You are generally left with the impression that children vaccination programs are purely for the well being of our children. If history shows us anything, government institutions rarely do things for the good of the people. Here is evidence that schools have financial incentives to have vaccinated children in the schools. Giving such incentives shows the government and schools totally disregarding the parents' choices for a their children. We all know lobbyists for big pharma write bills that would help their agendas, so we have to question the origins for such incentives being made law. This law was passed back in 2004. How many other states have similar laws?
Exposed: Illinois law financially penalizes public schools when vaccination rates drop below 90 percent
Ethan A. Huff Natural News
(NaturalNews) One of the primary reasons for the big push among public school districts across the country to vaccinate as many students as possible appears to have a lot to do with maintaining their eligibility to receive local and state funding, at least in the state of Illinois.
Section 27-8.1.7 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) Health examinations and immunizations law explains that if a school vaccination rate falls below 90 percent, state aid payments to that school are automatically cut by 10 percent until the school comes into “compliance” (http://www.isbe.state.il.us/account…).
According to the current Illinois General State Aid fiscal schedule, Illinois schools receive $6,119 per student from the state. Ten percent of this amount equates to roughly $612. So if a school has 2,000 students, for instance, and it maintains at least a 90 percent vaccination rate, it will receive $12,238,000 from the state per year. But if the vaccination rate falls below 90 percent at the same school, a whopping $1,223,800 will be shaved off this amount (http://nced.info/schoolfinance/file…).
Suddenly it all becomes clear why school administrators are aggressively pushing parents to have their children receive the full vaccination schedule. If students do not comply, the administrators own salaries are on the line! These vaccine quotas also explain why some school districts are actually having to resort to bribary campaigns like giving away free iPods to students who get their shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/032330_v…).
It all appears to be nothing more than a sick “pay-for-play” system where state officials pressure school administrators to comply with the vaccine agenda or else face budget cuts. And they do this because federal officials are pressing them to push the vaccine agenda or else lose funding. In other words, from the top down, Big Pharma has rigged an entire system that forces government workers to push the vaccine agenda or else face a loss of funding — and all this funding, of course, ultimately comes directly from taxpayers.
Illinois law currently allows for students to opt-out of school vaccination requirements on both medical and religious grounds (http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/st…).
But if the vaccination rate ever consistently falls below the 90 percent threshold on a widespread scale, you can expect to see a lot more forced vaccination attempts fueled by lies and fear-mongering tactics.
Read More : Naturalnews
While asking the question and white washing the answer at the same time, the article asks if there is a problem with a relatively small group of companies having power over a majority of the global economy. When groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and meetings such as the Bilderberg Group have members from a majority of these top companies planning together in secret there is no reason not to be suspicious of the aims and goals of such power. These companies are making more and more money, or getting government bailouts while the rest of us are left to support ourselves. Obviously the system is skewed for these few over us, the many.
Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.
The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.
The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).
"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."
Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.
The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.
The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.
Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."
"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.
Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.
Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Bar-Yam says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.
One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.
Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."
So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.
The top 50 of the 147 superconnected companies
1. Barclays plc2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
26. Lloyds TSB Group plc
27. Invesco plc
28. Allianz SE 29. TIAA
30. Old Mutual Public Limited Company
31. Aviva plc
32. Schroders plc
33. Dodge & Cox
34. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc*
35. Sun Life Financial Inc
36. Standard Life plc
37. CNCE
38. Nomura Holdings Inc
39. The Depository Trust Company
40. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
41. ING Groep NV
42. Brandes Investment Partners LP
43. Unicredito Italiano SPA
44. Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan
45. Vereniging Aegon
46. BNP Paribas
47. Affiliated Managers Group Inc
48. Resona Holdings Inc
49. Capital Group International Inc
50. China Petrochemical Group Company
* Lehman still existed in the 2007 dataset used
Graphic: The 1318 transnational corporations that form the core of the economy
(Data: PLoS One)
This is truly a time bomb that no one is moving to diffuse. The derivative issue is what was one of the key triggers to the economic problems that came to a head in 2008. With derivatives being allowed to amount to almost 10 times the world's estimated GDP, and collected in so few hands you can see nothing has been done to advert another crisis. If one of these banks fails there is not enough money in the world to fix it, and that is the problem. The only thing that has been done is to feed the banks money so they can continue the same practices which brought us to this point. It is only a matter of time.....
Derivatives: The $600 Trillion Time Bomb That's Set to Explode
Do you want to know the real reason banks aren't lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?
It's because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn't evening out. To the contrary, it's growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States. In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.
The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).
Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world's top policymakers would have reined these things in by now - but they haven't.
Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.
Think I'm exaggerating?
The notional value of the world's derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position's assets. This distinction is necessary because when you're talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.
The world's gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble.
Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody even knows if the $600 trillion figure is accurate, because specialized derivatives vehicles like the credit default swaps that are now roiling Europe remain largely unregulated and unaccounted for.
Tick...Tick...Tick
To be fair, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated the net notional value of uncollateralized derivatives risks is between $2 trillion and $8 trillion, which is still a staggering amount of money and well beyond the billions being talked about in Europe.Imagine the fallout from a $600 trillion explosion if several banks went down at once. It would eclipse the collapse of Lehman Brothers in no uncertain terms.
A governmental default would panic already anxious investors, causing a run on several major European banks in an effort to recover their deposits. That would, in turn, cause several banks to literally run out of money and declare bankruptcy.
Short-term borrowing costs would skyrocket and liquidity would evaporate. That would cause a ricochet across the Atlantic as the institutions themselves then panic and try to recover their own capital by withdrawing liquidity by any means possible.
And that's why banks are hoarding cash instead of lending it.
The major banks know there is no way they can collateralize the potential daisy chain failure that Greece represents. So they're doing everything they can to stockpile cash and keep their trading under wraps and away from public scrutiny.
What really scares me, though, is that the banks
think this is an acceptable risk because the odds of a default are allegedly smaller than one in 10,000.
But haven't we heard that before?
Although American banks have limited their exposure to Greece, they have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks and European governments that may not be capable of paying them back.
According to the Bank of International Settlements, U.S. banks have loaned only $60.5 billion to banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy - the countries most at risk of default. But they've lent $275.8 billion to French and German banks.
And undoubtedly bet trillions on the same debt.
There are three key takeaways here:
- There is not enough capital on hand to cover the possible losses associated with the default of a single counterparty - JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), BNP Paribas SA (PINK: BNPQY) or the National Bank of Greece (NYSE ADR: NBG) for example - let alone multiple failures.
- That means banks with large derivatives exposure have to risk even more money to generate the incremental returns needed to cover the bets they've already made.
- And the fact that Wall Street believes it has the risks under control practically guarantees that it doesn't.
Here is another example of how the Occupy movement is being co-opted. The people on the streets are upset and finally pointing their fingers at the root of the problem, the banks. As this is a positive movement in the peoples' hearts, the evidence of banker and government agents are all over this movement are growing. These people will smoother the movement with consensus building exercises which mutes the voice of the majority while the media only goes to this co-opting minority(due to their banking/government sponsorship, contacts, and status behind the scenes) for the messages for the news and public. You can see the example of this in previous articles that show the slow unusual process these movements have adopted to communicate to one another. As the average and honest protestor is trying to take part in these weird proceedings the co-opt agents are communicating to the media, stealing the thunder of the true message. End the power of Wall Street, End the Federal Reserve!!
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
A US government-backed pioneer of the so-called “Arab Spring” in Egypt that eventually resulted in a military dictatorship is now “advising” the Occupy Wall Street protesters in both Washington DC and New York, in another sign that the movement has been subverted by the establishment.
US State Department-funded activist Ahmed Maher “is now giving advice to a new group of protesters: the Occupy Wall Street movement,” reports Wired News.
Maher has been “corresponding for weeks” with OWS activists, offering them “practical advice from a successful Egyptian revolutionary,” according to the report.
If Wired defines replacing a 30 year tyrant with a military dictatorship under which Egyptians enjoy even less freedoms as a “successful” revolution then Maher’s involvement in the ‘Occupy’ movement should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.
As Egyptian activist Kareem Amer writes, “Egypt’s Arab Spring has led not to democracy—but to another cruel dictatorship,” under which “The military is killing minorities and imprisoning dissidents.”
Of course, you won’t have heard that little fact very often on mainstream television networks because the “Arab Spring” was advertised as an organic mass uprising. The reality that it was largely a geopolitical maneuver controlled by the United States, Britain and Israel aimed at overthrowing both rogue states and tyrants who had outlived their usefulness to the globalists doesn’t fit with the fairytale.
Case in point – Ahmed Maher – one of the leading revolutionaries in Egypt and now using his expertise to “advise” the OWS demonstrators, is a pawn for the US State Department.
“This of course isn’t Maher’s first trip to the United States,” writes Tony Cartalucci. “Years before the Egyptian revolution, the United States was quietly preparing a global army of youth cannon fodder to fuel region wide conflagrations throughout the world, both politically and literally. Maher’s April 6 organization had been in New York City for the US State Department’s first “Alliance for Youth Movements Summit” in 2008. His group then traveled to Serbia to train under the US-funded “CANVAS” organization before returning to Egypt in 2010 with US International Crisis Group (ICG) operative Mohamed ElBaradei to spend the next year building up for the “Arab Spring.”
As part of his role in leading the revolt against Mubarak, Maher fraternized with the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros through their involvement in the ICG.
Maher is the perfect candidate to firm up the ‘Occupy’ movement’s uncertain demands. He soon fell out of favor with many of his fellow activists in Egypt after they described him as acting like a “dictator” and preventing anyone else from exercising influence within the ‘April 6′ organization.Given the fact that Maher is a US State Department-funded agitator who has been used to subvert and control protest movements in the middle east, his involvement in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations should set alarm bells ringing.
This represents another clear signal that the establishment is intent on ensuring that the OWS movement is subverted, and that the protesters are led astray and influenced into advocating false solutions while focusing their rage against the wrong targets.
Let’s just hope that we don’t see a repeat of the outcome of the “revolution” in Egypt – tanks on the streets and a military dictatorship worse than anything which preceded it.
Here is George Bernard Shaw explaining one of the major ideas of socialism. Socialism is all about the control of the classes. Lesson to be learned, if the government is given more power to regulate the needs of society, socialism, will inevitably revert to the essential ideas that birthed the idea in the first place. As George Bernard Shaw showed here, there will be a need for the lower classes to justify their existence during socialism's drive for the experts to perfect society.
watch the whole film which the exert above is taken from, The Soviet Story:
Communist Crimes: The Soviet Story from No Communism on Vimeo.
For some time now people have been pointing out the odd amount of unoccupied fully developed cities in China. Some people speculate that they are spending money to fuel the domestic economy of China. Some people believe these are for westerners to populate in the future. These cities could be used as refuge for western VIPs once countries such as the US are totally devastated or no longer viable for them due to economic collapse and civil unrest.
Smart meters used by power companies are going in all over the country. Aside from the issue of the smart meters being able to monitor what your using your electricity to power instead of just how much you are using. This alone brings up the issues of "Big Brother" watching your electricity consumption in order to possible ration electricity in the future. These smart meters use multiple wireless data transfer techniques to relay this data to the power company. In the process of relay process all the meters in a neighborhood relay this data to each other. This may have implications of issues with data security, but the bigger issue is in order to constantly network all the meters together there is a massive amount of microwave radiation coming from these meters. If you are worried about cell phone radiation and the issues of electrical pollution on the body, you need to see how much energy is being pumped through you and your home:
If you want to know more details about the smart meter technology watch this and imagine the future "utopia" that will come:
Justice served when an IMF Senior Representative to Turkey has eggs thrown at him. Now if only this form of protest would spread as quickly as the occupy protests!
Memories:
Food Rights, Gene Rights and Monsanto: ‘No Food Rights’ Judge quits to work for Monsanto law firm
As courts and bureaucrats continue to assert that citizens have no fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice, we find Monsanto lurking nearby. The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.
Former judge Patrick J. Fiedler now works for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.
GTL had sued several biotechnology firms, a medical lab and a crime lab that had used its patented methods for analyzing DNA sequences. Though a federal case, the district court which heard the matter, sits in Dane County, Wisconsin, where Fiedler coincidentally served as a state judge.
In that case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) “upheld Genetic Technologies Ltd.’s patent for noncoding DNA technologies, giving more firepower to the Australian company’s patent infringement suit against Monsanto Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and a slew of rival laboratories,” reports Law360.
In another link, Myriad Genetics, which holds the exclusive U.S. patent on human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, granted the license to GTL in 2002. These human genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
In 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) sued the PTO, Myriad Genetics, and principals at the University of Utah Research Foundation, charging that patents on genes are unconstitutional and invalid. The suit also charges that such patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women’s options regarding their medical care.
In an absurd ruling this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the patent on these human genes, even though the DNA sequence occurs in nature. The court decided that simply because researchers had been able to extract it, the firm owns it. Of course, under this thinking, all of nature can be patented if human technology allows extraction.
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents,” commented ACLU.
The US ruling gives Myriad monopolistic control over these human genes, and over diagnostic testing for that DNA sequence. The case is now headed to the US Supreme Court.
The Myriad patent was also challenged in Australia and at the European Patent Office. In 2009, the EPO granted a highly restricted BRCA1 patent.
Australia’s case will be heard in February 2012. Dr Luigi Palombi, who supports the pending Patent Amendment Bill, believes the US decision “is irrational, contrary to scientific fact and little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the fear mongering of the American biotechnology industry. It claims that without gene patents it will not have any incentive to undertake necessary research. Of course, this is a lie.”
Part of the problem, Palombi explains, is that much of the research that allowed Myriad to develop its breast cancer test was publicly funded. Going further:
“The decision turns patent law on its head because it means that the prize is given for the discovery not for the invention (a new, tangible and practical use of the discovery).
“The second problem is, Myriad’s scientists discovered and linked genetic mutations to breast and ovarian cancers, but that’s a long way off an invention. If there was any invention by Myriad (assuming it was also novel and involved an inventive step), it was in the development of a diagnostic test.”
Of note, in a dissenting opinion, Judge William C. Bryson wrote that the Dept. of Justice filed an amicus brief asserting that Myriad’s gene claims are not patent-eligible, thus undermining the PTO’s position. Bryson wrote:
“… the Department of Justice speaks for the Executive Branch, and the PTO is part of the Executive Branch, so it is fair to assume that the Executive Branch has modified its position from the one taken by the PTO in its 2001 guidelines…”
Given the DOJ’s protection of Monsanto interests, however, it is likely that its opposition to Myriad’s patents may have more to do with stifling competition than protecting nature from theft by biotech firms. After DOJ attorney Elena Kagen moved to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled in Monsanto’s favor allowing the planting of genetically modified alfalfa.
Earlier this year, Obama pressured the USDA to remove the buffer zone requirement for GM alfalfa, further ensuring genetic contamination of natural alfalfa. That decision ensures the destruction of the organic meat and dairy industries in the U.S. which rely on natural alfalfa feed. It will also strengthen biotech’s monopoly control over our food.
Obama has stacked his administration with Monsanto employees and biotech proponents, including Michael Taylor as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, Islam Siddiqui as Ag Trade Representative, and Elena Kagen on the Supreme Court.
In a related matter, PubPat also filed suit this year against Monsanto over the patenting of genetically modified seeds which contaminate natural crops. “As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,’” notes the complaint, citing studies showing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.
That any official would approve gene patents is bad enough – discovering nature is not inventing it. But in the Wisconsin case, Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:
“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
Cannot enter into private contracts “outside the scope of the State’s police power.”
Ruling against raw milk forces consumers to drink genetically modified, antibiotic-laden milk from cows fed an unnatural diet of pesticide-loaded feed. No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler. His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.
This case begs for competent legal counsel who can get the outrageous decision overturned.
Contributors
- Ryan
- You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi
What man is a man who does not make the world better?
