Tuesday, June 19, 2018

The Ubiquitous Insidious Tentacles of Abortion

Under the euphemistic banner of "reproductive rights" "reproductive health" and/or "pro-choice", very little is said about the physical, psychological, and spiritual consequences  of the giant octopus that is abortion despite the fact that it has extended its insidious tentacles into each and every one of our lives, either directly or indirectly. Because even if you have not experienced an abortion, it's almost certain you have a relationship --daughter, granddaughter, girlfriend, wife, mother, sister, niece, friend, co-worker, etc.--with someone who has, and just like the ripples that spread from a single pebble cast into a pond, small waves ripple outwardly and incrementally after each and every abortion, affecting every potential relation to that innocent life who never had a chance.

Of course, the negative impact of abortion on the mother's physical, psychological and spiritual health far outweighs the impact on everyone else. The multiple physical and emotional complications of the procedure can be life-changing insofar as the woman may experience damage to the cervix, scarring of the uterine lining, perforation of the uterus, damage to other organs, inability to conceive in the future, higher rates of miscarriage and premature birth  in subsequent pregnancies, and in studies across the United States and in other countries, it has been found that women who have had abortions have increased their risk of getting breast and/or cervical cancer by over 50 percent. The same is not true for pregancies terminated naturally--miscarriage because unlike induced abortion, the mother's hormone levels never reach that of a normally developing pregnancy.

Moreover, it's been found that abortion before the birth of a first child is, in particular, highly carcinogenic, because as most of us know, early first full term pregnancy lowers a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, so if that pregnancy is terminated unnaturally, that protection not only disappears, the abortion is potentially weaponized to turn against the mother in the future. In other words, women who abort their first pregnancy not only don’t get the protective effects of a first full-term pregnancy and don’t receive the protective effects of breast feeding, they've increased their chances of getting cancer, experiencing infertility, etc. over and above that of never having gotten pregnant in the first place.

Keep in mind that less than 1% of all abortions (60 million since 1973) occur because of rape, incest, birth defects or to save the life of the mother, so the use of this argument is very obviously a smoke screen. Moreover, abortion to save the mother’s life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again.

Abortion Cancer Link

The first study to find the link between abortion and cancer came out in 1957--over 60-years ago--yet the billion dollar cancer foundations/organizations, the mainstream media, the medical industrial complex, Planned Parenthood, etc. not only stay silent and refuse to warn the public, they actively engage in deceiving the public.

 In fact, the abortion breast cancer link in some of these statistically robust studies confirm abortion is stronger than any other risk factor for breast cancer such as advanced age, having a family history of breast cancer, being childless, etc..
Gill pointed out that the Surgeon General decided to require warning labels on packs of cigarettes highlighting the link between smoking and birth defects when there were only seven studies that showed such a link.

Today, there are more than seventy-eight studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer and yet most women remain unaware that there is any connection.
In 1989, one study (Holly L. Howe et al., “Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk among Women under Age 40,” International Journal of Epidemiology 18, no. 2 (1989): 300-304) relied on New York state medical records reported that abortion increased a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer by 90%.

Then, in 1996, Dr. Joel Brind (J. Brind et al., “Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Epidemiology  Community Health 50 (1996): 481-496) combined the statistics from 23 different worldwide studies and found a 30% increase of breast cancer risk among women who chose abortion after already giving birth and a 50% increase of breast cancer risk among women who chose abortion before giving birth.

Another study (A.E. Laing et al., “Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience,” Journal of the National Medical Association 85, no. 12 (1993): 931-939) done on African-American women by researchers at Howard University showed that African-American women over 50 were almost five times more likely to get breast cancer if they had abortions compared with women who had not.
Fifty-eight out of 74 worldwide studies dating back to 1957 have shown that abortion increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer. Nineteen of the 24 studies done on women from the United States show an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion.
and
In 2014 the prestigious Medical Journal Cancer, Causes, Control published a huge systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 studies across China. They found that women who have at least one abortion, have a substantial 44% increased risk for getting breast cancer; compared to women who did not have an abortion.
Yet,
while the media is comfortable telling women not to take hormone replacement therapy because of the increased risk of breast cancer, it refuses to extend the same logic to abortion and its effects on estrogen levels in the body. If both result in increased estrogen levels without a subsequent maturation of breasts’ cells, then logically both can result in increased breast cancer risk."

The Power of Words to Deceive Humanity is Unmistakable.


As George Orwell said, If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought, and as he predicted, language is growing ever more deceitful every day.
Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard, the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: **“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” **(Is 5:20). -Evangelium Vitae “The Gospel of Life”, n. 58
Since the landmark decision issued in 1973--Roe v. Wade, the abortion industry has profited immensely from the approximate 1.4 million lives it takes every single year, of which more than half of those "choosing" abortion are younger than 25 years old. (52% to be exact). It accomplishes this by the subversive use of language, attempting to minimize the reality of abortion, using convenient doublespeak and replacing realistic terminology with euphemisms to assure and assuage the gullible public and to cloak its menacing presence in "liberty," "freedom" and "choice."

For instance, when a woman is pregnant and she wants the baby, she will say "I'm having a baby" no matter where she is in her pregnancy. However, when she doesn't want the baby, they call what they want to destroy “tissue.”

Abortion and Systematic Eugenics

Abortion is one of the most identified liberal causes of modern politics, right up there with equal rights for women, African Americans and other minorities. Yet, the founders of the abortion movement were racists who despised the poor, and who advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor and undesired races.

We most associate eugenics with the Nazis, but the term "eugenics" was coined in the mid 1800’s by Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, and became a very popular movement to create a society in which those who were considered “superior” would reproduce, while those who were deemed “inferior” would be strongly and sometimes forcibly encouraged not to reproduce. Margaret Sanger, founder of American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood, and member of the American Eugenics Society, was a strong suppoter of the eugenics movement. She even met with members of the Klan, and supported the use of sterilization to rid the planet of the “unfit.”

In Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” the Planned Parenthood founder links the goals of eugenics with her own goals of promoting birth control:
We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit….
In 1932, Sanger called for the poor and those she considered to be “morons and immoral” to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called better “moral conduct.”

In Sanger's book "Pivot of Civilization", she referred to the urban poor, and their increasing numbers, as "an ever widening margin of biological waste." (p.134.), and one of her mottos was "More [children] from the fit, less from the unfit." (p.104 & 179.) Margaret Sanger wasn't the only founder of the abortion movement with racist and eugenicist ideals. Co-founders and board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review, and co-founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference, and he advocated preserving the purity of "Yankee stock" through limiting the births of non-Whites.

It's significant that Planned Parenthood continues to support Sanger with no qualifiers.
But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg." (Faye Wattleton, president Planned Parenthood Federation of America, speech, February 5, 1979.)

One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems. Don't help the poor, just eliminate them.
Moreover, on par with the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, advances in biotechnology have made the possibility of "desinger babies" almost certain. The technology to choose socially advantageous  characteristics of your child using a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis already exists. As it is, pre-screening gives parents the choice to eliminate babies who fail to meet their standards or desires.  As it is, with the pressure to produce "superior" or "trophy" offspring, "helicopter" and "snow plow" parents try to transform their children into "achievement machines." In this kind of consumerist environment where survival of the fittest is fully embraced "mistakes" or "unfits" are and will continue to be aborted as the dehumanizing of socitiey continues to escalate. Iceland has nearly eliminated children with Down syndrome through systematic abortion, and in the U.S., it is estimated that the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.
James Hughes, a bioethicist and director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, says that the right to choose a child’s traits, cosmetic or not, should be part of a parent’s basic reproductive freedoms. Reproductive freedoms shouldn’t apply just to contraception and abortion rights, Hughes tells Big Think. “They also include the freedom to have children, and the kind of children we prefer.”
According to the history books, the Nazis lost the war, yet, eugenics is not only alive and well, it's accelerating beyond the Nazi's wildest dreams, and abortion is one of its most efficacious tools, or dare I say, weapons.

Abortion and Population Control

In what some tout as an overpopulated world, some advocate the right to an abortion in the cases of overpopulation, poverty, and financial burden, so isn't abortion justified for population control and to ease the financial and emotional burden a child may put on a family? On society?

First of all, overpopulation is a Myth It’s been calculated that the entire world population of 7 billion people could be placed in one gigantic city within the borders of the state of Texas. Our problem is not too many people and not enough resources, very simply put, it's a problem of waste, greed, government inefficiency, and distribution of resources.

Secondly, the European and U.S. birthrate are below replacement levels. Consider that zero population growth requires women must bear 2.1 children. Well, since 1972, there have only been two years where the fertility rate has reached at least 2.1 children. In fact, it's gotten so bad that several countries around the world, including Germany, Singapore, Japan, and Russia, even offer prospective parents incentives for having a baby.
Contrary to what you might hear, the most pressing problem in country after country today is not overpopulation, but underpopulation. In a time of fiscal austerity, the last thing that we need to be doing is spending more tax dollars to drive down the birth rate, reducing the amount of human capital available, and making us all poorer in the long run--Steven W. Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute (PRI)
If nothing else, legalized abortion has resulted in over 60 million fewer taxpayers in America to support the elderly.



Many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful, yet as you can see from the picture above, how early in its life the baby begins to acquire human characteristics. At the moment of conception, the embryo receives its own unique genetic code, distinct from that of its mother or father, from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new individual of the human species is formed and the innate sacredness of human life is evident, a life that can receive and react to personal care from others, a minimal mark of a human being. The evidence of that uniqueness supports the belief that ensoulment takes place at conception, and even if you are unsure that this is true, isn't it always better to err on the side of life? In other words, as long as the mother's life is not in danger, isn't it always better to err on the side of life?
All the DNA is there from conception and the heart begins to beat four weeks after conception!
Why does the mainstream media not only completely ignore the risks of abortion, but promote flawed studies to counteract the evidence of the abortion cancer link?
Why do the billion dollar Cancer organizations and societies supposedly devoted to stopping cancer not only  remain silent, but actively deny the abortion cancer link?
Why are we fed euphemistic language to encourage support of abortion?
Why do the politically-funded national medical organizations refuse to link abortion with cancer, and refuse to acknowledge the negative reprecussions of abortion, instead advocating abortion as "reproductive health"?
Why does the establishment and culture promote abortion and associate it so strongly with civil rights, with women's rights, with freedom and liberty?
Why is it that anyone who is pro-life, or anti-abortion is immediately designated misoginistic? Anti-women's rights?
Why do the abortion elites proliferate abortion clinics in low-income and minority neighborhoods?  Why are abortion patients disproportinately poor? Why do we celebrate the eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and why do we obscure her outspoken support for eugenics?
Why is Margaret Sanger a hero?
Why do we empower women to avoid having babies?
Why do we embrace the disregarding of human life?

The answers to these questions and many more require one to open his or her eyes and see the "profit before people" "efficiency before people" "power before people" wealth plundering dehumanizing establishment for what it is.  Because the more abortion is embedded in the laws and practices of society, the more insensitive and dehumanized we become because we have sanctioned the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members.
If we say that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?" -- Mother Teresa

HUSH



Links:

Abortion Facts

The State of Abortin in the United States January 2018

National Right to Life

Baby Killing Tourism and the Death of a Culture


The Ripple Effect of Abortion

Studies that Confirm the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Informed Concent or Institutionalized Eugenics? How the Medical Profession Encourages Abortion or Fetuses with Down Syndrome.


Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger Spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and Supported Eugenics. So Why Does the Organization Still Honor Her?

Margaret Sanger: More Eugenic Than Fellow Eugenicists


Cruelly Crushed by Abortion

Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States

Abortion - A Liberal Cause?

Researchers Uncover Hidden Risk Factor For Breast Cancer

The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors

The Overpopulation Myth and the New Morality

The Overpopulation Myth


Do laws work to stop abortion?

Canada Silent No More


Abortion: Issues and Controversies


Abortion

Read more...

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Digitally Distracted? Re-Synchronize Your Brain Hemispheres!

Do you find yourself doing stupid things? Forgetting things? Do you experience "phantom" phone vibrations, imagining your phone is calling you when it hasn't actually buzzed? Are you a "constant-checker": do you check your emails and social media accounts frequently, if not constantly?  Do you go into panic mode when you can't find your smartphone?  Do you find it difficult to look up from your phone screen, computer screen, iPad, etc.? Is your attention span/concentration level diminished? Do you feel generally fearful without knowing why?  In other words, are you digitally distracted, digitally dumbed-down and/or digitally distressed?  Are you digitally addicted?

If you can relate to any of the aforementioned questions, you are not alone.   An ever-increasing amount of research suggests that constant access to information is changing our brains in more ways than one, and not for the best. As our devices get smarter, our brains get lazier, or to be blunt, dumber, which I realize is over-simplifying, but some things are best if researched for oneself.  Once again, risking oversimplification, part of the problem is alignment; not only realigning technology with humanity’s best interests, but realigning or even more accurately,  resynchronizing our brain hemispheres.

Adrian Ward, a researcher at the University of Austin, has found that in many ways the internet is a lot like junk food. Just as snacks play on a deep biological need for sugar and fat, which tricks us into overeating these unhealthy foods, the internet messes with our cognitive functions to increase our dependence on it. Just being around a smartphone drives many to distraction, while heavy Googling has us increasingly outsourcing the task of remembering things to the cloud. That in turn means that we have to Google more and more things that we used to just have to commit to memory. Similarly, we may be taking more photos of things than ever, but we remember them less.

So, if you are a smart/cell/mobile phone user or even if you are not, because you are absorbing radiation from other people's wireless devices and the WIFI environments from which there is no escape, the following video will help because electrosmog is not only smogging up our brains it's switching our brains causing all of the symptoms previously mentioned. Even more importantly, a prolonged state of fear will also result in the switching of the brain which is the basis for mind control. This is one of the reasons why this technology is being forced upon us whether we like it or not. Don't get me wrong, most people love it! But for those of us who don't--a growing number-- because we see what it's doing, there is very little choice in the matter.

In other words, the technology we’re tethered to, not to mention, the WIFI environments we're immersed in, switch the brain.  Believe it or not, there is a little something you can do about it aside from crawling under a rock and wrapping yourself in tin-foil.  It's called  de-switiching, as it re-synchronizes the brain hemispheres.  Try it! You've got nothing to lose and perhaps, something to gain.



Links:

Here's What Your Smartphone Is Really Doing to Your Brain

Stress in America™ 2017: Technology and Social Media

Your Brain on Apps


This is what your smartphone is doing to your brain — and it isn't good

Your smartphone is hijacking your brain. Here's how to stop it.

This beautifully designed 'dumb phone' can only make calls and send texts — and it might be the key to curing our addiction to apps

Humane Tech
Technology is hijacking our minds and society.

Our world-class team of deeply concerned former tech insiders and CEOs intimately understands the culture, business incentives, design techniques, and organizational structures driving how technology hijacks our minds.

Since 2013, we’ve raised awareness of the problem within tech companies and for millions of people through broad media attention, convened top industry executives, and advised political leaders. Building on this start, we are advancing thoughtful solutions to change the system."

Read more...

Monday, April 16, 2018

Deadly Parasitic Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives

The opening of a canal in 1848 led to the birth of modern financial derivatives, and the early demise of some of the men who traded them according to Michael Durbin, author of the article, Death by Deriviatives, a damned interesting read.

Ever since 1848, when speculators--or “plungers” as they were then known--at the Chicago Board of Trade, where traders negotiated contracts for the future sale of wheat and other such goods, derivative traders have been very busy creating an intricate web of deceit. Derivative trades have grown exponentially. The scale of today’s unregulated,  off-balance sheet derivatives market, now measured in quadrillions of dollars, is too vast to comprehend as it defies anything on a human scale. It is larger than the entire global economy! How can that be? Derivative traders, essentially gamblers, can bet as much as they want. They can bet money they don’t have.

It's not only almost impossible to wrap our heads around such meaningless numbers; it is impossible to understand the sophisticated software that makes the derivative market the boundless and incomprehensible behemoth, or  mountain of "financial weapons of mass destruction" that it is.
That's because high frequency trading software executes thousands of bets per second on the future prices of everything and/or anything you can possibly think of.  Thousands of bets per second? The human mind cannot do thousands of anything per second. Not to mention, the overly complicated financial instruments--investments in investments, bets about bets--that are so complex that the "quants," the alchemists of Wall Street, themselves, the ones who designed them in the first place, can't explain or even begin to unravel.

Make no mistake, buying derivatives is not investing in anything. Not only do derivatives create nothing, they only serve to enrich-parasites- NON-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. So thank you, Alan Greenspan, for obeying your puppet-masters and legitimizing and actively promoting a huge black hole that, as far as I'm concerned, ONLY exists-black holes, that is- as an evil construct to transfer the real wealth of the people to our ruling elite.

Please, keep in mind the derivatives bubble was at the heart of the financial crash in the 2008 and the only thing that's changed since 2008 is that this huge bubble had grown exponentially.  97% of derivatives are held by the five largest, too big to fail commercial banks: JPMorgan, Bank America, Citibank, Wachovia, and HSBC. In other words, the powers that be not only refuse to put out the proverbial fire that burns beneath the financial industry that crashed our economy in 2008 they're fueling it for all its worth.

 The bottom line: it's a misleading thing to pretend that this amount of money actually exists in anything but the ever-shifting virtual world of  bits and bytes. However, the all-powerful and ever-mysterious they know the mind-blowing numbers they throw at us will...well, blow our minds and isn't that the point?

Ironically something which was created to supposedly manage risk has instead risked our ability to manage anything at all.

Read more...

Sunday, April 08, 2018

UK or US: Who is More Civilized?

The following info-graph/poll can be found at the Justice Gap, a magazine about law and justice. And the difference between the two

See which side of the pond of justice you stand.

Read more...

Saturday, April 07, 2018

Better Call Saul: Is Chuck Really Crazy?

I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields."  -- Dr Robert O. Becker, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine

Like fish in water, so immersed in the substance they're oblivious to its content, we are mostly oblivious to the electronically pulsed and poisoned air that surrounds us...that is, oblivious unless you're part of the 4% of us that is electro-hypersensitive (EHS).  Then you literally feel the artificially hyped-up electromagnetic fields (EMF) that permeate every part of our environment today.  Therefore, the most important question should be: “What is the effect of EMFs on human health?”  Well, good luck in getting truthful answers to that question and many others.

In our profit-before-people milieu--and in this case, wireless profits before people-- the true answers to this question and many others  are often corrupted, suppressed, sabotaged, subverted, etc., in the interests of profit power and almighty "progress".

In Breaking Bad spinoff, Better Call Saul (BCS), Chuck McGill, Saul/Jimmy Goldman/McGill's successful attorney brother, is portrayed as crazy, because he claims to be allergic to electricity, allergic to electromagnetic fields: electromagnetic hypersensitivity (ESH). In the presence of objects with an electric pulse, Chuck suffers from painful symptoms such as heart palpitations, brain fog, headaches, insomnia. Everyone--viewers and fictional characters, alike-- believe Chuck's disease is psychosomatic, in his head.  In other words, Chuck is mentally ill, not physically ill. Naive viewers, many of whom never heard of this disorder, now believe that EHS isn't real, that it's a phony disorder, which, I guess, is the point of Chuck's somewhat despicable, somewhat pitiful character (in relation to his lovable brother, anyway)

Prior to the explosion of  cell phone use, in 2003, the British television series, Judge John Deed (season three, episode one, entitled, "Health Hazard") profiled a case against a mobile phone company. In this episode, a woman with grade 4 astrocytoma sued the phone company for causing her brain tumor.
Judge John Deed: If this cell phone case were to go against the company, it could prove difficult for you.
Sir Ian Rochester: Not me personally.
Judge John Deed: I mean, it could open a floodgate of litigation. Like with asbestos and tobacco.
Sir Ian Rochester: We’d regard it as a great favor if you were to let it go back to Monty Everard in the Strand.
Judge John Deed: The claimant is very poorly and she lives locally. It seems unkind to ask  her to go all the way up to London.  On the other hand, being owed a favor by your lot might be a very good position to put myself in. 
Sir Ian Rochester: We would be grateful.
Judge John Deed: Is Monty Everard amenable to pressure?
Sir Ian Rochester: Ah. Does that mean you're not interested in what we might offer you?
Judge John Deed: Just no convinced you could deliver.
Sir Ian Rochester: You'd have my word.
Judge John Deed: Then talk to me about my elevation to the Appellate Bench.
Sir Ian Rochester: The Lord Chancellor regrets not having a mind such as yours in the Appeals Court.
Judge John Deed: And this ridiculously unfair PCC hearing against Mrs. Mill being dropped.
Sir Ian Rochester: The Lord Chancellor's department had very little influence there.They're all reasonable men on the Disciplinary Tribunal.
Judge John Dee: Well, the only question remaining, then, Ian, is can we achieve all this within the next 20 minutes?
Sir Ian Rochester: I hardly think that practicable.
Judge John Dee: Because that’s when I’m hearing the arguments for directions in the mobile phone case.
Sir Ian Rochester: We respect the integrity and independence of the judiciary, Sir John. But there comes a point when its very existence depends upon a workable relationship with the Executive. Never more so then in the case you’re about to hear.
Judge John Deed: See, with the license revenue from the mobile phone companies at stake, well, what it, $22 billion; this workable relationship might easily deteriorate into a master-servant relationship.  Couldn't it, Ian?
After this discussion between the Judge and Sir Ian, they were evacuated from the court house because of a bomb scare.  Coincidence?  Judge John Deed didn't think so. Later in the episode, the following barristers argued about the evidence:
Barrister George Channing:They have in their possession erased emails sent by my clients and to my clients. These they obtained in contravention of the laws of procedure.
(After more discussion about procedure)
Barrister Jo Mills: The documents contain a report showing a causal link between the radiation in the form of microwaves produced by cell phones and scrambled patterns of electrical activity in the brain. This leads to the stripping of proteins from cells which can in turn lead to tumors
(After more discussion about procedure)
Barrister Jo Mills: One-Way (fictional cell phone company) was alerted to the problems, the health problems, their product posed. Now, instead of accepting the advice of independent scientists, they chose to erase both the paper and electronic trails We now have a situation where there is a floodgate waiting to burst open with claims, and a company whose sole economic imperative is to keep the gates firmly closed.
Barrister George Channing: My clients are an internationally quoted company with a reputation both in employment and social equity which they guard jealously. There is no question of their attempting to foist a deceit on the public. To do so would be counterproductive to their business and run counter to their ethos. Profit does not equate with social irresponsibility as my learned friend seems to be suggesting
Judge John Deed: The question a jury might reasonably ask is why did the company erase the emails?.
(Barrister George Channing argues about limited cyberspace)
Barrister Jo Mills: It wouldn't be unreasonable until you consider the content of the emails and who they were from. Independent scientists who One-Way employed to test their phones. Correspondence from whom they were happy to retain until they began receiving negative findings. which not longer supported their contention that their phones were safe..
Then later in the season: Episode 4: "Economic Imperative"
Barrister Jo Mills: (addressing the jury) I’d like you to consider, if you will, what single item has come to represent freedom, opportunity, and above all, convenience. I think you’ll agree it’s the mobile phone. For Diana Hulsey, a busy post-operative cancer counselor, with her own life and that of her young son to organize, her mobile phone was essential. To her, it was both the symbol and the instrument of freedom. But it was to become a dangerous, obsessive shackle. This little instrument (holding up the mobile phone) would not only burn into the brain of this young mother, causing a massive, inoperable tumor, it would do so with the fore-knowledge of the manufacturers.

Barrister Jo Mills: Professor, are you the head of neurology at Oxford University?
Professor: You know I am
Barrister Jo Mills: Have you become the foremost expert on astrocytomas, the type of brain tumor Diana Hulsey has?
Professor: Let us say, I know a lot about such tumors.
Barrister Jo Mills: As such, can you tell us why this sort of tumor is on the increase, Professor?
Professor: In my opinion, it’s due to the frequent and persistent interruption of molecular activity in the brain by microwaves.
Barrister Jo Mills: Do we know what’s brought about this increase?
Professor: The increased use of television, microwave ovens, computers, the single biggest cause is mobile telephones used against the side of the head. The create heating. They interrupt the molecular connections. They heat, in particular, the cortical surface of the brain. Due to the angle which the phone is held at, most microwaves are directed to the parietal lobe
Judge: Is there any way to avoid this?
Professor: Yes. Don’t use mobile phones.
Barrister Jo Mills: How long does this sort of tumor that Ms. Hulsey has taken to develop?
Professor: The time is infinitely variable. These tests haven’t been done in humans, only animals. But brain tumors are the fastest growing cancers. Three to six months from the breakdown of cells to detection would be usual.
Barrister Jo Mills: Did you draw any conclusion to the cause of her tumor?
Professor: In my opinion, the persistent use of her mobile phone was the cause. ..exposed to pulsed 900 megahertz radiation for one hour a day for three months, mice show a significant doubling of B-cell lymphomas.
Barrister George Channing: Why doesn’t everyone who uses a mobile phone develop a tumor?
Professor: For the same reason that all people who smoke don’t develop lung cancer or develop breast cancer from pesticides.

Barrister Jo Mills: With your leave, My Lord, I’d like to call my next witness, Dr. Angus Whitten. Dr. Whitten is a partner in the research unit that did the initial safety tests on the ZP-9 phone. He’s here on a witness summons.
Barrister Jo Mills: Dr. Whitten, how long did your lab do research for One-Way?
Dr. Whitten: We were 15 months into our second two-year contract.
Barrister Jo Mills: Who terminated your services?
Dr. Whitten: the marketing director, Max Solveigh, on 12th of December, 2000.
Barrister Jo Mills: Do you know why your contract was terminated?
Dr. Whitten: The reason given was sloppy work.
Barrister Jo Mills: Had it been sloppy
Dr. Whitten: If they say so
Barrister Jo Mills: Was not one of the so-called mistakes your daring to show your client high levels of heat-shock proteins in the brain cells of mice? Mice that had been exposed to microwave levels as those from the ZP-9 phone?
Dr. Whitten: I don’t recall.
Barrister Jo Mills: Are the heat-shock proteins you discovered in test mice so called because of their response to considerable rise in temperature in the cells?
Dr. Whitten: Yes, of course.
Barrister Jo Mills: Ordinarily, a rise of at least 20 degrees centigrade is needed, but you were recording damage to the protein structure in DNA and RNA cells at much lower temperatures.
(Doctor claims he doesn’t recall so barrister refers him to evidence bundle)
Barrister Jo Mills: You discover that exposing cells to microwaves from the ZP-9 cell phone heated cells of the brain in such a way as to damage protein structure.
Dr. Whitten: That appeared to be a conclusion.
Judge John Deed: Have you since changed your mind?
Dr. Whitten: We were taken off the case before reaching further conclusions.
Barrister Jo Mills: Would you read, please, email 39A to the court?
Dr. Whitten: “Max, unless you drastically modify this one, you could be marketing a time-bomb.

Barrister Jo Mills: Dr. Goodfellow, were you until June of last year employed by Crighton Industries of Pennyslvania?
Dr. Goodfellow: Indeed I was.
Barrister Jo Mills: Can you tell us what you did?
Dr. Goodfellow: I was helping to develop microwave components for industry.
Barrister Jo Mills: Was that for the mobile phone industry?
Dr. Goodfellow: A huge part of it was. We were involved into trying to make ever smaller circuits for phones
Barrister Jo Mills: Why did you leave Crighton Industries?
Dr. Goodfellow: Essentially, I was unhappy with the way the products were being tested by so-called independent testers. They would fund research units at universities to the testing. The would even loan employees to the EPA in order to get the research passed. That person would then return to the company
Judge John Deed: You’re saying they cheat?
Dr. Goodfellow: It’s not called cheating. It’s the politics of science.
Barrister Jo Mills: Did you see problems in the results you were getting back?
Dr. Goodfellow: I did. The smaller the microprocessors, the more they heated the tissue…You pass microwaves through ever smaller gateways, they heat the brain rather like a magnifying glass concentrates the sun
Barrister Jo Mills: Did Crighton Industries know these concentrated microwaves were damaging tissue in the brain?
Dr. Goodfellow: I told them, again and again.
(after much cross-examination accusing him of being an imposter and a thief)
Dr. Goodfellow: That’s the dirty tricks they used because I threatened to expose them…You take these cheap shots. Well, let’s see you feel in five or ten years’ time for your part in this deceit when there are tens of thousands of people with brain tumors! (cancers do not form overnight. In almost all cases, cancerous tumors take many years to form and metastasize.)
However, unfortunately, TV shows like Judge John Deed, and perhaps even more so, The Wire--which allow its viewers a peak around the Oz-like curtain, partially exposing  the machinery or behind-the-scenes systemic corruption--are few and far between.

Mainstream media, mainstream academia, mainstream medical industry, not to mention institutions like the World Health Organization allege EHS is a nonexistent medical condition that allegedly does not present any health hazards, and in the mocking portrayal of EHS in BCS, the public is being conditioned to accept dangerous establishment disinformation once again, when, in fact, the reality is even darker than merely painful and irritating symptoms. The 4% of the population who suffer from symptoms caused by electromagnetic pulse are only the tip of a very iniquitously immense iceberg. In other words, just because you don't display symptoms of EHS doesn't mean you are not affected by our ever increasing electronically pulsed environment that harm our bodies and minds:  damages and potentially hijacks the nervous system,  the immune, nervous, cardiovascular and reproductive systems, and causes cancer.

Take South Florida Attorney, Jimmy Gonzales, who testified in front of the Pembroke Pines Fl Commission regarding the dangers of cell phone use. According to Gonzales, by using his cellphone for a period of 10 years for well over 30 minutes a day, cancer manifested in the exact locations where his cell phone was heavily used. When you learn his true story of how wireless microwave radiation took his life, how he lost his battle with three different cell phone induced cancers on November 27, 2014, Chuck McGill doesn’t sound so crazy anymore.



The the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called for a moratorium on smart meters (2012) and continues to veto them today. In a nutshell, they advised that smart meters should not be located in or next to the homes of those with cardiac or neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s, dementia, electrosensitivity, cancer and/or, wait for it...children!
“Wireless RF radiation … effects accumulate over time which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure to ‘smart meters’. The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects … blood/brain barrier damage, and increased risks of certain types of cancers from RF and ELF levels similar to those emitted by ‘smart meters’. Children are placed at particular risk.”
More and more research is starting to show potential health risks from mobile and cordless phones, WiFi and other electromagnetic fields, yet the institutions like World Health Organization, Cancer Research UK, and the NHS all say that there is no good evidence that the sort of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) given off by phones and Wi-Fi routers is in any way dangerous..

Some would say this is the largest human biological experiment in the history of civilization. However, "experiment" is defined as "an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown." In the case of cell phones, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the results were known long before the act or operation even began.

Links:

Florida Attorney Dies From 3 Different Cell Phone Induced Cancers

A Charity Could Face Investigation Over Its Adverts That Claim W-iFi And Mobile Phones Make People Ill

New Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Heart and Brain Tumors


Long-term Cell Phone Use Linked to Brain Tumor Risk

Cancer: Strong Signal for Cell Phone Effects


Risk for Glioma Triples With Long-Term Cell Phone Use


The Precautionary Principle in the Information Society Effects of Pervasive Computing on Health and Environment
(Swiss Original)

Research Institute for Applied Bioenergetics

44 Reasons To Believe Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer

Electric Sense

Read more...

Friday, March 30, 2018

When Sheltering Possesions Trumps Sheltering People

With roughly 2.311 billion square feet of rent-able space for things, junk, stuff, possessions, etc., in the United States--a $38 billion industry!--America is a demonstrably materialistic society and becoming more materialistic every single day. It's  to the point where things, junk, stuff, possessions matter more than human beings....far more than people, it seems, considering the increasing number of homeless people across America,  the wealthiest nation on earth! 

...the United States boasts more than 50,000 facilities and roughly 2.311 billion square feet of rentable space. In other words, the volume of self-storage units in the country could fill the Hoover Dam with old clothing, skis, and keepsakes more than 26 times.”
This "need" for storage doesn't stem from frugal "depression babies" who feel the need to save everything just in case, because  the square footage of American homes has essentially doubled since the children of the Depression era started buying houses. No, the need for storage has increased right along with the  cache in our homes, which implies that, for the most part, things, junk, stuff, possessions have taken on an importance that just isn't there.  Not to say that  there are not legitimate reasons to rent storage for belongings: moving; changing circumstances; incarceration; future business endeavors, and ironically, homelessness ...but, certainly not  $38 billion worth! 

Take Orange County, California, one of the wealthiest counties in the United States.  It is home to four of the industry’s top 20 storage firms, in addition to the California Self Storage Association, the industry trade group, which is based in Irvine. Ironically, with its immense capacity to house junk, its capacity to house people is not so great. The 2017 federally mandated snapshot, taken every two years in Orange County, recorded 4,792 homeless people, more than half living without shelter. That's an 8% increase since 2015 because as one homeless man, Patrick Hogan, in Orange County said after losing his job after the 2008 financial crash ten years ago, "$10 an hour jobs doesn't cut it" in one of the most expensive corners of the nation.
My experience has taught me one thing, the most discriminated group of people, at least in America, are the poor." -- Patrick Hogan
Today, Orange County is making headlines as it  faces bitter backlash over homeless relocation plans  as it is now under federal pressure to address what homeless advocates in court filings have called a humanitarian crisis.  According to the Los Angeles Times, affluent Orange County "faces special challenges because it has a relatively sparse infrastructure of services and support for homeless people." Of course, Ocean County is not unique. There is a relatively sparse infrastructure of services and support for homeless people all over America.
A lot of people in America don't realize they might be two checks, three checks, four checks away from being homeless," -- Thomas Butler Jr., who stays in a carefully organized tent near a freeway ramp in downtown Los Angeles.
And you can't trust the official homeless rate in America.  To be sure, the reported rate is far lower than the actuality. The point-in-time (PIT) homeless counts often occur on a single night in January and are thus subject to significant sampling variability.  The accuracy of the count itself depends on   the number of volunteers, the weather, the count methodologies, and countless other variables that contribute to its inaccuracy.    In other words, the homeless population is hugely under-represented.

 For instance, Compass Family Services in San Francisco gathered their own data and discovered more than 35 times the number cited in the city’s report. 
After a count of people on the streets and in shelters, conducted one night in January, and a follow-up survey, the city report found just nine families, or a total of 26 individuals in families who are homeless. Moreover, 87 percent of them live in some sort of shelter.

But between January and May, Compass recorded 319 homeless families — more than 35 times the number cited in the city’s report. And even that, Keller suggested, might be low.
According to a new study. the number of people living on the streets in San Diego County may be 50 percent higher than thought.

The bottom line is don't count on the PIT for accurate statistics on the homeless population, as it always under-counts, under-represents, and/or underestimates by a significant percentage.  The reason is, of course, obvious: the less homeless they count, the less money and resources they have to fork out.   

Links:

Self-storage: How warehouses for personal junk became a $38 billion industry

Self-storage business owners on alert for people living in units

Living in a Storage Unit: Alexander Ruggie’s Story

Self-storage industry keeps on keeping

Orange County At A Loss Over What To Do With People It Evicted From Homeless Encampment

Protests Push O.C. to Kill Its First Real Plan to Help the Homeless


America's Homeless Population Rises for First Time in Years


Dynamics of Homelessness in Urban America

Read more...

Thursday, March 29, 2018

It Makes Perfect Sense.

I've read about, posted about, watched about, listened about big brother, big data, big tech, big "you-name-it", knowing full well that every keystroke I've every keyed; every website I've ever visited; every search I've ever searched; every Youtube I've ever watched; every post I've ever posted; every "like" I've ever liked; every download I've ever downloaded, etc., were and still are most certainly being stored, recorded, and/or deposited somewhere out there in the great big beyond, but it wasn't until I came across this post in Threadreaderapp.com-- and apparently this understates the problem considerably because what you get when you request your data, even if it's comparatively nothing because you'd already disabled all that, is still only a fraction of the total data they have for you -- that it really hit me, and kind of, sort of blew my mind., yet, like I said, of course, this didn't surprise me at all if that makes any sense. There's a kind of disconnect between what I know and what I know if that makes any sense. I mean, I know things in my head in an abstract intellectual sense that I don't really know in my heart if that makes any sense.

No, it doesn't make any sense?

Well, for example,  I might know lots about evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plans formulated in secret by two or more persons, yet when I see real life evidence of these, dare I say, conspiracies, I'm startled, as in my heart beats faster, my eyes get larger, my blood pressure rises, while at the same time, I'm  telling myself, "no surprise here," and to the very few people I have tried to convince of these, dare I say, conspiracies, whether they're there or not, I say, "I told you so."

I know this sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic, and maybe it is, but I need an outlet.  I need to pretend someone's paying attention to me, pretend that's someone is taking me seriously,  pretend that someone's reading this and just hope it's not anyone I know, or that if they do know me that they don't find out it's me blogging all of this stuff.  Because, yes, I'm a coward.

 However, now it's very clear to me that whether or not anyone's reading this stuff now, there is no doubt that everything I've ever posted about, read about, watched about, listened about, etc, is all out there for anyone to pull up in a heartbeat, connect it to me and...and that's kind of scary because those certain someones--multi-millionaire/billionaire class of data owners--certainly won't like what I've posted about, read about, listened about, watched about, etc...in other words, they won't like what I thought about.

But I'm just a nobody.  Why in the world would they care what I think?  That's what I've told myself all along so I kept on posting, reading, watching, listening, downloading....

More than ever before, I hope I'm being paranoid because surely, I'm a needle in a haystack or more aptly, a needle in a mountain of needles.  Surely, I'm a winning half-a billion-dollar lottery ticket,  a grain of sand on a beach, a book at the Library of Congress, a leaf in a forest, a blade of grass in a meadow...well, you get the picture.  

See how that works?  My need to outlet far exceeds my need to shut the hell up.

So we are in a really bad state of affairs right now, in my opinion. It is eroding the core foundation of how people behave by and between each other. And I don’t have a good solution. My solution is I just don’t use these tools anymore. I haven’t for years. -Chamath Palihapitiya, former Vice President of user growth @Facebook.

Links:

How Facebook Figures Out Everyone You've Ever Met

The Social Ties that Unbind


GDPR Reports

On May 25th, 2018, the new EU rules called General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) goes into effect. It applies to companies who have users that are EU citizens, residents or visitors. The fine to companies that violate the rules can be 20 million euro or up to 4% of global revenue. The new rules requires opt-in for data collection and deletion of data when users withdraw their consent. It also lets a user request user data from a company that has data on a user, the company has to send it within a month for free.

GDPR Subject Access Requests

Everybody (in the EU) vs. Facebook

Framasoft runs various open source services

Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacy


TrackMeNot



Read more...

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Dollars for Docs

Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are now required by law to release details of their payments to a variety of doctors and U.S. teaching hospitals for promotional talks, research and consulting, among other categories. Use this tool [link below] to search for general payments (excluding research and ownership interests) made from August 2013 to December 2015.


The following link includes payments from 2013 to 2015

Dollars for Docs

The following link includes payments made through 2016:

Open Payments Data

Other Links:

About the Dollars for Docs Data
ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs database contains payments to doctors and teaching hospitals from pharmaceutical and medical device companies made between August 2013 and December 2015. The disclosures were required under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

The database includes “general payments” — 15 categories including promotional speaking, consulting, meals, travel and royalties. It does not include research payments nor does it include physicians’ ownership stakes in companies. Research payments will be included in Dollars for Docs in the future. Detailed descriptions of the payments can be found here.

The doctors included in our tool include medical doctors (MD), dentists, osteopaths (DO), optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors. The tool does not include nurse practitioners and physician assistants (because companies are not required to report payments to them.) The tool also allows you to search teaching hospitals.

We’ve taken the payment reports, which were released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and compiled them into a single, comprehensive database that allows patients to search for their physician and receive a listing of all payments matching that name. We provide rankings for each doctor to allow comparisons to peers in the same specialty and state.

