Doctors speak out about H1N1 VACCINE DANGERS
Monday, October 26th, 2009Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs
Archive for October 26th, 2009
Obama Every Bit as Bad as Bush/Cheney on Patriot Act
Monday, October 26th, 2009While battling the FBI’s expanded surveillance guidelines, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., also revealed (Daily Kos, Oct. 
that in the SenateJudiciary Committee review of the Patriot Act (also Oct. 8), Republicans protecting the Act were joined, in a closed-door classified session, by Obama officials with amendments further preserving it. Then, in a public session, all but three Democrats voted for a watered-down “compromise” bill by Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein.
Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and new Democrat Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the constitutional courage to oppose the Judiciary Committee bill eventually going to the floor that with few exceptions, leaves the Patriot Act intact. I’ll be reporting on the crucial fight to bring the Bill of Rights back into the Patriot Act as Senate and House versions merge into a lawto be signed by Obama as he continues the Bush-Cheney legacy.
It was Feingold who, in October 2001, was the only member of the Senate to vote against the original Patriot Act as, on the floor, he accurately predicted our greatly weakened privacy, due process and other rights since then.
He is not giving up. “In the end,” Feingold says. “Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people” or (for recent example) “allow the FBI to write our laws.”
As I have reported, the FBI is already writing our laws — without going to any judge. How much have you seen about the FBI’s locking up of the Fourth Amendment on cable and broadcast television (from the right- or the left-leaning stations) in newspapers, on the Internet or, of course, from the Democratic Congressional leadership, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, characteristically indifferent to the Bush-Cheney-Obama assaults on the Bill of Rights?
As James Madison warned, “A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
When were the first FBI guidelines on domestic surveillance and why? In the 1970s, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, chairman of a Senate Committee on Intelligence Activities, exposed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s COINTELPRO (Counter-intelligence Program) as an omnivorous surveillance operation that aimed squarely at preventing Americans “exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association.”
If Big Brother is always watching you, you become careful of what you say and with whom you associate.
The Church committee’s revelations resulted in the then-attorney general, Edward Levi (a former professor of constitutional law), and Congressman Don Edwards formulating the first FBI guidelines specifically faithful to the Constitution.
When I was reporting on Edwards’ congressional service (1962 to 1995), I often described him as the “The Congressman from the Constitution.” As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Edwards, a former FBI agent, set standards for congressional oversight of the FBI.
Under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, these standards have become obsolete.
I commend to every member of Congress and their constituents what Edwards said in 1975 about the Church committee’s newly disclosed unbounded, warrantless standards of FBI surveillance of Americans who might “threaten” national security. And compare the Don Edwards’ definition of fundamental American civil liberties with those of present Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller — and their astonishingly permissive standards of FBI accountability.
“No federal agency,” said Congressman Edwards, “the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may sometimes be disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of freedom.”
The Constitution, Edwards continued, does not permit “federal interference” with Americans’ speech or associations, and other such citizen constitutional rights, “except through the criminal justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards.” Like mandated judicial supervision — absent from current Obama administration FBI surveillance guidelines.
Edwards regarded as “subversive” the “notion that any public official — the president or a policeman — possesses a kind of inherent power to set aside the Constitution whenever he thinks the public interest, or ‘national security’ warrants it.”
Don Edwards represented the Constitution we are losing.
On Aug. 10, 2002, in Washington, Don Edwards received the American Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Award for his “unswerving devotion to the Constitution and its values throughout his career.”
How many present members of Congress do you believe qualify for that award? Any of the Senate or House members representing you? Unhesitatingly, I nominate Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
It was in 2002 that I asked Don Edwards what he thought of the then Bush-Cheney definition of the Bill of Rights. “Locking people up,” he began, “citizens or noncitizens, without being charged and without access to a lawyer is wrong.” But our Nobel Prize-winning President Obama is seriously considering “permanent detention” of terrorism suspects who cannot be tried in court because of the tortures they have undergone under American custody. This same president does not object to the current warrantless FBI surveillance of Americans without evidence, for reasons of “national security.” Would you give Obama a Liberty Medal?
Source: Opposing Views
Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs
Premiere Radio Network Affaid of Free Guns?
DHS Video Portrays Average Americans As Terrorists
Obama Website Calls Opponents “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”
Sasha & Malia Obama Will Not Receive the Swine Flu Vaccine
Monday, October 26th, 2009According to White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, Obama’s Daughters will not receive the vaccine based on their profile. Apparently, according to him, only children with an impaired immune system are supposed to take the vaccine. But,I don’t think that is not what the media has been reporting at all. In fact, when my grandchildren went to get the “mist”, the only thing the doctor asked about was any allergies. They are perfectly healthy kids.
It gets stranger all the time, as this is supposed to be a level 6 pandemic, not a virus that only attacks susceptible children. According toWHO, “Almost half of the reported cases of oseltamivir resistant virus have occured in patients taking oseltamivir for prophylaxis. While the significance of this observation is not yet clear, prophylaxis should only be offered where there are strong reasons for doing so..in general, WHO does not recommend the use of antiviral drugs for prophylactic purposes. For people who have had exposure to an infected person and are at a higher risk of developing severe or complicated illness, an alternative option is close monitoring for symptoms, followed by prompt early antiviral treatment should symptoms develop.
Why do I keep hearing doctors on Cable News, including Fox, recommending that children receive a flu shot for prevention. Am I missing something here? In fact, I went to the official site of the Secretary of Human Health Services, and that was the first thing I saw: the importance of getting your flu shot. Every time I drive by Walgreens, there it is a sign “Get your flu shot.”
Many of you may have heard of Jane Burgemeister, an Austrian journalist, who claims that the H1N1 vaccine is an attempt by the World Elite to reduce the population. she states on her website :In February 2009, Baxter’s Austrian subsidiary in Orth an der Donau manufactured and distributed 72 kilos of vaccine material, contaminated with a H5N1 (more lethal) virus, to 16 laboratories in four countries… this deadly contamination and distribution was almost certainly due to criminal intent.” She has filed injunstion against the Obama Administration and WHO.
Even the Times of India reported that the H5N1 was mixed with H3N2, and the Times went on to say “Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences. While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.”
Remember the Nuremberg Code for your defense, since there has been a lot of talk about “forced vaccinations”: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”
Source: HubPages
Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs