by Mike Adams
Natural News

Vaccine pushers often resort to an interesting fear tactic to try to mandate vaccine obedience among the masses: They insist that those who areunvaccinatedare a health threat to the rest of the vaccinated population because thevaccinatedpeople might get infected by the unvaccinated disease carriers!

The quack logic of such a claim should be self-evident. If vaccines protect people from infectious disease, then vaccinated people should not be concerned at all about being around unvaccinated people. After all, the vaccine made them all “immune,” right?

But of course that’s all propaganda. Vaccines don’t really work at all. They are marketed under a blanket of disease hysteria and pimped by a cult following of medicalized quacks and needle junkies who abandoned real science long ago. After all, who needs real science when you’ve got the CDC marketing all the fear for you? The CDC is to medicine what George Bush was to the war industry — spread a little fear and the profits roll in. The real risk to others? People who routinely take antibiotics As it turns out, the real health risk that does exist in person-to-person exposure of infectious disease comes from people who routinely takeantibiotics.

Those who take the most antibiotics becomedrugresistant bacteria factories, and they can spread their drug-resistant strains to others around them. Their risk of developing superbugs rises proportionally to the frequency and duration of their taking prescription antibiotics. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028479_superbugs_antibiotics.html)

The most dangerous person in your family, it turns out, is not the “unvaccinated” person but the one taking antibiotics! They arehuman breeding groundsfor bacterial mutations that can be downright deadly.

Why hospitals are so dangerous to your health

That’s why informed people knowthe hospital is the most dangerous place you can go, other than working in a homemade meth lab of course. Hospitals are where superbugs pass easily from patient to doctor, and then from doctor to another patient.Hospital superbugs are spread by the medical staff, mostly because they routinely fail to wash their hands before touching patients. As NaturalNews reported in January, 2010, a whopping247 people die every day in U.S. hospitals from medical staff failing to wash their hands.(http://www.naturalnews.com/027981_doctors_hand_washing.html).

This is like a jumbo jet falling out of the sky and killing everyone on boardevery single day. It’s like a 9/11 terrorist attacking happeningevery two weeks. This is one of the most alarming (and preventable) causes of death in America today and virtually no one ­even talks about it. Doctors, of course, strongly contribute to the development of superbugs by handing out antibiotics as if they were Halloween candy. Someone shows up at the office with a sniffle, and the busy doctor scribbles out a prescription for some fashionable new antibiotic that earns him perks from the young drug rep whose PC database tracks every name-brand prescription he writes. The patient, meanwhile, spends a pocket fortune on a useless drug that’s actually quite dangerous. Not only does it increase that patient’s chances of developing a mutant strain of drug-resistant bacteria; it also flushes antibiotics down the drain and contaminates the environment downstream.

So if you’re walking around in public suspiciously glancing around to see who might be sniffling or sneezing, clear your head and think about reality for a second. The CDC wants you to stupidly believe all the unvaccinated people are a threat to your health, when in realitypeople who consciously refuse vaccines tend to be far healthier and get sick far less oftenthan the hypochondriac dweebs who rush out to get vaccinated every few months. Doctors and drugs are the greatest threat to your health – far greater than terrorism The real people who are a threat to your health are not just the pill-popping antibiotics consumers, but also:

• The psyched-out grandma on psychotropic drugs barreling down the road behind the wheel of a 1978 Buick. (Driving While Medicated…)

• The teen schoolboy who was diagnosed with depression and put on SSRI drugs that make him feel violently suicidal.

• The pediatrician who wants to inject your child with chemotherapy to “prevent” cancer and insist he’s going to call CPS if you don’t let him poison your child.

• The drug addict pharmacist who, in between incorrectly filling your prescription with random deadly chemicals, snorts up his own private concoction of controlled substances in the back room.

• The oncologist who misdiagnosed you with breast cancer but wants to poison you with five rounds of chemotherapy “just to be sure.” (Oh yeah, I bet he never told you that he PROFITS from selling you the chemotherapy drugs that poison you…)

• The school bus driver with a heart condition who takes an extra dose of deadly statin drugs and suffers a fatal heart muscle breakdown while behind the wheel of a bus carrying 58 schoolchildren toward a railroad crossing. These are the real threats to your safety… not a bunch of healthy people who deliberately refuse to be injected with hazardous vaccines. But of course the medical establishment doesn’t want you to be aware of any risks associated with using their products. All their drugs are perfectly safe! Perfectly effective! Perfectly priced! Perfectly profitable! There’s nothing wrong with them, by God, or the FDA would never have approved them, would they?

­by Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

Luis A. Ferré

(Two-tier plebiscite will gauge voters’ support of current territorial status, as well as non-territorial status preferences)

Ponce, Puerto Rico – For the first time ever, Puerto Rico’s voters will face in 2012 an up or down vote on their support for the island’s current status as a U.S. territory. The vote is part of a two-tier status consultation that Puerto Rico Governor Luis G. Fortuño signed into law today, during a ceremony held in the hometown of his Republican predecessor and political mentor, former Governor Luis A. Ferré.

The November 6, 2012 status choice ballot, which will be included as a separate ballot the same day voters also choose their Governor, non-voting Member of Congress, Mayors and legislators, will pose two questions to the island’s electorate. Voters will first be asked if they agree with maintaining the current territorial political condition, to which they can answer either yes or no.

Irrespective of voters’ answer to the first question, voters will also be asked to express their preference for one of the three non-territorial status options recognized by Congress, Republican and Democratic presidential administrations as well as the United Nations: statehood, independence or free association.

“By virtue of this status consultation, we will know clearly, first, whether or not our people wish to maintain the current territorial status ­and second, which of the non-territorial alternatives enjoys the most support among Puerto Ricans,” said Governor Fortuño.

The Governor emphasized that the two-tier configuration of the 2012 status consultation takes into account a series of findings and recommendations from the three most recent reports of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (2005, 2007 and 2011), as well as previous experiences with both local and federal status initiatives. “This status consultation also fulfills a pledge we made to voters in 2008, that during this term they would have the opportunity to express their preference for Puerto Rico’s future,” said the Governor.

“The island’s status is an issue that affects every aspect of our daily lives, including employment opportunities, health services, public safety, our children’s education and our very rights as American citizens,” said the Governor. “The moment has arrived for our people to act decisively to resolve Puerto Rico’s status issue once and for all. When the people make their historic choice next November, it will then be the turn of elected officials – both in San Juan and Washington – to act upon that mandate,” Fortuño concluded.

by Jim Lamare

Hispanic Link

In a 2-1 opinion, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Feb. 6 temporarily halted five deportation cases involving seven undocumented immigrants.

The lead case, Aranda Rodríguez v. Holder, involves Mexican David Aranda Rodríguez, who has resided in the United States for more than two decades and cares for his two U.S.-born children. He has no criminal past.

The other six plaintiffs have a similar profile.

In issuing the order, the Court instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to determine if Rodríguez and the others should be granted relief from deportation under the new policy of prosecutorial discretion.

ICE director John Morton issued a memorandum on June 17 last year announcing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in handling deportation cases. ICE officials and DOJ’s immigration courts are to give “positive consideration” in deciding the fate of:

• veterans and members of the U.S. Armed Forces;

• long-time lawful permanent residents;

• minors and elderly individuals;

• individuals present in this country since childhood;

• pregnant and nursing women;

• victims of domestic violence, trafficking or other serious crimes; and,

• individuals with serious health conditions.

Undocumented immigrants in these categories are to be assigned low priority in determining their deportation status. Implementation of prosecutorial discretion was delayed until specific operational criteria were formulated to enforce the new policy.

In mid-November, ICE announced it was ready to apply the new rules. Federal officials were asked to review, case by case, some 300,000 deportation proceedings pending before the nation’s 59 immigration courts using the new criteria.

To assist in this tedious labor-intensive process, officials were required to attend a half-day training session by Jan. 13. They were presented several scenarios about appropriate deportation outcomes.

According to Julia Preston of The New York Times, who observed an orientation session, one scenario involves a young undocumented woman “arrested by a state trooper for driving without a license. She has been living in this country since 1993 and has an infant son [a U.S. citizen]. But she lied to ICE officers, failing to tell them she had a conviction for shoplifting in 1995.”

What should the immigration courts and federal prosecutors do?

In this instance, she should not be deported because “she is not a threatening criminal and may still be nursing her American baby.” Her case should be closed.

What about an undocumented immigrant who in 1996 crossed the border illegally and failed to appear at a “critical” immigration court hearing back then? He has committed no other crime “and he coaches soccer at the school where his twin daughters, both citizens, are enrolled.” Again, the answer:“case closed.”

Application of these new criteria was trialed in the immigration courts of Denver and Baltimore during December and January. The courts determined that 16% of the 7,923 deportation cases pending in Denver involved low risk individuals, thus allowing 1,301people to stay in the United States.

In Baltimore, of the 3,759 cases reviewed, 366, about 10 percent, were closed.

Based on these findings, the New York Times projected that 39,000 deportation cases nationwide stand to be closed by the end of the year. Closed, but not cancelled. At any time, these low priority cases can be reopened. Federal officials have until March 19 to respond to the 9th Circuit Court’s order to apply prosecutorial discretion to the seven plaintiffs in the five pending cases.

In other related news: FEDS PAY LATINOS $350,000, SETTLE SUIT OVER RAIDS.

By Griselda Nevárez & Estuardo Rodríguez Eleven Hispanic men rousted from their homes in New Haven, Conn., and jailed after a raid conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents nearly five years ago were awarded a total of $350,000 as compensation in an agreement reached Feb 13 between the federal government and the plaintiffs.

The 11 men were among 29 persons, nearly all of Hispanic origin, apprehended on June 6, 2007, after federal agents barged into their homes without warrants. Lawyers and law students from the Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at the Yale Law School filed a federal civil lawsuit on their behalf.

The plaintiffs claimed ICE agents had violated their constitutional rights by racially profiling them and conducting unreasonable search and seizure.

­The settlement gave the plaintiffs the option of terminating any pending deportation proceedings or deferring any immigration action brought against them for four years and allowing them to reapply for legal residency.

The settlement is the largest ever paid by the government in a suit over a residential immigration raid and the first to include monetary compensation and immigration relief. Prior to the settlement, five of the 11 plaintiffs had already won termination of the deportation actions against them. Laura Huizar, one of the Yale students representing the plaintiffs, told Hispanic Link that at least four of the others who were arrested are still in removal proceedings, while some have won release.

She said the plaintiffs are “hoping to use this victory to pressure the government to stop all of the removal proceedings resulting from the same raid.” ICE spokesperson Ross Feinstein said the settlement is not intended to be an admission of fault on the part of the U.S. government. “The government is settling in order to avoid the additional time and expense of further litigation,” he said in a statement.

Another involved Yale law student, Mark Pedulla, who told Hispanic Link the agreement makes it clear that “agencies of the judicial (system) need to follow the Constitution and respect the rights of the people.”

The movement will next take on foreclosures

­por Sally Khon

The American Prospect

Occupy activists march during a tour of foreclosed homes in N.Y. (PHOTO BY MARY ALTAFFER)

As winter fades, the Occupy Wall Street movement is heating up again. But don’t expect the same focus on physical encampments and rowdy protests. While the blood of the 99 percent is still boiling at the injustice of growing inequality, in organizing meetings and workgroups, cooler heads are prevailing. This is Occupy 2.0—the mainstreaming of momentum.

From my conversations with Occupy organizers and supporters, my sense is that the main thrust of organizing energy and attention will go toward Occupy Our Homes— a coalition of Occupy activists joining with existing grassroots groups to support families that are facing foreclosure or have been evicted by big banks. Prioritizing Occupy Our Homes is great choice for two reasons.

First, the foreclosure crisis is immense and growing. Despite the recent mortgage settlement with state attorneys general that will grant 750,000 foreclosed-upon families a whopping $2,000 each (!), 4.2 million families have already been foreclosed upon during the economic crisis. The industry site RealtyTrac estimates that number will skyrocket to 10 million in 2012. Besides literally pulling the rug out of millions of American families at the worst possible moment, according to the Federal Reserve, high rates of foreclosed properties drive down home prices and values, hurting all homeowners and the economy as a whole. There may be no more powerful illustration of the abuses of the 1 percent than the taxpayer-bailedout big banks foreclosing on struggling families and driving down the economy for the entire 99 percent. But organizing around Occupy Our Homes is a strategic second phase choice for Occupy for another reason, one best summed up by my own mother. She sent money to Zuccotti Park and her own local Occupy site in Allentown, Pennsylvania but, at age 64 (sorry mom!), told me there was no way she was sleeping on the ground outside in the cold.

The great thing about Occupy Our Homes as a tactic is that there’s still a tangible way for the tents and sleeping bags set to be involved (as when Occupy supporters camped out on the lawn of the home of an Iraq War veteran near Atlanta, ultimately saving her home from foreclosure) but foreclosure prevention also creates avenues for other types of engagement, whether bringing a casserole, writing a letter to a bank, or joining a prayer vigil. Such actions put a broader face on the 99 percent movement, not just punk kids in bandanas but middle class families threatened with homelessness standing with block association presidents and pastors and grandmothers (i.e., my mom).

Say what you will about mainstreaming, that’s how movements evolve being a fringe concern to a force for change. I don’t mean to disregard the role of the vanguard, those at the leading edge of a movement’s origins who take the first, bold steps and, often, risks. But vanguard leaders should be self-aware and situate themselves in a larger context, seeing the prospect of mainstream appeal as a sign of their success not a threat to undermine it. It’s absurd to pave a road and then get angry when other people follow it. Instead, the next step is to pave a new one.

Unfortunately, I predict that a crowd of die-hard Occupiers will stubbornly cling to the tactic of public Occupy encampments and mass, edgy protests, confusing these tactics for the entirety of the movement and overlooking the possibility that these tactics may have outlived their symbolic power. Related debates about the political utility of black bloc tactics have been springing up and hopefully, these important debates will continue, knitting together various philosophies  within Occupy into a diverse whole. But as with many movements, it looks like this next phase will divide the movement into factions, with the radical anarchist wing splitting off from the rest. Perhaps the best outcome of this will be that even though the anarchists will continue their “day of rage” type actions and police aggression, they ­will make the Occupy Our Homes wing seem more reasonable and rational. At best, the more radical wing will continue to pave new, innovative roads for future momentum. That would be the vanguard-y thing to do.

Lastly, look in the spring for another wing to emerge—existing grassroots organizations driving sets of actions tied to the mission of Occupy Our Homes but with a more radical, confrontational edge. This will include perhaps the most visible, systematic disruption of corporate shareholder meetings ever seen in our country as well as other targeted direct actions on big banks in particular.

No doubt there will be some missteps but, to be clear, the difference with this cluster of organizers  and actions is that it will explicitly seek to bolster the same message and goals as Occupy Our Homes and implicitly create political pressure and space through edgier tactics that legitimize other arms of the movement. I was recently trying to explain hibernation to my three-year-old. I told her that animals like bears store food in the fall, dig in and gather strength in the winter and then come out ready for spring. The 99 percent movement gathered tremendous public will and political momentum in the fall of 2011.

Now, the movement is quietly planning and gathering strategic strength. In the spring, populist activism will bloom across America with a density and diversity unheard of for decades. It’s going to be a very hot spring indeed.