Our analysis found that most doctors take payments, and that doctors who receive payments are, on average, more likely to prescribe a higher percentage of brand-name drugs. For each physician in Dollars for Docs, we document the number of payments he or she received, the total of those payments, and the number of different companies that paid him or her.

The bulk of each physician’s page is taken up by information on each payment he or she received, the company making the payment, the date of the payment, the names of the drugs and medical devices associated with the payment, and whether the payment was made to a third party entity. Sometimes, payments are not made directly to doctors but instead are provided to their universities, medical practices or research centers. We also note whether a doctor has disputed the payment.

By default, a physician’s page shows aggregate amounts received by year and details of payments in the most recent year reported. Users can display other years by using the dropdown at the top of each doctor page. Company and product pages display aggregate totals across all payment years (2013 to 2015).

Sometimes, more than one company makes payments related to a single drug or device. On each product page, we note the number of companies making payments, as well as the names of those companies. Each payment can also be attributed to more than one product, so we note the percentage of payments that relate only to that product (meaning no other products were mentioned in the payment).
Use the Data

Get the data that powers this investigation. A digital download is available for purchase in the Data Store.

ProPublica has published Dollars for Docs since 2010, at first using payment reports that certain companies were required to publish as part of legal settlements with the federal government. Often, these settlements were related to whistleblower lawsuits alleging improper marketing or kickbacks by the company. The now-archived version of our database includes $4 billion in payments from 17 companies, from 2009 to 2013. An archive of those payments is still available at projects.propublica.org/d4d-archive.

We have made some effort to normalize the data and eliminate duplicates, but data is primarily as it has been reported by the companies to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

About Open Payments
Open Payments is a national transparency program that collects and publishes information about financial relationships between the health care industry (i.e. drug and device companies) and providers (i.e. physicians and teaching hospitals). These relationships may involve payments to providers for things such as research, meals, travel, gifts, or speaking fees. One of the ways that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides data to the public is through this search tool, which allows the public to search for physicians and teaching hospitals receiving payments, as well as companies that have made payments.

The purpose of the program is to provide the public with a more transparent healthcare system. All information available on the Open Payments database is open to personal interpretation and if there are questions about the data, healthcare consumers should speak directly to the healthcare provider for a better understanding. More information about the program can be found on the CMS Open Payments website.

There you can get an overview of the data that is collected and displayed and learn more about what is included in the data. For other Open Payments related questions, contact the Open Payments team at openpayments@cms.hhs.gov.

Read more...

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Liberty and Justice for All?

With more than two million people behind bars, the United States has the world's largest prison population, a 500% increase over the last 40 years.  Changes in law and policy, not changes in crime rates, explain most of this increase. In fact, crime rates have decreased. The U.S. also has the second-highest rate of incarceration and that doesn't include the more than six million, or almost 3% of the voting population, who are disenfranchised due to past convictions, felony disenfranchisement.    Nor does it include over 23 million widely stigmatized people, the "vast underground army of released felons — adult men and women convicted of serious criminal offenses for which they have been punished with prison time or probation, and who now form part of the general population.

Click image to enlarge


Links:

Prison Policy Initiative


The Sentencing Project


Lawsuit reveals how tech companies profit off the prison-industrial complex

The end of American prison visits: jails end face-to-face contact – and families suffer

Read more...

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Are We Raising Our Children to Be Slaves?

You can’t make it without an education!" "Go to college!" "Graduate from high school, go to college, get a good job." How many of us heard these mantras while growing up? How many of us have said these mantras to our children? Other people's children? Despite the fact that getting a  college degree today paves the road to debt slavery  where the chains and fetters are invisible and the wealthy, powerful owners, anonymous.

Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are glad of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages." -- Chas. Hazzard, The Hazzard Circular, 1862
As we start 2018, student loan debt is close to $1.5 trillion, where an estimated 44.2 million Americans have one or more student loans on file.  Student loan debt surpasses total U.S. credit card debt by approximately $659 billion. It is the second largest financial asset on the federal government's balance sheet, making up 51.8% of total assets. Only mortgage debt is higher. Not to mention, according to the Federal Reserve is the only form of consumer debt that continued to grow in the wake of the Great Recession.

Parents and students have little understanding of how this loan program operates.   They don't understand that there is an entire "ecosystem feeding on federal student loans."
The companies making those calls are just one part of an ecosystem feeding on federal student loans. There are also debt servicers, refinance lenders, firms that help former students stay out of default and for-profit schools that make money as borrowers try to repay more than $1.2 trillion in government-backed education debt.
They don't understand that the cost of living is rising faster than income that make it increasingly difficult for people to keep up with the everyday expenses of life. They don't understand that a four-year degree is no longer the golden ticket to full time job with benefits and job security. They don't understand that the "four-year" degree actually takes five, six or even more years, which, of course, costs even more money.

When will we catch up with reality?  What was true 40 years ago doesn't make it true today.  What was true for baby boomers is not true for millennials and/or generations x,y,z, etc. 
It’s not unusual for me to talk to a couple that between them has $200,000 in student loan debt now. It’s not unusual at all. I talk to them almost every day on this show. And they’re 32 years old, they’ve been out of school for four, five or six years and they’re just treading water. They’re stuck because no one in their life—no supposed high school counselor, no parent, no financial-aid officer—smack you silly. Financial aid is $200,000 in student loan debt. Give me a break. Nobody looked at you and said, “You know, when you bring that baby home from the hospital, there’s a possibility you may want to use your education to raise your children.” -- Dave Ramsey


Links:

Student Debt Crisis

Hazard Chronicle Documentary Evidence

Student Debt Relief

Student Debt Slavery: Bankrolling Financiers on the Backs of the Young

Narrow bankruptcy laws make it nearly impossible to discharge student debt: From the The Cost of Opportunity: A series chronicling the student loan debt crisis in Wisconsin series


Rising Tuition Costs and the History of Student Loans


Read more...
Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP