a Judge , huh ?

Not exactly what  I  would call Justice for all……..

~Desert Rose~
*********************************************************************************************************

RTAmerica RTAmerica

Published on May 22, 2013

24-year-old New York anarchist Jerry Koch gets jailed for up to 18 months for refusing to testify as a witness in the Times Square bicycle bombing case of 2008 at a federal grand jury hearing. RT’s Anastasia Churkina reports from the federal court house in the Big Apple.

About these ads

Holder says drone strikes since 2009 have killed four U.S. citizens

On the eve of a major address by President Barack Obama on his counterterrorism policy, the Obama administration revealed Wednesday that drone strikes since 2009 had killed four Americans overseas – one of whom, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was targeted in Yemen because he’d planned and was planning terrorist attacks on the United States – principally the plot to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Eve 2009.

Three others who were not “specifically targeted” were killed in circumstances the administration did not explain.

The revelation came in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders and chairmen of key congressional committees in which Holder said, “the president has directed me to disclose to you certain information” about the number of Americans killed by U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of areas of active combat such as Afghanistan.

Holder said the U.S. government was “aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period (since 2009): Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

Jude Kenan Mohammed was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and the FBI notice said, “On July 22, 2009, a Federal Grand Jury in North Carolina indicted Jude Kenan Mohammad for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons in a foreign country. Mohammad is at large and a federal warrant was issued by the United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for his arrest.”

Read Full Article Here

 

 

 

*********************************************************************************************************

**********************************************************************************************************

IRS official to plead the Fifth before House Oversight Committee

By Peter Schroeder and Bernie Becker 05/21/13 08:30 PM ET

Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service official at the eye of the storm over the improper scrutiny of conservative groups, will refuse to answer questions from the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

Through her attorney, Lerner stated her intention to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights after being called to testify.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” her attorney, William W. Taylor III wrote in a letter to Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).Her refusal to testify is the latest roadblock slowing lawmakers’ efforts to get to the bottom of the targeting of Tea Party groups.

Lerner, the head of the IRS’s exempt organizations division, was clearly going to be pressed by lawmakers about the honesty — or otherwise — of her previous responses before Congress on whether the IRS had targeted Tea Party groups.

She has already apologized for the imbroglio, but the Justice Department has launched a criminal probe into the matter. Lawmakers have repeatedly contended that IRS officials, including Lerner, misled Congress about its existence.

“We’re going to review with her what road she led us down previously,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), before news broke of Lerner’s refusal. “To be able to go back and review with her what she said previously versus what she might say on Wednesday, that’s going to make for an interesting exercise in contradictions.”

Both parties have criticized Lerner for being less than forthcoming with Congress. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) has called for her resignation, after she did not disclose the targeting in response to a direct question from the lawmaker at a hearing — two days before she publicly apologized for it.

A spokesman for the Oversight Committee noted that Issa has issued a subpoena to compel Lerner to appear before his panel Wednesday, even if she refuses to answer questions.

“The committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight,” said spokesman Ali Ahmad. “Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify [Wednesday].”

But if Lerner stonewalls Congress, it would exacerbate the frustration lawmakers feel about being stymied by tax collectors.

Wednesday’s hearing will mark the third in less than a week in which lawmakers have probed current and former IRS officials, but members are still searching for answers to a few critical questions. How did the IRS come to adopt the practice of singling out Tea Party groups for added scrutiny? What was the motivation behind filtering out the groups: partisan politics or poor judgment?

Current and former IRS officials at the top of the agency have so far been unable or unwilling to answer those questions, and lawmakers on the Oversight Committee had hoped Lerner could finally shed light on the matter.

After all, she was the IRS official who first thrust the matter into the spotlight, apologizing at a legal conference a week and a half ago for the improper targeting. And the report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) on the practice found that she directed IRS employees to stop using explicit Tea Party criteria in identifying tax-exempt applications for further scrutiny, back in June 2011.

Read Full Article Here

 

*********************************************************************************************************

 

IRS Official Invokes 5th Amendment During Congressional Hearing On Scandal, Napolitano Cavuto

Massteaparty Massteaparty·

 

 

 

 

 

Published on May 22, 2013

MS. Lerner May Have Waved Her 5th Amendment Right By Making Statement During Congressional Hearing
IRS Official Invokes 5th Amendment During Congressional Hearing On Scandal – Napolitano Cavuto

**********************************************************************************************************

Dees Illustration

Stephen Lendman
Activist Post

It’s no surprise. Michael Parenti calls America’s High Court its “autocratic branch.”

It’s notoriously pro-business. It’s longstanding. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway (1886), it granted corporations legal personhood.

More recently, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al (June 2011), it denied longstanding sexual discrimination class action redress. It overruled a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision doing so.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (April 2011), it did so two months earlier. It blocked class action redress claiming fraud. The company’s wireless subsidiary charged sales tax on cellphones it advertised as free. Two California courts rules for plaintiffs. The High Court overruled them.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled for money power over democratic governance. One dollar = one vote.

Corporations and PACs can spend all they want. Doing so more than ever lets them control US elections. Voters are effectively disenfranchised. They have no say whatever.

Numerous other rulings show America’s High Court is supremely pro-business. The Roberts Court is more so than previous ones. Even The New York Times noticed.

On May 4, it headlined “Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court.” It rejected an anti-trust class action suit against Comcast. Subscribers sought to prove unfair competition and overcharges. Wrongdoing was dismissed 5 – 4. It didn’t surprise. It’s consistently pro-business. Doing so facilitates corporate empowerment, discriminatory practices, willful fraud, and products harming human health.
Bowman v. Monsanto again showed where America’s High Court stands. Justice again was denied. Corporate interests alone matter. In 2007, Monsanto sued Vernon Bowman. He’s an Indiana farmer. At issue was alleged patent infringement.

He bought mixed soybean seeds. He did so from a grain elevator. He planted them a second time. He supplemented them with soybeans bought from the same source.

Monsanto’s licensing agreement forbids second plantings. It wants seeds sold used only once. It wants farmers to pay each time they plant.

Bowman claimed no patent infringement. It expired on what he first bought. He supplemented with commodity soybeans. They’re usually used for feed.

He said they naturally “self-replicate or sprout unless stored in a controlled manner.” In other words, he planted soybeans, not new seeds. He violated no law.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court opinion. She didn’t surprise. She and other justices spurn judicial fairness. They do so in defense of privilege. She rejected what she called “that blame-the-bean defense.”

Bowman had no chance. He was no match against Monsanto. He was ordered to pay nearly $85,000 in damages. He’s a small farmer. Doing so may bankrupt him. Longstanding agribusiness plans call for greater consolidation at the expense of small competitors.

Bowman lost at the district, appellate and High Court levels. They ruled one way. They claimed patent exhaustion doesn’t permit farmers to replant seeds and harvest them without patent holder’s permission.

Generic drug companies freely do it. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act permits it. Once patents expire, holders no longer have exclusive rights.

In 2014, the last of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready US patents will expire. Monsanto’s supposed to lose exclusivity. At issue is will or won’t it happen?

Expect Monsanto to press hard to keep it. Earlier it said it wants international regulatory Roundup Ready soybeans support until 2021. It’s unclear if other companies will be able to sell generic versions. Monsanto won’t make it easy to do so.

On May 13, Food Democracy Now (FDN) denounced the Supreme Court ruling. Executive director Dave Murphy accused Washington of complicity in permitting the “corporate takeover of (America’s) food supply.”

“Today,” he said, “the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the corporate takeover of our food supply, in a huge win for Monsanto, and a major loss for America’s farmers and consumers.”

Monsanto has long engaged in an effort to subvert family farmers that do not use their genetically-engineered seeds, and the Court has now handed corporations even more control over what our families eat.

Currently, Food Democracy Now! is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit in the District Court of Appeals, Organic Seed Associations et Al. v Monsanto to protect America’s farmers from unwanted contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s patented genetically-engineered plants.

Our nation’s family farmers grow our food on farms where cross-pollination between organic, non-GMO crops and Monsanto’s genetically-engineered patented crops is regular and naturally-occurring process.

The Court’s decision to give Monsanto the power to control the future harvest of America’s family farmers and our county’s food supply is deeply troubling, immoral and a very bad sign for the future of our nation’s food.

In March 2013, Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act.It’s the Farmer Assurance Provision rider in HR 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. Monsanto lawyers wrote it.

It permits circumventing judicial decisions. If courts rule GMOs unsafe, Monsanto’s free to ignore them. So can the Secretary of Agriculture.

He’s free to ignore food safety. He can let hazardous GMOs poison America’s food supply. Obama’s complicit with giant corporate interests. He’s their man in Washington. He’s beholden to monied interests. They own him.

Read Full Article Here

Permission = Freedom?

Eric Blair

Activist Post

“The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize,” says James Forsher, a film historian. “When you dehumanize, it allows you to kill your enemy and no longer feel guilty about it.”

Apparently illegal immigrants have been sufficiently dehumanized to force them into biometric tracking. There’s no way the government would use biometrics to track the superior law-abiding natives, right?  More on this later.

Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue that genuinely affects many communities and the motivation to do something about it is understandable.  However, anti-immigration supporters may be playing right into Big Brother’s hands by being tricked into supporting the hi-tech enslavement of themselves.

Some have referred to the sweeping immigration reform bill in Congress as a “Trojan Horse for Biometrics.”  These systems are a clear indication that illegal immigration is being used to put the final touches on the full-spectrum surveillance grid in America.

And, shockingly, politicians are making the immigration reform bill more stringent instead of less, apparently fueled by anti-immigration zealots.

According to NBC News, the senate hopes to finalize a bill for a vote by the end of the week. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been debating many biometric identification mandates and have now approved a more stringent biometric “test system” for U.S. airports.
Carrie Dann of NBC News writes:

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican considered to be a swing vote on the 18 member committee. That amendment, a less stringent version of a biometric proposal that failed last week, would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a fingerprinting system at the 10 U.S. airports with the highest international traffic within two years. After six years, that system would have to be in place at the nation’s 30 biggest airports.

One of the key authors of the legislation, Marco Rubio (R-FL), said ”The amendment adopted today is a good start and I will continue to fight to make the tracking of entries and exits include biometrics.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called it “a start” as well.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

RepMikeKelly

Published on May 17, 2013

************************************************************************************************

House hearing on IRS scandal

WashingtonPost WashingtonPost

Published on May 17, 2013

**********************************************************************************************

Hmmmm,  it  is strangely  reminiscent  of  the Hilary testimony ranting ….”What Difference Does  It Make ?”

It  seems  it  makes  quite a bit  of  difference  to the  “American  People”!!!

Legality is not  “Irrelevant”  by  any   stretch  of the  imagination!!!

How  many  citizens  have  been  able  to  claim  and successfully  use  the  standard  that   legality is  irrelevant and  have it  accepted  in a  court  of law ???

Exactly !!

I  believe  it  is  time  the   government  and it’s  entities  are  held  accountable  to   the  law  just as  the  Citizens  are.  Don’t   you  ???

~Desert Rose~

***********************************************************************************************

Republicans Are Ripping The White House’s Dan Pfeiffer For Saying The Legality Of IRS Targeting Is ‘Irrelevant’

Brett LoGiurato | May 19, 2013, 11:58 AM

Dan Pfeiffer IRS scandal

Republicans are ripping White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer this morning for referring to the legality of the IRS’ inappropriate targeting of conservative groups as “irrelevant.”

But Pfeiffer said that to reinforce the White House’s assertion that the IRS’ behavior is inexcusable.

“I can’t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant,” Pfeiffer said on ABC‘s “This Week,” in a comment that drew ire from Republicans. “The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed so we ensure it never happens again.”

“This Week” host George Stephanopoulos was struck by the “irrelevant” statement, and asked Pfeiffer if he “really believed” that was the case. Pfeiffer attempted to clarify.

AP, DOJ clash over seriousness of leak that prompted phone records seizure

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calls on a reporter during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday.

By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

Justice Department and Associated Press officials clashed Tuesday over leaked classified information that led the government to seize AP phone records, with Attorney General Eric Holder saying it “put the American people at risk” and the news organization’s chief executive insisting it delayed publishing its story until it was assured “national security concerns had passed.”

The day of back-and-forth public sallies came as new details emerged about negotiations between the AP and U.S. officials over the unauthorized release of classified information on a foiled bomb plot in Yemen, information that apparently triggered the investigation.

“This was a very, very serious leak,” Holder said at a news conference. “I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 – and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, in the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk – and that is not hyperbole.”

Holder defended the secret subpoena for about two months of AP phone records on 20 separate telephone lines without prior notice as a necessary step, saying that trying to find the source of the leak “required very aggressive action.”

Holder’s comments and a letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole defending the seizure of the AP records – without notifying the news organization until last week –  drew a stern response from AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt. He  blasted the action as “overbroad under the law,” saying  that “more than 100 journalists work in the locations served by those telephones.”

“Rather than talk to us in advance, they seized these phone records in secret, saying that notifying us would compromise their investigation,” Pruitt said in a statement late Tuesday. “They offer no explanation of this, however.

 

Read Full Article Here

***********************************************************************************************

DOJ’s secret subpoena of AP phone records broader than initially revealed

Information has emerged  in the Justice Department seizure of Associated Press phone records as well as the news that reporter for Fox News is now a target of a leak investigation concerning North Korea.  NBC’s Michael Isikoff reports.

The Justice Department’s secret subpoena for AP phone records included the seizure of records for five reporters’ cellphones and three home phones as well as two fax lines, a lawyer for the news organization tells NBC News.

David Schulz, the chief lawyer for the AP, said the subpoenas also covered the records for 21 phone lines in five AP office lines — including one for a dead phone line at  office in Washington that had been shut down six years ago. The phone lines at four other offices – where  100 reporters worked — were also covered by the subpoenas, Schulz said.

Although AP had given general information about the subpoenas last week, it provided new details Monday about the number of cell and home phone records as it considers possible legal action against the Justice Department.

 

Read Full Article Here

File:Bitcoin-coin2.jpg            File:2002 currency exchange AIGA euro money.pngCurrency Exchange
Bitcoin

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Bitcoin_exchange.png

Bitcoin exchange

***********************************************************************************************

By Paul Rosenberg, FreemansPerspective.com

An increasing number of people have complained about governments and central banks in recent years, even using the word “tyranny” to describe them. They are, of course, called names in the establishment press: conspiracy theorists, mainly.

Calling someone a name, however, does not erase their argument (at least not among rational people) and both the governments and the big banks stand accused.

Up till now, however, these accusations were never accepted by the general public. The average guy really didn’t want to hear about the evils of government money. After all, that was the only thing he had ever used to buy food, clothes, gasoline, cars, and so on. He didn’t want to acknowledge the accusations because he feared what might happen to him without his usual money.

Now, however, we have a brand new currency (called Bitcoin) available to us: something radically different. This gives us a new way to directly address the subject of monetary tyranny, providing a clear test for the governments and money masters of the world:

If they are truly NOT tyrannical, they will leave this new currency alone.

If they ARE tyrannical, they will attack the new currency because it eats into their scam.

In other words, Bitcoin is a test for “the powers that be.” The way they deal with this new method of exchange will reveal their true nature.

If they ignore Bitcoin, they refute the charges of tyranny. If they attack it, they verify those charges.

After all, what honest reason could there be to attack an inherently peaceful tool for transferring value?

Prospective Reasons

Reasons to attack Bitcoin have recently appeared in the “public square.” Here are the three most popular ones, each followed with some analysis:

1. It can be used for money laundering.

Of course it can be used for money laundering — ANY currency can be used for money laundering. Currencies are neutral — that is their purpose! Currencies are valuable precisely because they can be exchanged for anything else — that’s why we use them!

Moreover, dollars and Euros and Pounds are used for money laundering every day. Consider the recent money laundering crimes of HSBC and Wachovia/Wells Fargo. These banks laundered hundreds of billions of dollars for violent drug cartels. And consider that this amount of laundered money is several hundred times the value of every Bitcoin in existence.

No one from either bank went to jail. Neither bank was shut down. Neither bank suffered more than a minor fine. So, how much of a concern can money laundering really be to governments and banks? Clearly not much.

But, since they accuse Bitcoin of being used for bad things, let’s be clear about the situation:

– Every mafioso uses government money.

– Every drug smuggler uses government money.

– Every terrorist uses government money.

– Every pornographer uses government money.

– Every criminal of every type uses government money.

They also use the telephone system and the mail and banks and a wide variety of government services. But government money is good and Bitcoin is bad?

The argument fails.

2. It could destabilize the current system.

A tiny, new currency is a threat to the long-established king of the hill? Comparing Bitcoin to dollars, Euros and Yen is like comparing an ant to a dinosaur. This is a threat?

Please understand also that no one is forcing anyone to use Bitcoin. If you don’t think it’s a great idea, you don’t have to use it. If its price movements (relative to dollars) bother you, you don’t have to use it. How is that destabilizing to the current system? It is entirely separate.

And what of the current system? It was falling apart on its own before the Bitcoin program was ever written. And I could go on at length on the insane levels of government debt, hundreds of trillions in derivatives, rehypothecation, and innocent people being forced to bail-out failed banks.

The current system has massive problems, but none of them can be blamed on Bitcoin.

This argument fails also.

3. Bitcoin provides no customer protection.

Well, no, it doesn’t. Bitcoin is a currency, not a legal system.

What is implied by this argument is that the government banking system does protect customers. That is an outright lie. People are ripped-off via the banking system every day. And more than that, consider what happened just a month ago in Cyprus: Thousands of innocent people were ripped-off BY the banking system — purposely — all at once and without recourse. This argument is, really, an insult to one’s intelligence.

And I should add something else: If Bitcoin is used properly, the crime of identity theft (a big problem with government money) vanishes — there is no identity available to be stolen.

So, again, the argument fails. Only those people who believe anything a government says will buy it.

In the End

In the end, it is said, we judge ourselves. Bitcoin has now put governments and banks in the position of judging themselves. They will write their own verdicts.

It should be interesting to watch.

[Editor's Note: Paul Rosenberg is the "outside the Matrix" author of FreemansPerspective.com, a collection of insights on topics ranging from Internet privacy and economic freedom, to alternative currencies. Join our free e-letter list to receive other articles like this one... and immediately get a report that explains in a unique way how the US Government got into the mess it's in, the dangers that creates for us, and how to protect ourselves from it.]

Revealed Government Documents Show Vaccine Injured Children in Small African Village Used Like Lab Rats

Children vaccinated  in Africa
were severely harmed by vaccines

Christina England
Activist Post

In December 2012, vaccine tragedy hit the small village of Gouro, Chad, Africa, situated on the edge of the Sahara Desert. Five hundred children were locked into their school, threatened that if they did not agree to being force-vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education. These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third and fourth phases of testing.

Within hours, one hundred six children began to suffer from headaches, vomiting, severe uncontrollable convulsions and paralysis. The children’s wait for a doctor began. They had to wait one full week for a doctor to arrive while the team of vaccinators just carried on vaccinating others from the village. More children became sick.

When the doctor finally came, he could do nothing for the children. The team of vaccinators, upon seeing what had happened, fled the village in fear.

Fifty children were finally transferred to a hospital in Faya and later taken by plane to two hospitals in N’Djamena, the capital city of Chad. After being shuttled around like cattle, these sick, weak children were dumped back in their village without a diagnosis and each family was given an unconfirmed sum of £1000 by the government. No forms were signed and no documentation was seen. They were informed that their children had not suffered a vaccine injury. However, if this were true, why would their government award each family £1000 in what has been described as hush money?

Interestingly, during the time the children spent in the hospital, two more children joined them from another village.

To read the full stories of this tragedy, please see references at the end of this article from previous Vactruth world-exclusive reports. [1,2,3,4]

Since this time, Vactruth has been passed a series of secret documents, which fill in some missing gaps in this story and expose just how corrupt the organizations behind this tragedy really are.
The Exclusive, Heartbreaking Details

On January 14, 2013, arrangements were made for seven female patients between the ages of 8-18 to be evacuated from the Hospital of Mother and Child (HME) and the General Hospital of National Referrals (HGRN) in N’Djamena and transferred by air to a clinic in Tunisia. This was scheduled to take place between January 16 and 22.

The documents in our possession state that the Chadian government arranged for the patients to be accompanied by Dr. Joseph Mad-Toingue, Chief Service of Infectious Diseases of the National General Referral Hospital; Dr. Moumar Mbaileyo, anesthesiologist employee of the National General Referral Hospital; and Mr. Dihoulne Kakiang, state-certified nurse, employee of the National General Referral Hospital.

On January 29, 2013, a letter passed between The Chief Service of Infectious Diseases of HGRN-N’Djaména and Mr. Director General of the National General Referral Hospital, stating:

Mr. Director General,

Herewith I have the honor of putting into your hands the report of the mission completed in Tunisia between 15 and 22 of January 2013 regarding the medical evacuation of 7 patients.

The Chief of Service.

Vactruth now has this report.

A Parent’s Worst Nightmare

The report states that seven female patients between the ages of 8 and 18 had suffered adverse reactions after receiving the meningitis A vaccination during a national campaign, which took place on December 11, 2012, for the prevention of this illness. These patients had originally been taken to the Regional Hospital of Faya, before being transferred on December 26, 2012, to the Hospital of Mother and Child (HME) and the General Hospital of National Referrals (HGRN) in N’Djamena.

Arrangements were later made for a medical evacuation to transfer these patients to Tunisia for further tests and treatment.

According to the report, the departure took place in N’Djaména on January 15, 2013, at 10:50 pm after a long wait at the Hassan airport in N’Djamena because of the late arrival of the plane.

The journey took place on board a Tunisian plane chartered by the International Medical Society (SMEDI). The party consisted of seven patients, three members of the medical team and seven parents (two men and five women) who accompanied the sick children.

Interestingly, the document states that the party did not fly alone.

The government report states that twenty other passengers traveling to Tunisia for the same reason (medical evacuation) also joined the party. Sadly, there were no further details on these patients in the report.

Were these patients also vaccine-damaged by the meningitis A vaccination, and where did these twenty other sick patients come from?

Just before the plane took off, an 18-year-old patient had what the report describes as a ‘shaking episode,’ and was given a 10 mg vial of diazepam before boarding the plane. Other than this incident, the flight went well.

The Specialists Say “Case Closed”

The group arrived in Tunisia on January 16, 2013, and was received by SMEDI agents who took care of the police formalities (entry visa) before dividing the group into three parties. The patients were transported by ambulance to the clinic, the medical staff was taken to a hotel, and the patients’ parents were taken to a center.

On the afternoon of January 16, the three medical staff were introduced to SMEDI’s Director General, M. Ghazi Mejbri, to get acquainted. This was followed by a work session with the medical coordinator, Dr. Folla Amara. In the course of this meeting, the condition of the patients was discussed and plans were arranged for their care.

The patients were taken to the neurological department of SMEDI’s La Sourka clinic. The clinic had received the children’s medical records in advance and was reported to have conducted their own clinical and biological tests on the patients before meeting with the medical team that had accompanied them.

On January 17, a meeting took place with Professor Rachid Namai (“chef de clinique”), Dr. Kefi and Dr. Mabet. It was concluded that the children’s ‘shaking attacks’ or convulsions were of no consequence. On the paraclinical level, the report stated that the liquor tests of five patients did not reveal any anomalies, nor did the EEG of six patients.

The EEG of the seventh patient showed minor anomalies in the immediate post-critical phase, but was reported to have stabilized. An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was to take place of all seven patients. After the meeting, the team visited the patients who were all reported to be well, except for one child who had developed tonsillitis and had to receive appropriate treatment.

On January 19, a second meeting took place at the La Soukra Clinic during which they examined the patients’ medical records that gave the results of all the medical tests that had taken place. Among the biological perturbations there was reported to be one case of persistent thrombopenia (a lower than normal number of blood cell fragments called platelets), two cases of of elevated immunoglobulines E (Ig E) and five cases of gram negative bacteria directly upon examination — culturing has not been contributory.

The report stated that, generally speaking, the patients showed a raised tendency for hypoalbuminemia (swelling), hypo creatininemia (renal dysfunction), and hyper glucorrhagia (no definition found).

 

Read Full Article Here

Adam Kokesh is a Political Prisoner

Daisy Luther
Activist Post

The establishment has made no secret of the fact that they are not very impressed with Adam Kokesh’s planned Open Carry March on Washington DC this coming July 4.

But yesterday the situation devolved to a new low when Kokesh was arrested for….doing nothing.

The controversial talk-radio host of Adam Vs. the Man has been made a political prisoner.

A “political prisoner” is defined as:

A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views. source

Regardless of your personal beliefs on whether marijuana should be legalized, if you believe that freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, what happened at the May 18 “Smoke Down Prohibition” event in Philadelphia is a clear-cut violation of Kokesh’s rights. While other people there were actually breaking the law and smoking in an act of civil disobedience, Kokesh was not – he was simply speaking.

Adam Kokesh is being charged with resisting arrest…Check out the video – all I see is a man with his hands up (and no marijuana in those hands either). You don’t have to be an expert on the law to see that he went with the officers peacefully.


Does this mean that only popular opinions are protected by the Constitution? Does this mean that the Constitution is no longer in effect for those who disagree with the current laws? Or is this something more sinister? Perhaps an attempt to prevent Kokesh’s planned march on July 4 for occurring?

Read Full Article Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 728 other followers