Home

Merck Dr. Exposes Gardasil Scandal: Ineffective, Deadly, Very Profitable

1 Comment

strip banner

The Judicial Watch Blog Corruption Chronicles

A controversial government-backed cervical cancer vaccine is ineffective, has deadly side effects and serves no other purpose than to generate profit for its manufacturer, according to a physician who worked at the major pharmaceutical company that’s made huge profits selling it to girls and young women.

unenlightened-nurse-600x300It marks the most disturbing inside information exposed about the vaccine, Gardasil, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Merck. The vaccine was scandalously fast-tracked by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been ardently promoted by the Obama administration as a miracle shot that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Instead it’s been linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government’s own daunting statistics. Since 2007 Judicial Watch has been investigating the Gardasil scandal and exposed droves of government records documenting thousands of adverse reactions associated with the vaccine, including paralysis, convulsions, blindness and dozens of deaths. Based on the records JW published a special report in 2008 detailing Gardasil’s approval process, side effects, safety concerns and marketing practices. Undoubtedly, it illustrates a large-scale public health experiment. More

Standing Up To Government Is Now Domestic Terrorism

Leave a comment

strip banner

new-logo25

 Bob Livingston    Personal Liberty Digest

_____________________________________________________________________

terror0513_imageThe political class is now demonstrating a level of hubris rarely, if ever, seen in the American system.

Within just a few hours, three of the top four most post powerful politicians in the country unabashedly revealed the low opinion they have of liberty and the American people and a willingness to persecute, prosecute and lie to those who advocate and fight for Constitutional government. And by their silence, the rest of the political class nodded their agreement.

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists. Then, President Barack Obama brazenly lied to the American people in claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare and that the program was a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And early Friday morning, we learned Speaker of the House John Boehner has proclaimed once again to big money donors and crony capitalists that an immigration bill would be passed this year over the wishes of the majority of Americans. More

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

2 Comments

strip banner

 

U.S. SUPREME COURT GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
04-30-2014 12:47 am – Bob Unruh – World Net Daily
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court.

The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.

The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.

They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.

The brief was on behalf of U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

Journalist Chris Hedges, who is suing the government over a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, is seen here addressing a crowd in New York’s Zuccotti Park.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.

Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.

Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.

It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

Video mania: The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back” on DVD. This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea” DVD.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”

Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.

The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.

“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.

“According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.

It’s not like rounding up innocent U.S. citizens and stuffing them into prison camps hasn’t already happened.

In 1944, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and locked them up, under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.

The newest authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.

The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”

The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.

“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford officials reported.

At the trial court level, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.

Obama then appealed, and his judges on the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.

Since the fight started, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement inside those states. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”

“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.

Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”

“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote. “To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/supreme-court-green-lights-detention-of-americans/#r3IAig6fLWioaQWy.99 – See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35369.php#sthash.uo27Loqv.dpuf

new-logo25Bob Unruh – World Net Daily

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

“The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.” 

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

1459169_743562532338888_201663292_nA decision from the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” critics of the high court’s ruling said.

The high court by its own order this week refused to review an appellate-level decision that says the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.

Officials with William J. Olson, P.C., a firm that filed an amicus brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of certiorari.

“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team told WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”

WND reported earlier when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted, then later challenged in court. More

Florida’s most lucrative cottage industry: The Trafficking of Humans

8 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Barbara Stone

 

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

“Judges all over the country participate in this scam. The transfer of funds and real property is done under “color of law” through “court order” where a judge orders the isolation of the elderly from their loved ones and then allows falsified, fraudulent and extortive fees and expenses to guardians and their attorneys.” ___________________________________________________________________

Rampant abuse of and atrocities against the elderly, children and other vulnerable Americans is occurring all over America.

The arrest of family members in this situation is commonplace as they are desperate to remove their parents from corrupt guardians and unlawful courts

1470004_10200960591557963_1004750255_aThe abuse of the elderly by guardians is dependent on their ability to operate their enterprise in secrecy. They do this by filing fraudulent lies and slanderous allegations against family members to colluding judges to obtain unlawful orders under “color of law” that prohibit family members from seeing their elderly loved ones. By isolating vulnerable elderly people from their family members, the abuse and atrocities are done insidiously and without any eyes by the family on their abuse.

These guardians count on secrecy to deprive their “wards” of all services. They then divert the assets from the people whom they are entrusted to provide care to, to their own enterprise.  They sell their homes from under them, they loot and sell their possession, they engage in a feeding frenzy of their assets. More

LEGISLATION BY REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

5 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25

Rnee Nal – The Brenner Brief

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

It is past time for Americans to take another look at the process which allow rules and regulations to be regularly imposed on Americans without proper representation.

Government mandates in the form of rules equal legislation without representation. “Agencies get their authority to issue regulations from laws (statutes) enacted by Congress,” according to the government’s Federal Register website. “Typically,” the fact sheet continues, “when Congress passes a law to create an agency, it grants that agency general authority to regulate certain activities within our society.”

1461111_657716987585122_125931567_nThe Federal Register Act received approval on July 26, 1935 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Since then, “the Federal Register system expanded and evolved as the nation’s leaders gained experience using the system to conduct the business of government in times of peace and war.”

Not surprisingly, there is a lack of transparency in the rule making process, as not every rule is in the Federal Register, thanks to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which called for the public commenting process, yet “permits agencies to finalize some rules without first publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register,” such as when “for good cause [an agency] finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Why would any rule ever be “contrary to the public interest?” And who makes that determination? And why would taxpayers ever agree to a rule that is “contrary to the public interest”? More

%d bloggers like this: