U.S. black site and British government under fire after viral article names Diego Garcia as MH370′s final destination

April 16, 2014 

http://intellihub.com/u-s-black-site-british-government-fire-viral-article-names-diego-garcia-mh370s-final-destination/

In a shocking twist, Diego Garcia is becoming the center of attention as the MH370 cover-up falls apart

By Shepard Ambellas

INDIAN OCEAN (INTELLIHUB) — The U.S. military black site Diego Garcia, located in the Indian Ocean, has been all over the press recently following the release of the Mar. 31 Intellihub News article titled Freelance Journalist: Hijacked flight 370 passenger sent photo from hidden iPhone tracing back to secret U.S. military base which went ultra-viral on the Internet. In fact, the article even prompted a response from the White House as U.S. Press Secretary Jay Carney denied any involvement with the matter after a journalist attending a White House press meeting raised the question.
John Pike, a military analyst, once described Diego Garcia as “the most important facility the U.S. has”. Pike also stated that the military’s goal is to run the planet from the island by 2015.
Now, according to RT, a human rights group is pressing Britain to “come clean” about their involvement with the black site which houses a rendition facility, lending credibility to the missing flight 370 abduction theory believed by many, including Sara Bajc, girlfriend of passenger Phillip Wood an IBM executive who was aboard MH370.
RT reported:
“We need to know immediately whether ministers misled parliament over CIA torture on British soil,” Cori Crider, strategic director at Reprieve, a legal action charity group, said in a letter to UK Foreign Secretary William Hague.
“If the CIA operated a black site on Diego Garcia, then a string of official statements, from both this and the last government, were totally false,” Crider said.
The letter followed a report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee that Britain had allowed the US to run a “black site” prison on Diego Garcia to secretly hold suspects without accountability. The Diego Garcia prison held some “high-value” detainees and was operated with the “full cooperation” of the British government, US officials familiar with the Senate report said.
While the government may be playing dumb, Britain is well aware what went on at Diego Garcia and in fact, even aided in with the removal of the entire indigenous human and animal population from the island before turning it over to the U.S. Navy for a 20 million dollar discount on a pre-secured weapons deal.
Moreover, further tarnishing the British empire, in a 1966 official British memo it was written, “[...] there will be no indigenous population except the seagulls”. Shortly after the memo was issued, the U.S., pressed for time, pushed forward with the secret construction of the island base, even including an under ground and underwater facility.
All of this is fueling the fire that burns inside family members of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 as we are now 41 days into the search and authorities appear to have been led on a wild goose chase.
In fact, Sara Bajc, girlfriend of passenger Phillip Wood, still believes the planes was “taken” and that the U.S. may have been involved. Bajc appeared on CNN Tuesday, grinding in the fact that search crews have been looking in the water when they should be looking on the land.
H/T Montagraph

Flight MH370 Is At Diego Garcia - Here's The Proof

(Photo: White House/Souza)

<a href="http://us-ads.openx.net/w/1.0/rc?cs=cdb30b51ad&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://us-ads.openx.net/w/1.0/ai?auid=536880831&cs=cdb30b51ad&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>

Intellihub’s exclusive MH370 Coverage:

Girlfriend of 370 passenger Wood: ‘Fighter jets accompanied flight 370 in secret militarized operation, my husband is still alive’
Insurance payouts to family members of MH370 continue in exchange for waivers
Police Inspector General: ‘Crew of flight 370 not yet cleared, awaiting investigation of Captain’s simulator’
Malaysian politician: ‘The government is withholding evidence on missing flight 370′
Rothschild owned Blackstone Group benefits from missing flight 370, becoming primary patent holder of new technology, reports say
Partner of MH370 passenger acuses governments of cover up on BBC
Full manifest: Flight 370 — As released by Malaysian authorities
15 questions about flight MH370 that the media isn’t asking
YouTube Investigator: ‘Flight 370 landed at Diego Garcia military base, plane and passengers then put in a Faraday style hangar’
Malaysia says there is sealed MH370 “evidence” that cannot be made public
Full Transcript: MH370′s radio transmissions before it went dark
Why was the Malaysian MH370 flight not detected by the Diego Garcia US Naval and Intelligence Base in the Indian Ocean?
Failure to find Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 sparks Chinese consideration to surveil the world

          

Ladies It’s Finally Time To Take off That Bra… For Good!

April 16, 2014 by Alanna Ketler.//http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/16/ladies-its-finally-time-to-take-off-that-bra-for-good/

During the day many women are fantasizing about what they are going to do as soon as they get home. They are going to reach their hands up and under their shirts, and grab onto their… bra clasps! And rip their bras off! Letting their breasts be free! Unrestricted and able move around, jiggle and wiggle freely. This is such an amazing feeling of freedom, but it kind of makes me wonder, if bras are so uncomfortable, why do so many women wear them so often? Is this feeling of discomfort that results from wearing these restricting bras a sign from our bodies that we have been ignoring?

According to the American Cancer Society, there is absolutely no evidence that leads to the correlation between wearing a bra and contracting breast cancer. The reasoning behind this is that there have been no conclusive studies done to show that there is a link. But doesn’t that mean that there have been no studies done to show the opposite either? To dismiss something because there is no information to prove it, is extremely silly, to say the least.  In the 1930’s there was no link that proved that cigarettes caused lung cancer either, in fact, doctors were still promoting cigarette smoking in the 1950’s. It wasn’t until 1964 when the American Cancer Society finally mentioned that there was a direct link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Perhaps someday in the future, this will be the story of the bra, and people will say “I can’t believe they didn’t realize that there was a link between wearing bras and breast cancer!’

Another noteworthy piece of information is that much like the cancer industry, there is a huge bra industry as well. When you think about how many bras each woman is buying every year, this is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US alone.

Right now, we do not know for sure that wearing bras causes cancer, but at least we can look at some of the evidence, and from there make an informed decision for ourselves.

Evidence To Support The Claim

Wearing a bra can restrict the extremely thin lymphatic vessels, by compressing the vessels, which then can lead to a build up of toxic fluid, which would otherwise be drained through this system. When these vessels are closed there is less oxygen and nutrients delivered to the cells while toxic waste materials are not being flushed away. Is it possible that this build up of toxins is linked to fibrocystic cysts? Fibrocystic cysts are fluid filled sacks that can appear as hard lumps in the breasts, medical research connects these cysts with increased risk of breast cancer.

In a study that was conducted by Syd and Soma Singer in May of 1991, 4000 women in 5 major U.S. cities were interviewed. All of the women who were studied were of Caucasian descent and mostly of “medium income,” their age ranged from 30 to 79, almost half had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The majority of the women who were interviewed said that they were unhappy with the shape and size of their breasts and wore a bra for appearance only. 3 out of 4 of these women who wore their bras to sleep contracted breast cancer, and 1 in 7 women who wore their bras for more than 12 hours a day did too. This study concluded that just 1 in 168 women who did not wear a bra contracted breast cancer, which is the same amount as men (who do not wear a bra. :P)

While keeping this in mind, what can you do to potentially minimize your risk of developing breast cancer?

Minimize Your Risk

For me personally, on a day-to-day basis I do not wear a bra. I haven’t for about 4 years now. However, I will wear one for certain occasions and depending on what I am wearing, but this is very minimal. Up until about a year ago I had no idea of this potential link to breast cancer, but I stopped wearing one for the mere fact that it was extremely uncomfortable. I know a lot of women with big breasts are thinking that this just isn’t possible for them, but did you know that when you wear a bra all the time you are actually weakening the ligaments of the breasts? If you keep your breasts free of support for a period of time, these ligaments will grow stronger and then your breasts will support themselves a bit better. A French study done by Professor Jean-Denis Roullion used calipers to measure changes in the breasts of 330 women over a 15-year period. He found that bras didn’t do anything that they were purported to do, and they didn’t alleviate back-pain, but rather intensified it! Also, they didn’t do anything to prevent breast tissue from sagging. In his opinion the bra is a “false need.” The findings of the study suggest that breasts would gain more tone and support themselves if no bra were used because as researchers explain, bras limit the growth of supporting breast tissue leaving the breast to wither and degrade quicker. Further, the study found that women who took off their bras experience an average of 7mm lift in their nipples from each year they didn’t wear a bra- amazing! An important thing to note is that Roullion suggests that if you are over the age of 45 not wearing a bra would do very little, if anything to lift the breasts.

I do think that a huge reason why women wear bras is because of what society tells us that our breasts should look like. If they are small, we should wear really tight push up bras, if they are too big, we should wear really tight bras to make them appear smaller and less saggy. There are plenty of women whose breasts are so small that they wear a bra for literally no reason, but only to make it appear as if they had larger breasts, if only they knew the risk they were taking, all for aesthetic purposes only. In societies eye, all breasts should be completely round and perky, but lets face it, for those women who still have natural breasts, this isn’t very likely. As of late, more and more people are adopting more natural habits and practices and before we know it, natural shapely breasts will be back in style!

If you must wear a bra, consider ones with no underwire and aren’t too tight. Try to wear the bra for as short of a time as possible, and give your breasts a good rub and massage after they’ve been released! By no means should you ever be sleeping in your bra. If you are worried about your nipples showing, maybe consider wearing a camisole under your shirt, but even if they do show, it’s not the end of the world.

Much Love

Sources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1827274
http://www.maurerfoundation.org/can-wearing-a-bra-cause-breast-cancer/
http://jezebel.com/your-bra-is-actually-making-your-breasts-saggier-accor-472470230
http://www.brafree.org/bra_free.html
https://www.womentowomen.com/detoxification/the-lymph-system-and-your-health-2/2/
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/breast-cancer-bras-lymph-nodes.html
http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_condition_info_details.asp?disease_id=245&channel_id=136&relation_id=1578

Health Insurance: Obama Lied About Obamacare, Now Wants Political Lying to Be Legal

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, April 16, 2014

Region: USA

Theme: Global Economy, Poverty & Social Inequality

A Gallup poll published on April 16th finds that about 5 out of every 6 Americans who had no health insurance before Obamacare, still do not have health insurance. This finding, of about 85% of the uninsureds remaining uninsured under Obamacare, is actually better, not worse, than the CBO’s projections; so it cannot be any surprise to him.

At the time when President Obama was merely Senator Obama running to win the White House, there were 46 million healthcare uninsureds. During his Presidential campaign, he promised to eliminate 100% of that number of uninsureds: He said that he would be “making health insurance universal.” Once he won the White House and was starting his Presidency, he was promising to cut 31 million off that number, which still would bring it down 67%. But instead, the health insurance plan that he initiated and signed into law has brought this number down only around 16%, and though the impact of the despicable and largely even racist Republican intransigence against Obama has accounted for a portion of that failure, the vast majority of this shortfall in the drop in the size of the uninsured population is due entirely to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, itself.

Whereas in states that had Republican control and where Obamacare’s Medicaid-expansion was rejected by the state’s governor, the decline in uninsureds was only around 4%; the states that had Democratic control and where the governor accepted the Medicaid-expansion experienced a decline in uninsureds of around 16% (which though much better was still far short of President Obama’s promised 67% decline, or of candidate Obama’s promised decline of 100% on which he had won the White House); so, even in the states that didn’t do anything to block Obamacare, the decline in uninsureds fell far short of Obama’s promised 67% decline in that number, when Obama first entered the White House.
At all periods throughout his campaign and subsequent Presidency, Obama was lying about the plan that he would propose to Congress, and about the plan that he would enact into law. Even his initial bargaining position with congressional Republicans started without including some important things that he had been campaigning on as promises to the American people, such as universal coverage, and such as universal availability of a public insurance option in the healthcare exchanges. Furthermore, his campaign language regarding the “public option” was cagily phrased so that after the earliest phase of his Democratic primary campaign against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, it became essentially meaningless to anyone who examined it carefully: things like that were lies from him even very early on, and he contradicted himself on them when challenged on them by the few reporters who tried to dig beneath the surface.
This Gallup poll on 16 April 2014 headlines “Uninsured Rate Drops More in States Embracing Health Law,” and it reports that in Republican-controlled states, the “% Uninsured, 2013″ was 18.7%, and that it went down by only 0.8% to 17.9%. It also reports that the experience in Democratic-controlled states was that their “% Uninsured, 2013″ was 16.1%, and that it went down by 2.5% to 13.6%. Thus, though Republican governors tried to keep as many of the uninsureds from being insured as possible, they weren’t able to block completely a decline in uninsureds. Meanwhile, Democratic governors, almost all of whom did everything that they could to help bring down the number of uninsureds by getting signups to Obamacare and new enrollees to Medicaid, were able to reduce the number of uninsureds only down from an initial 16.1%, to 13.6% after the law was fully in force in their states.
Regarding the public option, or inclusion of an option for each American to choose a government-run insurance plan, that lie from Obama was rather fully documented by an anonymous blogger who headlined on 22 December 2009, “President Obama: ‘I Didn’t Campaign on the Public Option’,” where that lie from Obama was soundly and repeatedly exposed as being nothing but a lie. That blog-post had been precipitated by an interview with Obama that had just been published in the Washington Post headlining innocuously, “Obama Rejects Criticism on Health-Care Reform Legislation,” where the reporter wrote “‘I didn’t campaign on the public option,’ Obama said in the interview.” If that report wasn’t itself a lie, then the President’s assertion certainly was. While it’s true that Obama never even tried to get John Boehner or other Republicans to allow into the law a public option that the private insurance industry didn’t want to be included in the law, and that he accepted their opposition to that, right up front at the beginning of his “negotiations” on the matter, instead of using it even as just a bargaining chip with them; he did, actually, and repeatedly, campaign on the public option; he simply and boldly lied there.
The public option was something that was overwhelmingly popular among the American public (which is the reason why he had campaigned on it), but that he had no intention of actually delivering on. (Most polls showed support for the public option ranging from half to three-quarters of the American public who had an opinion on the matter. The health insurance companies didn’t want it to be included; so, he didn’t want it, either. It’s one of the main reasons why he chose the conservative Max Baucus, instead of the liberal Ted Kennedy, to draft Obamacare.)
One of the crucial unlinked-to sources in the lengthy blog-post “President Obama: ‘I Didn’t Campaign on the Public Option’,” was an Obama campaign document that (like virtually all of them) was soon removed from the Web because these promises by Obama were intended to be broken not fulfilled, and this document included the following statement, as copied here into a blog-post dated 30 May 2007, from very early in Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards:

“Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan.”

That blog-post from May 2007 opens by saying, “Senator Obama’s long-anticipated healthcare plan has finally been released.” The link provided there, to the then-Senator Obama’s just-released plan, produces only a blank now, presumably because Obama doesn’t want historians to have such an easy time tracking down the lies he had made while he was running for office. Of course, if he should subsequently decide that he doesn’t any longer want to impede the ability of historians to nail down the frauds he made against the voting public, then one way for him to repent of them (if he even has a conscience at all) would be for him to place back up onto the Web the documents, such as that one, that expose his fraudulence. Of course, unless the United States descends into total dictatorship such as in Russia or other countries that never were democracies to begin with, historians will ultimately come to recognize, anyway, that Barack Obama lied about many things, some of which were crucial. Presumably, he is merely trying to delay — not to prevent — this historical recognition.
Also on April 16th, the AP headlines, “Court to Weigh Challenge to Ban on Campaign Lies,” and reports that the Obama Administration is set to argue, before the U.S. Supreme Court, next week, that an Ohio law against lies in political campaigns should be overturned, because it supposedly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that any “credible threat of prosecution” for political lies would chill, instead of protect, “the very type of speech to which the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application.” This news report asserts that “Groups across the political spectrum are criticizing the law as a restriction on the First Amendment right to free speech,” and that P.J. O’Rourke, of the Republican Koch brothers’ Cato Institute, was even “ridiculing the law and defending political smear tactics as a cornerstone of American democracy.” So, President Obama is clearly with the Republican Party on that one.
Making light of political lies, or else asserting seriously that they’re a “free speech right” protected in our Constitution, reflects hardcore rule by the aristocracy, against even the hope that American democracy will even be able to function going forward. President Obama is with the aristocrats on that. The President of “Hope” thus joins with the Republican Party against any hope for democracy in this country. The First Amendment is being converted into a dagger, being plunged into the heart of democracy itself.

This isn’t to say that President Obama is necessarily the worst President the U.S. has ever had — George W. Bush, Warren Harding, and a few others might have been even worse. But he’s competing hard against James Buchanan, the most conservative and worst Democrat before Obama ever to have held the U.S. Presidency. Anyway, he’s in the running; and decisions such as the Keystone XL Pipeline are yet to be made that will decide the matter with finality.

                       

USPS Wants to Mine Your Data and Network With Retailers For Better Business Opportunities

In 2020, when your supplies of milk and butter start to run low, your refrigerator will know to send out a call to the grocery store and, later that day, the Postal Service will show up at your door with fresh provisions.
Sound far-fetched? Not to Nagisa Manabe.
Manabe, the chief marketing and sales officer with the USPS, offered a preview of an array of initiatives that the agency is working on to improve and expand its services through the use of technology, tapping into unused infrastructure and by forging new partnerships.
Appropriately, Manabe was speaking in future tense in a presentation here at PostalVision 2020, a conference focused on imagining how the Postal Service can reinvent itself in the face of dramatic shifts in consumer behavior.
At the moment, Manabe said that the agency is actively looking for ways to build new business lines around what not long ago might have been considered science fiction.
“We are not that far from the point where the refrigerator will simply be able to reorder for you,” she said. “You will see us looking to collaborate with grocery chains across the country. We’d like to experiment with grocery delivery, so that’s one of the areas where we’re looking in earnest.”
Similarly, the Postal Service sees enormous opportunities in the increasingly connected world to bolster its advertising offerings. Manabe is looking to tap what in tech circles has become known as big data – the accumulation of massive stores of individual data points that, when mined and analyzed, can yield valuable new insights.
In the case of the Postal Service, it’s looking to tap into datasets mapping consumer behavior that retailers could use to hone their marketing strategies. She described the scenario of a woman in the market for a new car, but on the fence about whether to go with the responsible sedan or the sporty coupe. She visits two dealerships and takes both cars for a test drive, but still can’t make up her mind.
And there is the marketing opportunity.
“We’re at the point where, all too soon … we’re going to know exactly that she was shopping at two different car dealers looking at cars, and both of those car dealers should be mailing her communication about that vehicle, right? And we’re there now, folks. I mean, you all know this. There are dozens of folks out there who are supplying that kind of information. If we’re not testing and exploring some of that together, we should,” Manabe said.
“As we know more and more about how consumers are traveling around and making their decisions, it behooves us to get involved and actually send them information to actually close the deal,” she added. “For me, it’s all about speed and accuracy of the mail.”…
Read More @ Source

Microsoft And Sony Double Down On Patent Trolling; Dump More Cash Into Intellectual Ventures

from the because-innovation-is-for-suckers dept

Last fall, we noted that the world's largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, was running out of cash, which is somewhat incredible, given that it had previously claimed to have raised $6 billion in investments (though many of its earliest deals with tech companies were categorized as "investments" when they were really promises not to sue, combined with access to the patent bank) and a further $3 billion in licenses. It should take a long time to spend $9 billion when your company produces nothing that has ever been brought to market, but that's IV for you. As we noted in that story last fall, many of the tech companies that initially "invested" in Intellectual Ventures had no interest at all in re-upping, as they felt that the whole thing had been a bait-and-switch. They were initially told it was a "patent defense fund," not a giant patent troll itself.

However, while many of the companies have indeed avoided giving IV any more money, it appears that Microsoft and Sony were quite happy to dump a lot more cash into IV, which has now ramped up its patent buying efforts again (as well as its lobbying and political contributions in an effort to kill off patent reform). Microsoft, of course, has always been close to IV, seeing as it was started by the company's former CTO, Nathan Myhrvold, who is also a close friend of Bill Gates (who has directly helped IV get some patents). Similarly, Microsoft has become one of the most aggressive patent abusers over the last decade, increasingly relying on its stock of patents to make money from other people's innovations, rather than innovating on its own.

It is similarly no wonder that the company somewhat famous for having nearly all of its major success based on copying the work of others, is now trying to stop anyone else from doing the same without paying a massive tax. There was a time when Bill Gates said:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."

And, now, via Intellectual Ventures and its own patent holdings, Microsoft seems to be trying to make sure Gates' prediction is a reality. It all fits in to the same paradigm we've observed for years. When you're young, you innovate. When you're old, you litigate. Microsoft appears to have given up on innovation, but is ramping up on litigation, and re-investing in patent trolling via Intellectual Ventures is merely the latest step.