Monday, October 26, 2009

Stand Up America

James Green
The Info Revolution

Its time to learn, reflect, then take a stand and reach out to our fellow Americans. The same 
Americans who you would expect to share the same truth with you if they knew and you didn't. When revolution turns to renaissance. A revival and renewed interest in our countries
sovereignty. Stand up now, while we still have that right. Be a part of something great, be a
part of history, the right side of history. When we look back 10 or 20 years from now and look
at the world and what its become, will we look back and know we did the right thing? Will
we know that we did what we could to shape the outcome? Our founding fathers and many
other patriots once stood the same way, in the face of tyranny. They gave us the freedoms and our constitution, then warned us of a time when people would try to strip us of it. These
tyrants know they would have no chance to walk onto our soil and use violence to take this
country, so they have used stealth. So many baby steps seem like nothing at first, but over
time we have seen great strides in the wrong direction. Empty promises, no transparency, and freedoms they have been striped from us one by one. Jobs are disappearing everyday. We must take time to reflect and they act swiftly to inform our neighbors.

Chinese Join Worldwide Rejection Of Swine Flu Vaccine

Less than one third say they will definitely get H1N1 shot

Steve Watson
Monday, Oct 26, 2009

261009vaccine.jpg people of China are the latest to reject the H1N1 vaccine, according to results of national poll there indicating that concern over the vaccine's safety outweighs concern over the virus itself.
The poll, conducted by China Daily and news website found that only 30% of 2,000 respondents said they would definitely get the shot.
Over 54% of the respondents rejected the vaccine outright, meaning that 702 000 000 people will refuse to roll up their sleeves and take the shot.
The survey indicates a seismic shift in popular opinion from just two months ago, when 76% of people in China indicated that they would opt for inoculation.
The primary reason for the turnaround, according to the survey results, is a general worry over the quality and reliability of the vaccine, given that it has been fastracked and is based on "mock up vaccines" that are up to two years old.
Just two deaths resulting from H1N1 flu have been confirmed in China, according to the health ministry.

The views of the Chinese people also reflect those of populations within the United StatesCanada, the UK and in the rest of Europe.
Last week, when the first H1N1 vaccines became available, 62% of American respondents to an ABC News/Washington Post survey said they will probably not get vaccinated, while 30% said they are not confident in the shot's safety.
Despite a relatively low number of deaths in the U.S. (see table below), coupled with the fact that the H1N1 virus remains mild, President Obama declared a national state of emergency over the weekend, prompting fears of mandatory vaccinations and martial law.

Meanwhile, in Europe, similar levels of rejection of the vaccine have been reported, with large portions of Danes, Finns, Germans, French, Spanish, Belgians and Dutch people all saying they do not intend to take the shot.
The number of refusniks is set to increase following reports late last week of severe side effects and even deaths in Sweden and Bulgaria that may have been linked with the vaccine.
In France, nine individuals have filed formal charges claiming that the H1N1 mass vaccination campaign is a deliberate attempt to poison the French population.
In Germany, where the mass vaccination campaign begins today, just 13% now say they are willing to take the shot, down from 51% in July.
The dramatic fall off in willing recipients follows revelations that government officials, the German military, police and members of pandemic crisis committees will receive a non adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine, while the general public will only be offered the GlaxoSmithKline Pandemrix shot, which contains squalene and thimerosal.

Obama's H1N1 Emergency Declaration Could Invoke FEMA Response to Pandemic

Mike Adams
Natural News
October 26, 2009

President Obama’s declaration of a national pandemic emergency is “no cause for alarm,” reported the mainstream media throughout the weekend. The declaration is nothing more than a “precaution,” they say. “It’s really more a continuation of our preparedness steps,” said Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in a USA Today story.
featured stories   Obamas H1N1 national emergency declaration could invoke FEMA response to pandemic
Obama’s declaration effectively ends many civil liberties in America.
In other words, there’s not really any emergency at all. So why declare a national emergency in the first place? The media reports this was done to allow hospitals to bypass federal regulations concerning the setting up of large-scale triage sites — emergency medical camps quickly constructed to deal with large numbers of sick people.
But at the same time, H1N1 isn’t causing large-scale sickness. As USA Today reported, an expert on infectious disease, P.J. Brennan (the chief medical officer for the Penn Health System at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia) said, “The public ought to take some solace, some relief in this. It’s not a suggestion that things have deteriorated in any way. In no way is the virus more severe or more difficult to manage.”
So let me get this straight. The H1N1 virus remains mild. The CDC reports that swine flu infections already peaked out in mid-October. There have been no new developments in swine flu that would be cause for alarm and no reason to suspect huge numbers of sick people flooding into the hospitals. And yet, for some reason, the Obama administration has declared a national pandemic emergency specifically for the purpose of speeding the ability of hospitals to process large masses of sick people through emergency medical triage tents?
What are these people not telling us?
Something doesn’t add up here. Why would the U.S. government need to declare a national emergency to enable hospitals to handle a flood of sick people when there is no flood of sick people (and the pandemic seems to be fizzling out)?
This is more like the kind of preparation you might expect in advance of a biological terrorism attack, not for a flu that appears no more dangerous than the seasonal sniffles.
The National Emergencies Act and FEMA
Meanwhile, the media ignores the rest of the story about what dangerous powers a declaration of a national emergency puts into play. As reported here on NaturalNews, this declaration effectively ends many civil liberties in America and, at least on paper, puts the U.S. government in the position of having the legal authority to force vaccinations on the entire population at gunpoint (if they wanted to).
The National Emergencies Act passed in 1976 has some peculiar realities attached to it. In particular, as Wikipedia reports:
A federal emergency declaration allows the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to exercise its power to deal with emergency situations … Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.

Got that yet? By declaring a national emergency, Obama invokes a set of laws that not only override important sections of the U.S. Constitution, but that also activate FEMA to take charge of “responding” to the emergency.

Now we know why they need all those emergency medical tent camps near the hospitals. FEMA’s in charge! And if FEMA handles the swine flu pandemic in the same way the agency handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster, we may indeed need all those emergency triage tents after all.
Those of you who have been following the ongoing march to destroy the freedoms of the American People already know about FEMA camps. These aren’t Boy Scout field trip camps; they’re detention centers designed to hold large numbers of people for “emergency” purposes. Many theories abound on what these FEMA camps might be used for ( (….).
They could conceivably be used to quarantine people who are infected with a dangerous pandemic virus. On the other hand, they might also be used to isolated and detain people who refuse to be vaccinated against any declared pandemic. Under the National Emergencies Act and related U.S. law, FEMA would have two years of near-total control over the civilian population, during which people could be subjected to forced vaccinations, mandatory searches of their homes, gunpoint detainment and “involuntary transportation” to a FEMA detainment facility, and so on.
I’m not saying they’re going to do all this, but they could if they wanted to!
And that’s not freedom. Real freedom means you have the guaranteed right to be safe from being detained, or arrested without cause, or injected with a government-mandated chemical. Under a declaration of a national emergency, your “freedom” is at the whim of those who maintain police state powers over you. You’re only “free” if they decide to refrain from exercising the power they have over you. It’s the same kind of freedom you might get as a peasant in some Medieval kingdom where the king says, “You’re free to go.”
Now, some of these freedom-restricting actions might conceivably be justifiable if a truly dangerous pandemic virus were sweeping through the population killing millions, causing huge disruptions in the national infrastructure and threatening the nation with a partial or total shutdown of essential services. But that is not happening here. H1N1 is a mild virus that rates astonishingly low on the severity scale. If H1N1 were a hurricane, it would be little more than a “tropical depression.” It is not a category five hurricane, nor a phase six pandemic. Virtually everyone who is exposed to H1N1 generates their own antibodies and cures themselves naturally. According to hospital reports, those who have died from the H1N1 virus are almost exclusively people who were already suffering from preexisting conditions that compromised their health such as asthma or extreme obesity.
By any measure, H1N1 as currently configured appears to present no extraordinary threat to the health of the population. So once again, we must ask: Why declare a national emergency and initiate a FEMA response to something that’s not really an emergency?
Why I’m concerned
For the first time in this whole pandemic situation, I’m concerned. Not due to the virus itself, because that’s a mild virus that presents no real threat to the population at large. I’m concerned about 
what we don’t know might be going on behind the scenes here.
These preparations for large-scale medical triage tents and the emergency activation of FEMA have me worried that the American people aren’t being told the whole story. Perhaps a terrorist organization is planning on releasing a wildly dangerous mutation of H1N1 in some major U.S. city. Or perhaps some vaccine maker is, in fact, that terrorist organization. (The best way to sell more vaccines would be to release a mutated form of H1N1 into the population and scare up some more sales…)
Or maybe, as some creative thinkers have suggested, the vaccine itself IS a bioweapon, and the U.S. government is preparation for large-scale fatalities it expects to see soon.
Or maybe these are just fleeting, dark visions from crazy people, and the U.S. government is a benevolent organization with all our best interests in mind, and they’re jumping through these bureaucratic hoops to make sure there are plenty of hospital beds to go ’round just in case more people get really sick.
But even that explanation doesn’t hold water. A “national emergency declaration” isn’t necessary to waive hospital tent rules. Obama could have easily accomplished the same thing with an Executive Order, without having to invoke the National Emergencies Act or put FEMA in charge at all.
He chose the emergency declaration for a specific reason. I guess we’ll all have to wait and see what that real reason turns out to be.
Sources for this story include:
USA Today:

The Threat of Mandatory Vaccinations

Adam Murdock, MD
Campaign for Liberty
October 26, 2009
Stop the Swine Whine!
The H1N1 “swine” flu is an extraordinarily deadly virus.
You need to get the vaccine or you could suffer the consequences.
So-and-so has died in your neighborhood. Do you want to be next?
The above statements are typical of the lines that have been fed to the people of the world from the controlled media. In fact, the drum beat has been so deafening that you would think that people were dropping like flies. Sure there have been some deaths related to the flu but most have affected individuals with risk factors such as pre-existing lung conditions or people who are immunocompromised. Most healthy individuals that I have personally seen and in general have experienced nothing more than run of the mill flu symptoms.
Unfortunately, a lot of the hysteria has arisen out of disinformation or lack of information. I am going to address some of the disinformation by posing a few questions. First, do people die from the virus itself? And, if so, why do some individuals succumb to the virus and not others? The answers to the above questions are not commonly known but are pretty well established in the medical community. The facts are that the flu virus is seldom the sole cause of death, even among compromised individuals. In fact, many of the fatal cases arise from individuals that acquire bacterial superinfections. These bacterial infections arise after the lining of the lung is damaged by the virus which leaves the lung susceptible. The reason for this is that the lining of the lungs are critical for the removal of infectious elements and debris acquired during inhalation or from the upper respiratory tract. When these normal mechanisms breakdown or are already impaired, as is the case in pre-existing lung conditions, fatal bacterial infections can arise. It is these infections that are frequently the culprits in the flu. A result of this knowledge is that, I, as a physician am particularly cognizant of examining patients with presumed flu for signs and symptoms of pneumonia and in particular bacterial pneumonia.
What facts about the 1918 flu made some infectious disease experts worried about the swine flu this time around? The timeline of the 1918 flu was really composed of two flu seasons. The particularly virulent form of the flu was preceded by a mild flu much earlier in the season. It is believed that the milder form of the flu was able to acquire virulence factors by “mutating” into a more virulent form that affected younger, healthier patients. It was the second more virulent form that was the cause of the millions of deaths. Or was it? The media and public health officials like to blame all the deaths on the flu. As usual, there are some “confounding” variables, which in the case of the flu are other variables that may have affected the outcomes of flu victims. The first variable was sanitation. The cities of the early twentieth century were not known for their high sanitation standards. Nor was the importance of methods for preventing transmission of the virus such as hand washing and limited close contact understood. The second variable was an understanding about the virus itself and how it spreads, which as you might expect was rather limited at that time. Finally, treatment for flu patients at the time consisted entirely of supportive care. The advent of antivirals and antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial complications of the flu had yet to be invented. These factors greatly contributed to the mortality of the disease.
What about this year’s swine flu? This year’s flu also started earlier in the year, somewhat like the 1918 virus and has been relatively mild. The fear was that this virus would also acquire the factors that would make it more virulent. It is this question that has generated all the hysteria and government intervention.
This leads me to the next question: Did we really need all the hysteria over a highly speculative event with little probability of happening?

The answer might have been “maybe,” if we really were experiencing an exact copy of the 1918 flu. Yet, I am unaware that the current mild swine flu has undergone any type of comparable virulent transformation as many were predicting. In addition, a couple of the original vaccine trials published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine examining the efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine demonstrated that up to 40 % of people already had antibodies to the flu and therefore were possibly already immune. (1) (2) As this data is now several months old, the percentage is likely much higher now. It may be that the majority of people already have antibodies to the swine flu. Another study recently published in Euroscience by Purdue scientists predicts that the peak number of cases of swine flu will happen this week through Oct. 24. They also predict that the vaccine is not likely to have much effect on the total number of people that will acquire the swine flu because it has arrived too late. (3)

So with this information in hand what has been the response of government health officials? Have they halted a massive multi-billion dollar vaccination campaign that would vaccinate a group of people that may be already immune to a mild swine flu? Quite the contrary; they have intensified their efforts. They are calling medical professionals unethical if they don’t get vaccines and even in some cases forcing vaccinations upon nurses and doctors as in New York. In addition, there has much talk about suspending constitutional freedoms and forcing vaccinations upon the general population.
What is scariest about the whole situation is that governments are seizing this opportunity to create emergency power bills that include pandemics such as with flu, thus mimicking the unconstitutional powers that have already been usurped by our Presidents. Recently, Pennsylvania has proposed such legislation. (4)
House bill 492 proposes emergency powers to “compel a person to submit to a physical examination or testing, or both, as necessary to diagnose or treat the person.” This is to be done “without resort to judicial or quasi-judicial authority.” This legislation will also require that “any physician or other health care provider to perform the medical examination or testing, or both” under penalty of law. In addition, “the public health authority may, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, compel a person to be vaccinated or treated, or both, for an infectious disease.” In other words, the rights of the patient and physician can be removed solely because a government public health authority believes a health emergency is imminent. This dictatorial power is to be accomplished without any judicial review.
What about the big pharmaceutical companies? I was recently reading about the pharmaceutical company, Baxter, who is projecting earnings of $30 – 40 million this quarter alone from swine flu vaccinations. Indeed, “Baxter International Inc., best known for its drug pumps and products for blood disorders and kidney disease, said it sees a lucrative new revenue source in vaccines and a multiyear opportunity in H1N1 swine flu vaccines.” (5) It appears that big pharma is seizing upon the hysteria around this flu to potentially establish a new flu vaccine for years to come. This is despite the fact that a majority of the people may be already immune to the current H1N1 virus and the potential for pandemic swine flu in the years to come is likely minimal.
What about harm from the vaccine? Public health officials and the media like to portray the vaccine as virtually harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although most immediate side-effects are minimal, it is well established that people can experience severe allergic reactions and Guillain-Barre syndrome, a severe neurological condition characterized by ascending paralysis. These conditions can lead to death and frequently do if unrecognized. In addition, there may be long-term side-effects related to adjuvants and mercury in vaccines that yet to have been fully characterized due to a lack of randomized studies for vaccinations. To add insult to injury, this vaccination has been rushed through the usual safety evaluation for vaccines in order that the government might “save” us from the deadly swine flu. So why take the risk if the benefits at this point are ill-defined. Indeed, physicians are mandated by law to tell their patients about all risks, benefits, and alternatives to any proposed treatment. Surely, any self-respecting physician should uphold his/her Hippocratic Oath by sharing the information with their patients.
Finally, it is not my right to tell you whether or not you should get flu vaccines, much less force you. Under the constitution, nobody else should have that right either. Unfortunately, it may be soon that our constitutional rights are only as good as the next flu season.
1. Greenberg, Michael, et. Al. Response after One Dose of a Monovalent Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Vaccine — A Prelimary Report. New England Journal of Medicine. Sept. 10, 2009.
2. Clark, Tristan, et. Al. Trial of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent MF59-Adjuvanted Vaccine — Preliminary Report. New England Journal of Medicine. Sept. 10, 2009.
5. Baxter sees multiyear opportunity in H1N1 vaccines. Reuters. Debra Sherman. Oct. 15, 2009.

Canadians Wary Of Swine Flu Vaccine

October 26, 2009

Most Canadians are skeptical of the swine flu threat and of the vaccine to fight it, a survey suggested on Monday as the country’s largest-ever vaccination program in Canada got underway.

Fifty-one percent of 1,000 Canadians surveyed by polling firm Strategic Counsel for the daily Globe and Mail newspaper said they would not get vaccinated against the deadly A(H1N1) flu virus, while 49 percent said they wanted a flu shot.
The poll gave no margin of error because the respondents answered voluntarily through an online survey. A similar survey in July showed 62 percent saying they planned to get a swine flu shot.
The split reflects lingering concerns that the vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline has not been fully tested and that the influenza outbreak is not very serious, pollster Tim Woolstencroft told the newspaper.

Back-Door Taxes Hit Americans With Public Financing In The Dark

Peter Robison, Pat Wechsler and Martin Z. Braun
October 26, 2009

Salvatore Calvanese, the treasurer of Springfield, Massachusetts, for four years, had a ready defense for why he risked $14 million of taxpayer money on collateralized-debt obligations laden with subprime mortgages in 2007.

He didn’t know what he was buying, he says, and trusted the financial professionals who sold them and told him they were safe.
“I thought they were money markets that were just paying more,” Calvanese said in an interview. “Nobody ever used the term ‘CDO,’ and I am not sure I would have known what that was anyway.”
Such financial mistakes, often enabled by public officials’ lack of disclosure and accountability for almost 90 percent of government financings in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market, are costing U.S. taxpayers as much as $6 billion a year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg in more than a dozen states.

Police Define Political Activism As 'Domestic Extremism'

Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, October 26, 2009

Police Define Political Activism As Domestic Extremism 261009top
Police in Britain have defined political activism as “domestic extremism” and are treating people who attend demonstrations as criminals, cataloguing them on multiple national databases as well as tracking their vehicle license plates to enable them to be targeted for stop and search harassment.
People of any political persuasion protesting any cause whatsoever, right or left-wing, are having their details stored on a network of nationwide intelligence databases overseen by three national police units exclusively devoted to spying on those who are even mildly politically active in Britain.
“The hidden apparatus has been constructed to monitor “domestic extremists”, reports the London Guardian. “Detailed information about the political activities of campaigners is being stored on a number of overlapping IT systems, even if they have not committed a crime.”
The police units in control of the system are headed up by the “terrorism and allied matters” committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), illustrating once again that the British government equates peaceful protest with domestic terrorism.
“Vehicles associated with protesters are being tracked via a nationwide system of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras,” reports the Guardian. “One man, who has no criminal record, was stopped more than 25 times in less than three years after a “protest” marker was placed against his car after he attended a small protest against duck and pheasant shooting. ANPR “interceptor teams” are being deployed on roads leading to protests to monitor attendance.”

The system, funded to the tune of £9 billion by the taxpayer, also employs spies to infiltrate and inform on protest groups.

The following Orwellian statement is the the government’s response to criticism that the databases contain vast numbers of people who have no criminal record.
“Just because you have no criminal record does not mean that you are not of interest to the police,” said Anton Setchell, national co-ordinator for domestic extremism for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). “Everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once.”
In other words, everyone who attends a protest, criminal record or not, is on the database and is regarded as a “domestic extremist” by the government.
Superintendent Steve Pearl, the front man for one of the units within Acpo tasked with surveilling protesters told the Guardian that the system was set up after intense pressure from big business, particularly pharmaceutical giants, as well as banks, who demanded that demonstrators be targeted after a minority of animal rights activists engaged in criminal acts.
As another Guardian report on the story explains, just like their counterparts across the pond, British authorities have rebranded lawful protests as “domestic extremism” and now treat any attempt to further a campaign, change legislation or domestic policy as probable cause for criminal surveillance.
Police Define Political Activism As Domestic Extremism 261009top2
Police are provided with mug shots of protesters, known as “spotter cards,” (see above) enabling them to identify key members of protest groups, despite the fact that these individuals have no criminal records.
As comedian Mark Thomas discusses today in his Guardian piece, despite the fact that he was merely attending an arms fair for the purpose of researching for a book, his mug shot is featured on the “police spotter card,” while companies inside the fair who were openly selling illegal torture devices were completely ignored by the government and the police.
“The very phrase “domestic extremist” defines protesters in the eyes of the police as the problem, the enemy. Spying on entire groups and organisations, and targeting the innocent, undermines not only our rights but the law – frightfully silly of me to drag this into an argument about policing, I know,” writes Thomas.
“Protest is part of the democratic process. It wasn’t the goodwill of politicians that led them to cancel developing countries’ debt, but the protests and campaigning of millions of ordinary people around the world. The political leaders were merely the rubber stamp in the democratic process. Thus any targeting and treatment of demonstrators (at the G20 for example) that creates a “chilling effect” – deterring those who may wish to exercise their right to protest – is profoundly undemocratic.”
This is what spying on and treating protesters as extremists and criminals is all about. The government has created a chilling atmosphere where people are scared to exercise their rights because of the fear they will be targeted by the authorities. This is an end run around freedom as it is just as good as outlawing protest altogether. This is how tyranny throughout history always begins – first the state demonizes protesters as extremists and discourages anyone from joining their ranks through fear and intimidation. Once the number of dissidents has been reduced to a tiny minority, the authorities then have free reign to stamp the boot down and eliminate free speech altogether.
The only way to counter this is to shake off the psychological shackles of intimidation, get past our fear and be more vocal than ever in exercising free speech and our right to protest – because the alternative and what it may entail is nightmarish to even consider. If you care about living in anything like a free society with any modicum of free speech whatsoever, then the message is simple – use it or lose it.