More Fake Attacks on US Banks Blamed on Iran Validate Secret Technocratic Grid

Susanne Posel

Last week, Ally Financial Inc. (AF) claimed “unusual activity” on their website which resembled being monitored. Other US Banks such as BB&T Corp and Capitol One, credit card issuers, have reported cyber disturbances. SunTrust Banks and Regions Financial Corp have also been affected.

AF, which used to extend credit for General Motors (GM) Co. (before they were acquired by the US government), has publicly stated they have been monitored, yet Gina Proia, spokeswomen for AF, has refused to elaborate on the details.

AF, the largest car loan lender in the US, was party to the subprime credit extensions that were bundled into the securities and sold on the global market which resulted in the stock market crash of 2008. In September of this year, GM sought to acquire AF’s international arm in Europe along with other banks.

BB&T became victim of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. Brian Davis, spokesman for BB&T stated: “BB&T is experiencing intermittent outages on BBT.com due to a ‘Denial of Service’ event.”

Also Capitol One websites, both online banking and corporate, were attacked with DDoS which are being attributed to a new hacktivist group called Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Cyber Fighters. Tatiana Stead said that glitches on the Capitol One website will continue due to system upgrades. Stead explained:“All of our systems are fully operational. In light of the recent events, we have taken a number of precautions which may inadvertently cause some challenges for a small number of customers visiting our website. We encourage anyone experiencing any difficulties to call our customer service.”

James Rohr, chief executive of PNC Financial Service Group, who has already claimed their websites have been attacked by the Middle Eastern-based “cyber army”, said that Iran is behind those attacks. Rohr explained that their attack lasted “38 hours straight. No one broke in, nothing was stolen.”

The US government is planting the propaganda seed that according to “highly classified” documents provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Intelligence Directorate confirm that Iranian hackers are committing cyber-attacks against US financial institutions. This report assures that US mega-banks are a “valid target” of the Iranian “cyber army”.

The timing of the newly formed “digital al-Qaeda” and their expressed anger over the US-produced anti-Muslim film are questionable considering how the US and Israeli government are setting the stage for a justified war with Iran. This fake hacker group is threatening other countries controlled by the Zionist regime, such as France, Germany and Britain.

Last month, Wells Fargo & Co. upped their cybersecurity measures after being attacked by a nameless, faceless cyber army

The Cyber Fighters have claimed on a website, known to be used by the CIA-infiltrated Anonymous, that the anti-Muslim film produced by the US government was the catalyst for their attacks. This 14-minute trailer was written, produced and directed by Sam Bacile, a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula who is an FBI informant , an Israeli citizen and the pasty used by the Zionist regime in order to facilitate a manufactured revolt of fake Islamic tension in the Middle East.group. Wells Fargo announced in a formal statement: “We apologize to customers who may be experiencing intermittent access issues to wellsfargo.com and online banking. We are working to quickly resolve this issue.”

This film was used to justify the premeditated murder of US Ambassador Stevens by Salafi terrorists sent by the Saudi Arabian government in conjunction with actions taken by Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State.

Recently, Obama signed an executive order authorizing the US government to acquire bank accounts and private property of individuals under suspicion of aiding the Iranian government in any way for the purposes of assisting economized petroleum resources.

In essence, if Obama, Clinton or Geithner suspects any American citizen of dealing with or for the benefit of Iran, they will have their bank accounts seized; property repossessed by the federal government and will face further suppression as defined by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Obama has empowered himself, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the US Treasury to use authority imbued to them by the President that the US government would impose any amount of sanctions on Iran for the sake of bringing the nation to its economic knees.

This includes prohibition of:

• US banks loaning money to Iran or any person involved in Iranian interests
• Using credit cards to facilitate interests of Iran or any person involved with Iran
• Acquisition of property and interests in property by the US government of any person suspected of aiding Iran or their interests
• Sanctioning individuals against investing or purchasing with intended profit for Iran
• Prohibition of individuals importing goods, services, or technology for the benefit of Iran

According to rumored “US intelligence”, Iran’s military is suspected of having created a cybercorps in 2011 that would respond to potential cyberwar from the US. Highly classified documents held by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Intelligence Directorate claim that Iranian hackers are committing cyber-attacks against US financial institutions. These anonymous “officials” say that Iran’s cyber capabilities are far greater than those of Russia and China based on covert probes that confirmed the Middle Eastern nation was aiming toward stealing intellectual property for the expressed purpose of attacking US banking institutions as well as hacking into government agencies.

Confidence in the American banking system is dwindling as the cyber-attacks compound the problem. Keeping the public in the dark about the purpose behind the attacks allows the propaganda surrounding them to become more effective.

Mainstream “experts” claim that Islamic cyber terrorism justifies more stringent cybersecurity measures. Banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America support these controls because they facilitate more secrecy within banking institutions.

A fact that is not reported in the mainstream media readily is that denial of service attacks, as the alleged Islamic cyber army chose to enact, are accomplished without any actual hacking. The ATMs, banking information and data is not stolen or disturbed. Denial of service attacks are a lockout of the customer from the public banking website.

This means that the attacks were designed to play on the ignorance of the public. Using the Hegelian Dialectic, financial institutions in tandem with the mainstream media blow the actual problem out of proportion, stirring the psyche of the public to believe that the situation was worse than it was.

Why wouldn’t hackers destroy documents of actually disrupt banking transactions? Because the scheme was perpetrated by the banking cartels in conjunction with the White House to not only bring about draconian cybersecurity, but also explain how a false flag concerning our banking system will occur in the near future.

The banking institutions have decided to join forces to fight the cyber-attacks, along with the federal government so that technological vulnerabilities are identified and eliminated. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are discussing converging on a shared data center where secret banking information can be kept under wraps so that hackers cannot steal information as well as sound an alarm when other banks are under attack.

This new network of technocrats will privatize customer banking information in the name of security while allowing the banksters to further hide their questionable dealings. Banks across America will be able to communicate in covert means that will never be released to the general public. The days of banking scandals are over because their network will prevent them for being caught.

Mobile phones CAN cause brain tumours, court rules in landmark case

• Businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, diagnosed with brain tumour after using his mobile phone at work for up to six hours a day for 12 years
• Italy’s Supreme Court found a ‘causal link’ between his phone use and illness
• Experts predict more legal claims from victims after landmark ruling

A court has ruled that mobile phones can give you cancer in a landmark case that could open the gates for other victims to take legal action.

Businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, was diagnosed with a brain tumour after using his mobile phone at work for up to six hours a day for 12 years.

Italy’s Supreme Court found that there was a ‘causal link’ between his phone use and his illness.

Experts now predict a barrage of legal claims by victims who believe their own illness was caused by their use of mobile phones.

Mr Marcolini told The Sun newspaper: ‘This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks.

‘I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile andcordless phones.

‘Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.’

Oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis Angelo Gino Levis and neurosurgeon Dr Giuseppe Grasso gave evidence supporting Mr Marcolini’s claim.

They argued that mobile and cordless phones emit electromagnetic radiation causingdamage to cells and increasing the risk of tumours. But they added that many tumours don’t appear for 15 years making short-term studies on mobile phone use redundant.

The jury is still out, however, for many scientists who claim it is still unknown what, if any, link there is between mobiles and brain tumours. 

Landmark ruling: Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome found there was a ‘causal link’ between Mr Marcolini’s phone use and his brain tumour – opening the doors for other legal claims

Earlier on this month, a Danish study on more than 358,000 mobile users over 18-years-old found that those who used mobile phones for 10 years or more were no more at risk than those who never used them.

Researchers led by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen found cancer rates in the central nervous system were almost the same in both long-term mobile phoneusers and non-users.

But other scientists disagreed, saying the Danish study excluded business users and included as non-users people who began using mobiles later on.

The big debate: The jury is still out for many scientists who argue there is no evidence to support a link between cancer and mobile phone use

Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects, Bristol University said the study was ‘worthless’, and the researchers themselves admitted non-users may have been misclassified which would bias the findings.

He said: ‘This seriously flawed study misleads the public and decision makers about the safety of mobile phone use.’

Professor Henshaw has previously advocated cigarette-style warnings on mobile phonepackets and urges more independent research.

He said: ‘Vast numbers of people are using mobile phones and they could be a time bomb of health problems – not just brain tumours, but also fertility, which would be a serious public health issue.

‘The health effects of smoking alcohol and air pollution are well known and well talked about, and it’s entirely reasonable we should be openly discussing the evidence for this, but it is not happening.

‘We want to close the door before the horse has bolted.’

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rang alarm bells last year when it classified mobile phones as ‘possibly carginogenic’.

In April, The Children with Cancer conference highlighted figures published by the Office of National Statistics, which showed a 50 per cent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumours between 1999 and 2009.

The ONS figures showed that the incident rate has risen from two to three per 100,000 people since 1999, while figures from Bordeaux Segalen University showed a one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.

But earlier this year another study by Manchester University researchers found no statistically significant change in rates of newly diagnosed brain cancers in England between 1998 and 2007 – saying it was unlikely ‘we are on the forefront of a brain cancerepidemic’.

A court has ruled that mobile phones can give you cancer in a landmark case that could open the gates for other victims to take legal action.

Businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, was diagnosed with a brain tumour after using hismobile phone at work for up to six hours a day for 12 years.

Italy’s Supreme Court found that there was a ‘causal link’ between his phone use and his illness.

Experts now predict a barrage of legal claims by victims who believe their own illness was caused by their use of mobile phones.

Mr Marcolini told The Sun newspaper: ‘This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks.

‘I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile andcordless phones.

‘Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.’

Oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis Angelo Gino Levis and neurosurgeon Dr Giuseppe Grasso gave evidence supporting Mr Marcolini’s claim.

They argued that mobile and cordless phones emit electromagnetic radiation causingdamage to cells and increasing the risk of tumours. But they added that many tumours don’t appear for 15 years making short-term studies on mobile phone use redundant.

The jury is still out, however, for many scientists who claim it is still unknown what, if any, link there is between mobiles and brain tumours. 

Landmark ruling: Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome found there was a ‘causal link’ between Mr Marcolini’s phone use and his brain tumour – opening the doors for other legal claims

Earlier on this month, a Danish study on more than 358,000 mobile users over 18-years-old found that those who used mobile phones for 10 years or more were no more at risk than those who never used them.

More…

• £6million payout for boy starved of oxygen at birth which caused cerebral palsy
• Breast cancer timebomb fear: Experts warn that NHS faces crisis as number of women living with disease is set to treble to 1.7m
• How exercise could stop you craving the finer things in life – and even wanting more money

Researchers led by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen found cancer rates in the central nervous system were almost the same in both long-term mobile phoneusers and non-users.

But other scientists disagreed, saying the Danish study excluded business users and included as non-users people who began using mobiles later on.

The big debate: The jury is still out for many scientists who argue there is no evidence to support a link between cancer and mobile phone use

Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects, Bristol University said the study was ‘worthless’, and the researchers themselves admitted non-users may have been misclassified which would bias the findings.

He said: ‘This seriously flawed study misleads the public and decision makers about the safety of mobile phone use.’

Professor Henshaw has previously advocated cigarette-style warnings on mobile phonepackets and urges more independent research.

He said: ‘Vast numbers of people are using mobile phones and they could be a time bomb of health problems – not just brain tumours, but also fertility, which would be a serious public health issue.

‘The health effects of smoking alcohol and air pollution are well known and well talked about, and it’s entirely reasonable we should be openly discussing the evidence for this, but it is not happening.

‘We want to close the door before the horse has bolted.’

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rang alarm bells last year when it classified mobile phones as ‘possibly carginogenic’.

In April, The Children with Cancer conference highlighted figures published by the Office of National Statistics, which showed a 50 per cent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumours between 1999 and 2009.

The ONS figures showed that the incident rate has risen from two to three per 100,000 people since 1999, while figures from Bordeaux Segalen University showed a one to two per cent annual increase in brain cancers in children.

But earlier this year another study by Manchester University researchers found no statistically significant change in rates of newly diagnosed brain cancers in England between 1998 and 2007 – saying it was unlikely ‘we are on the forefront of a brain cancer epidemic’.

Every Bit of Junk Food, Fast Food Damages Your Arteries, Paves Way for Coronary Artery Disease

by Lisa Garber

Think just one burger won’t do any damage? Not so, according to a University of Montreal study, which shows that even one meal high in saturated fat damages arteries.

Dr. Anil Nigam, Director of Research at the Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabiliation Centre (EPIC) of the university-affiliated Montreal Heart Institute co-authored the study comparing the health of vascular endothelium (inner lining of blood vessels) in response to a meal of junk food versus a typical Mediterranean meal.

The study involved 28 non-smokers who ate a Mediterranean-influenced meal (salmon, almonds, and vegetables cooked in olive oil) in one week and fast food (sausage, egg, and cheese sandwich with three hashbrowns) in the next. In both meals, calories were derived between 50 and 60 percent from fat, but the Mediterranean fats were monounsaturated and polunsaturated, whereas the fast food meal’s fats were saturated with no omega 3 fatty acids. Before eating and two and four hours after each meal, the participants were evaluated for baseline endothelial funciton.

The results were about what one might expect. After eating junk food, the subjects’ arteries dilated 24 percent less than when measured in a fasting state, constricting blood flow. Arteries after subjects had eaten a healthy Mediterranean meal, however, functioned normally.

Every Meal is a Health Choice

“Poor endothelial function is one of the most significant precursors of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Nigam says. The degree of dilation of arteries is very closely associated with their hardening, known as atherosclerosis, and coronary artery disease.

“It is now something to think about at every meal.

Subjects with higher blood triglycerides also saw benefits from the Mediterranean meal, and “individuals with high triglyceride levels, such as patients with metabolic syndrom, [would benefit] precisely because it could help keep arteries healthy,” Dr. Nigam add.

In addition to the findings revealing the damage to arteries, junk food and fast food have also been shown to cause depression. In fact, the study, published in the journal Public Health Nutrition, shows that those consuming fast food are 51 percent more likely to be depressed than those consuming very little or none of the health-damaging food. What’s more, depression risk was found to increase with the more fast food and junk food consumed.

Fresh Versus Fast Food

Monounsaturated fats—like those found in olive oil—are one of the top 5 brain foods that boost cognition, and polyunsaturated fatty acids help build new brain cells. Omega 3 fatty acids have numerous benefits, too, not least of all helping to pave way for longevity and improved mood.

We make hundreds of decisions about food daily; it’s important that we make them well. Although fresh food may not always be the more affordable decision (and it often is), it’ll pay you back in the long run when you have cheaper medical bills!

US Plan to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Devised Under Bush

By Sherwood Ross

U.S. plans to attack Iran with a mix of nuclear and conventional weapons have been in readiness since June, 2005, a distinguished authority on international affairs says.

“Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran,” writes University of Ottawa Professor (Emeritus) Michel Chossudovsky, in a recently released book entitled “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”

The plans were formulated in 2004.  The previous year, Congress gave the Pentagon the green light to use tactical nukes in conventional war theatres such as the Middle East and Central Asia, allocating $6 billion in 2004 alone to create this new generation of “defensive” weapons.

“In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered USSTRATCOM (Strategic Command) to draft a ‘contingency plan’ that included “a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons,” Chossudovsky writes. The plan went beyond even the Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review(NPR)’s “contingency plans” for an offensive “first strike use” of nuclear weapons against Russia and China as well as Iran and North Korea.

The 2005 plan identified more than 450 strategic targets in Iran, including numerous suspect nuclear-weapons-program development sites. The plan, incredibly, was rationalized on a second 9/11 type attack on the US that Cheney believed Iran would allegedly support!

“President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration,” Chossudovsky writes in his new book, “Towards a World War III Scenario” (Global Research). His Administration “has also intimated it will use nukes in the event of an Iran response to an Israeli attack on Iran.”

Chossudovsky points out, “The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are ‘safe’ and their use in the battlefield will ensure ‘minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation.’ The issue of radioactive fallout is not even acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons, neither is the issue of ‘Nuclear Winter’.”

“What is unfolding [in relation to Iran] is the outright legitimization of war in the name of an illusive notion of global security. America’s mini-nukes, with an explosive capacity of up to six times a Hiroshima bomb, are upheld as a ‘humanitarian’ bomb, whereas Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are branded as an indisputable threat to global security,” Chossudovsky writes.

He points out that a U.S.-Israeli strike against Iran would probably not be limited to Iran’s nuclear facilities but likely would be “an all-out air attack on both military and civilian infrastructure, transport systems, factories and public buildings.”

Employed would be “the entire gamut of new advanced weapons systems, including electro-magnetic  weapons and environmental modification techniques (ENMOD),” Chossudovsky writes.

He notes that the U.S. has stepped up its military shipments to Israel, its NATO allies, and to countries bordering Iran. Israel in 2004 took shipment of the first of 500 U.S.-made BLU 109 “bunker buster” bombs, and the U.S. has supplied thermonuclear bombs to Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey, and Great Britain. Turkey alone, a partner in the U.S. anti-Iran coalition, has 90 thermonuclear B61 bombs at its Incirlik nuclear air base.

“It is not Iran and North Korea which are a threat to global security by the United States of America and Israel,” he adds. What’s more, Western European governments have joined the bandwagon and “have endorsed the U.S.-led military initiative against Iran.”

He goes on to say, “At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable—a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East.”

It may also be noted the U.S. currently has several, nuclear-armed carrier task forces in waters near Iran and has built more than 40 military bases in the countries surrounding Iran. The U.S. reportedly has 20,000 nuclear bombs available to use and Israel reportedly has another 200, whereas Iran is not known to have one. U.S. military spending of $700 billion a year, moreover, is 100 times the rate of Iran’s $7 billion annual military outlay.