Home

The 2009 Swine Flu: The Hype and the Response

1 Comment

by:   John Wallace                john@nycampaignforliberty.com

Anyone who has read a newspaper, listened to the radio, gone on the internet or watched the evening news on TV over the last week or so, might believe that there is a real possibility that millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of other people throughout the world could be wiped out by a new deadly swine flu virus that is sweeping across the globe. The worldwide media has been turning out countless numbers of stories and producing hundreds of TV special reports about the possibility of a swine flu pandemic, complete with on-site videos with people wearing face masks, colorful graphics and interviews with scores of medical experts-for-hire.  But is all this news coverage based on a genuine concern for the health and safety of the people, or is it just media hype designed to sell newspapers, TV advertising, anti-flu medicines and vaccines?  

On May 1, 2009, The World Health Organization reported only 331 cases of swine flu worldwide (outside of Mexico), but still declared the crisis to be at level 5 alert on a scale of 6, meaning that this strain of flu might be considered an all-out pandemic if the numbers keep rising. On the same date, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed that there were 109 cases in the U.S., with several states possibly confirming an additional 22 cases. Do these numbers indicate that a national crisis is at hand?

Let’s put these numbers in perspective: According to the Centers for Disease Control, 36,000 Americans die each year (almost 100 a day) from various forms of the flu virus, yet it is not considered a pandemic or a crisis.  Worldwide, Malaria kills 3,000 people every day, but the World Health Organization only considers it “a health problem” and not a pandemic. Of course, there are no fancy vaccines for malaria that can rake in billions of dollars in a very short time period when governments and individuals order millions of doses of vaccines and medications in response to a threat of a new flu pandemic. 

Back in 1976, when the Swine Flu last hit America, the Ford Administration tried to use the fear of a pandemic to force 220 million Americans to accept the idea of mandatory vaccinations.  In a very short period of time, the pharmaceutical industry made $135 million on their vaccines, which had been given to nearly 40 million Americans before the accumulation of fatalities and crippling side effects caused the program to be stopped. When the questionable “pandemic threat” was over, only one person in America had died from the Swine flu, but 25 other Americans had died from the vaccine. By the way, the pharmaceutical companies managed to protect themselves from lawsuits by pre-arranging for the government to assume any liabilities in case there was a problem with the vaccines.  

More recently, in 2006, there was another worldwide pandemic threat called the Avian flu. The same type of videos and stories appeared throughout the media. ABC News even pushed the possibility of a pending worldwide apocalypse to the public by featuring a doctor-for-hire who predicted “that 50% of the population of the world could die” because of the Avian flu. Of course that never happened. Although the death of any person is a tragedy, only 257 people in the entire world died from the Avian flu.  That’s 257 people out of 6.5 billion. It could hardly be considered a pandemic or a worldwide health threat. Because of the Avian Flu scare, the Bush Administration purchased and stockpiled millions of doses of anti-flu drugs in case of a future pandemic. Back then, some people thought that the threat of the Avian flu pandemic was cleverly created, manipulated and designed to frighten the American people, in order to line the pockets of politically connected investors and pharmaceutical companies.  

If the profit motive is not part of the reason for the current hype and the threat to the American people is real, then why has our government not taken the overt actions necessary to protect its own citizens? With almost 2,000 official swine flu cases originating in Mexico, most European and Asian countries, including China, have closed their airports to flights from Mexico in order to protect their citizens. Our government has taken no such steps to protect its citizens against this threat and our borders remain wide open with no restrictions or limitations on Mexicans entering the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security advised that they are on top of the situation and are watching people entering the U.S. for signs of illness. On the surface it sounds like the government is at least doing something, until you read the April 27 Reuters report on what is really happening at the border and that “Mexicans are continuing to (illegally) cross the border by car and foot, seemingly unconcerned by the influenza scare and only a handful are wearing masks.”  The failure to secure the border in a time of emergency in order to protect the health and welfare of American citizens is a sign that this administration has chosen political correctness over the safety of its own citizens. It’s sad to say, but I don’t believe a Republican administration would take the necessary steps either.

I am sure that by mid-May the whole Swine Flu scare will be over and the hype will have died down.  The American borders will remain wide open for illegal immigrants and terrorists to enter the country; the pharmaceutical companies will have made billions; the media companies will have made hundreds of millions from pharmaceutical company advertising and the administration will take credit for a job well done.  

Thank God it wasn’t a real emergency!

_______________________________________
John Wallace “For Freedom, Liberty and Sovereignty”
New York Campaign for Liberty
Chatham, New York
http://www.NYCampaignForLiberty.com

“A Culture Of Surveillance”: Big Brother is at your door!

Leave a comment

by Chuck Baldwin
April 28, 2009

It is truly amazing how much news the American news media chooses to ignore. If one wants to discover what is actually going on in the world, he or she often has to go to the foreign press. This has again been the case with a story that every American should be extremely interested in, but which has been totally ignored by the American news media. I found this story in Russia Today.

According to RussiaToday.com, “The personal computer may soon be not-so-private, with the U.S. and some European nations working on laws allowing them access to search the content held on a person’s hard drive.

“President Obama’s administration is keeping unusually tight-lipped on the details, which is raising concerns among computer users and liberty activists.”

The report also states, “In extreme secrecy from the public, the United States is hammering out an international copyright treaty with several other countries and the European Union. Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (or ACTA), governments will get sweeping new powers to search and seize material thought to be in breach of copyright. But why all the secrecy?”

Russia Today quotes Richard Stallman, prominent American software freedom activist, as saying, “Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want. I can only guess that it’s going to be nasty, because if it weren’t going to be nasty, they wouldn’t need to keep it a secret.”

The report also said, “Up until now, the breach of copyright has been a civil matter. The Obama administration seems to now want to criminalize it.”

The report continued saying, “Some say modern America is being overtaken by a culture of surveillance.”

A culture of surveillance indeed. What began in earnest under former President George W. Bush is now sharply escalating under President Barack Obama.

According to Ecommerce Journal, President Obama and his Big Brother fellow travelers in Congress are seeking power to “cut the whole world off the Internet.” The report says, “Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe proposed the Cybersecurity Act that would create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. Its powers are detailed in the The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

“If the President so chooses, he can call a ‘cybersecurity emergency’ and shut down or limit any ‘net traffic or a ‘critical’ network ‘in the name of national security,’ though the bill fails to provide concrete definitions on what is ‘critical’ or what constitutes an ’emergency.'”

The report goes on to say, “This new legislation seeks to give even more power to the government to regulate the Internet and, in future, the possibility to regulate content and usage. What begins as a method of defeating terrorism and protecting telecommunications, can quickly become a method to regulate ‘hate speech’ to assign ‘motive’ or ‘intent’ to harm and even to regulate and legislate the flow of information that is deemed by the ‘thought police’ to be inflammatory or counter-productive to their cause.”

The report says that the new cybersecurity legislation can be a “framework for future, more invasive legislation. It is a first step to the loss of internet privacy, free speech and the free flow of information.”

So, once again, the passing of a Republican Presidential administration and the advent of a Democratic Presidential administration have resulted in zero change in the overall direction of the ship of state. In the name of “national security,” the federal government of this country continues to deepen its commitment to what can only be described as a police-state mentality. And, once again, the national news media in America chooses to ignore the story, and by so doing, shows willful compliance with this disturbing phenomenon.

I wonder how many Obama supporters are paying attention?

During the Bush years, my “conservative” brethren (especially the ones calling themselves Christians) repeatedly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the myriad foibles and falsehoods, and frequent fraudulence of President Bush because he was a Republican. Now we will see how many Obama supporters will look the other way in order to protect President Obama because he is a Democrat. I suspect most of them will show themselves of no better character than the Bush supporters.

Consider: Obama promised to end the war in Iraq. But what has he done since being elected? He merely moved the major combat theater to Afghanistan. He is even in the process of escalating the war in Afghanistan to possibly include Pakistan. So, where are the “peacenik” liberals who supported Obama? Why do they not loudly proclaim their opposition, as they did when Bush was in office?

Furthermore, Obama criticized Bush’s undisciplined deficit spending, but what has he done since becoming President? He has deeply expanded Bush’s failed financial policy of excessive deficit spending. Again, where are all the loud voices of protest?

George Bush wanted amnesty for illegal aliens. Barack Obama wants amnesty for illegal aliens. George Bush supported the assault weapons ban. Barack Obama supports the assault weapons ban. George Bush wanted to limit the legal rights of certain people charged with crimes. Well, friends, Barack Obama also wants to limit the rights of people charged with crimes.

Just last week, an Associated Press report stated, “The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

“The administration’s action–and several others–have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat’s call for change during the 2008 campaign.”

So, where are Obama’s supporters who thought they were voting for change? Will they do nothing, as did Bush’s supporters, and accept this abridgment of personal liberty, simply because “their man” is in the White House? Probably.

In addition, George Bush created a Big-Government monster known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Can there be any doubt that DHS is in the process of manufacturing a ubiquitous surveillance society that eavesdrops, snoops, and monitors virtually our entire lives? And what does Barack Obama do immediately after assuming office? He multiplies and expands the surveillance society to even greater degrees. So again I ask, where are all the Bush critics to denounce Barack Obama’s draconian anti-privacy, anti-freedom policies?

The Internet is the last best source of free and independent information left. Think where the liberty movement would be without the Internet. But even as we speak, President Obama and his allies in Congress are attempting to obtain the authority to censor information on–and curtail access to–the Internet. Plus, in the name of “cybersecurity,” they are plotting to obtain the authority to monitor and seize anyone’s personal computer at will.

The Russia Today report is right: we do have a culture of surveillance. We also have a culture of cowardice by people from both sides of the political aisle who, in the name of partisan politics, are willfully accommodating and facilitating the demise of this constitutional republic.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090428.html

Rep. DeLauro: Ever hear of the US Constitution?

1 Comment

usda_spyNew York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?

State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.” (emphasis added) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Representative DeLauro:

I live in the United States.  Not the Washington D.C. Corporate zone, but in the sovereign state of Minnesota in the sovereign United States.  You may be unfamiliar with that and the subsequent documents that establish not only my personal rights, but which also limit the reach of government, but then again, maybe not.  Its apparent you live in some other part of the world where individual liberties and rights are not a consideration; a place where police state conditions are not only accepted but, encouraged. 

I just read the bill you authored H.R. 875 and am left wondering just who it is you work for and where it is you live? 

Having printed off and actually reading your bill, I see that there are massive and extremely punitive punishments and fines for non-specific violators most of which would be leveled against small and independent producers, family farms and non-corporate operations.  In other words, you did not site specifically just who would be subject to these police state actions, nor did you specify who would possibly be exempt….like maybe small independent and family farmers and herders who aren’t the cause of the known food borne illnesses. 

I also noted that exemptions are provided for foreign importers such as China; a known source of contaminated foods, medicines and other products.  For the life of me I can not figure out why you would provide an exemption for countries that have consistently shown their disregard for the US consumer.

I couldn’t help note that in Sec. 406 you state:

In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.

This section says a whole lot in a very few words.  Any actions, enforcement, requirements, with regards to an assumed (not presumed) connection to food safety laws; in other words you can just assume interstate commerce is involved and claim jurisdiction.  That kind of blows away the “this isn’t going to affect farmers markets, home gardens, etc., doesn’t it?  It seems to me if [interstate commerce] is going to be assumed to exist in any attempts to enforce this new food policing law, anyone who produces, buys, or otherwise touches food from any source is by your definition and planned targeting, already engaged in [interstate commerce] and by extension and without any evidence needed, guilty.

Question:  Would this apply to Monsanto?

Your bill goes on to say that there will be no judicial review allowed, even to determine the validity of the charges that may be levied against an individual. 

See, that’s where the difference in where you live and where I live comes in.  Where I live the Constitution says that I have a right to due process and to habeas corpus.  I’m sure you’re confused here.  This simply means that I have a right to know who accuses me and the accuser must produce the evidence, and that no warrants shall issue unless the person requesting the warrant can show probable or reasonable cause.  So your “no judicial review even to establish the validity of the charges” won’t fly here where I live.  We don’t do things that way. 

Also (and this will surely come as a shock to you) your bill establishes an Administrator with dictatorial powers and creates another unmanageable and corruptible bureaucracy in an already bloated federal system.  We already have two very dysfunctional agencies that are supposed to be guarding the public health and safety in the areas of food safety and also drug safety.  These two agencies, the USDA and FDA have been so corrupted by corporate influence and money, neither serves the public interest or trust and have not for many years.  Yet along with corporate influence, taxpayers are forced to contribute to both.  Where the heck is all that money going?

I am assuming you are not aware of the fact that simply because an oppressive bill of this kind could be submitted to our Congress, it does not necessarily mean it is legal or constitutionally permitted.  (I can’t imagine what kind of crap you get away with where you live).  Here in the US, a Supreme Court Justice rendered her opinion on this very matter.  You might find this interesting and possibly something you should be cautious of should your country of residence ever adopt a Constitution.

Do you agree with the findings of the U.S. Supreme court in  New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?

(Page 133) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

“Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.

Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point.  The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violatedwhere one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached upon Branch approves the encroachment….

The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.

State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the   powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.”  (emphasis added)

What this should convey to you Ms. DeLauro, is that here in the US the congress cannot simply take it upon itself to foist illegal, oppressive, and unconstitutional laws onto the various States that comprise the sovereign United States.  It also means that state governments cannot arbitrarily subject the state or its people to an expansion of federal government outside the provisions set out in the Constitution by agreeing to that expansion. 

I know you must think your new [food safety] bill would effectively end any states rights and finally establish a centralized, industrialized agricultural system which would benefit all those corporations you seem to be so fond of, but we can’t let that happen here.  We’ve seen the affects of industrialized corporate agriculture in poorer nations where millions have been made destitute and left starving as a result.  Thanks, but no thanks. 

If you ever tire of the police state you live in and decide its not all you envisioned; if you yearn for freedom…..please feel free to immigrate to the US.  We have a very liberal immigration policy.  In fact, you can even avoid all the pesky red tape that results from applying for immigration and just run our southern border.  Its wide open and millions have successfully crossed it without penalty. 

Sincerely,

Marti Oakley

(C)2009

%d bloggers like this: