The truth about the pandemic flu vaccines

Well, here you go. Here is the information that you need to know and were afraid to ask.

Since March, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), through the news media, have created the impression that a “novel” strain of H1N1 (swine) flu virus has appeared and that it will mutate and spread pandemically all across the world. Deemed “unstoppable,” the only way to protect the world’s nearly 7 billion people, according to WHO et al, is to “develop” a vaccine, produce nearly five billion doses of it and vaccinate the entire planet — children and pregnant women first.

The evidence, however, shows that the “novel” H1N1 “virus” strain is a product of bio-weapons research and the patented vaccine has been under development for at least four years. The implication of this research undermines the WHO/CDC/media-created impression that a global cooperative of public health officials and vaccine manufacturers are responding appropriately to a pending public health emergency.

Around the world, especially in India, the doom and gloom people are telling us that it is going to be catastrophic this fall in the northern hemisphere in regards to cases of the flu. What they are not telling you is that the cases are mild for the majority of the population.

The other thing is that according to the UK experts at the National Institute for Medical Research mentioned that “Analysis done so far suggests what they are dealing with is a mild virus.” “It is believed that a further mutation would be needed in order for the H1N1 virus to cause the mass deaths that have been estimated by some.”

“The swine flu strain is a H1N1 virus, the same type as seasonal flu which circulates throughout the world every year, and kills roughly 0.1% of those infected or higher in an epidemic year.”

“Professor Wendy Barclay, chair in influenza virology at Imperial College London says initial indications suggest there is nothing about the genetic make-up of the new virus which is a cause for particular concern.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8028371.stm

The average flu in the United States claims according to the CDC 36,000 people a year. The majority of those people had a pre-existing condition that weakened them and made them more susceptible to the virus.

Part 2 here: Part 3 here:

In this article I am not going to give you all the media reports. I am going to give you the facts behind what you can expect this fall. Look at it this way. When you line up to get your series of flu shots which is going to be either 3 or 4 spaced 2 to 3 weeks apart you will know exactly what is in them. You will look at the syringe that is going to go into the arm of your child or father or mother and know what chemicals are going to go into their bodies. After you read this you will not be able to say that you did not know what was in that shot or jab as they call it overseas.

It is my opinion, the Gardasil girls were just the testing ground for this type of regimen and now many are disabled.

Let us go on to the ingredients of this wonderful, life saving, innovative, fully tested, pandemic flu vaccine. NOT

The next preferred ingredient is Squalene. Squalene is an essential lipid (oil). Squalene is a cholesterol precursor, which stimulates the immune system nonspecifically. We demonstrate that one intradermal injection of this adjuvant lipid can induce joint-specific inflammation in arthritis-prone DA rats. Histopathological and immunohistochemical analyses revealed erosion of bone and cartilage, and that development of polyarthritis coincided with infiltration of ß+ T cells. — Our demonstration that an autoadjuvant can trigger chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation may give clues to the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis, and it raises new questions concerning the role of endogenous molecules with adjuvant properties in chronic inflammatory diseases.

There is also a “link between the health problems of Gulf-War veterans and possible presence of squalene in vaccines received by these soldiers has been suggested. One published report has suggested that some army veterans who received anthrax vaccines developed anti-squalene antibodies and that these antibodies caused disabilities.”

The next ingredient of concern is Polysorbate 80 which is a surfactant. What a surfactant does in a vaccine environment is keep the ingredients suspended in a somewhat uniform fashion. This is all well and good because you do not need the ingredients to be of different concentrations in different vials or syringes. There is a much larger concern with Polysorbate 80.

There is “a report that shows that neonatal rats were injected with small doses of polysorbate 80 and the results were major effects on the reproductive organs of the rats, resulting in infertility.” There was a study done on pregnant women by PubMed where “in an intravenous vitamin mix given to a pregnant woman who suffered anaphylactic shock where polysorbate 80 was identified as the causative agent,”

It doesn’t stop there. Now we have 3-O-deacylated monophosphoryl lipid A (3dMPL) added to the mix. Here we have another lipid. This is what I found on this ingredient. “If MPL is immunogenic, it raises the possibility of a dangerous “cross reaction.” The human body is full of lipids. Antibodies and immune cells responding to MPL might also respond to other lipids in the body, thus breaking tolerance for endogenous lipids (those native to the human body) and initiating autoimmunity.”

Now I am going to tell you about my favorite ingredient, Thiomersal or Ethyl mercury. It does not matter what you hear from the main stream media about mercury being in the vaccines because I researched all the vaccines that are approved for a pandemic and many have it in there. It may be only a trace amount but for the majority of vaccines that I have researched it is more than just a trace amount. GlaxoSmithKline uses Thiomersal in all the approved pandemic vaccines that I have found.

You are also looking at having in these vaccines Sodium Chloride, TromeThamine, L-Histidine, Sodium Borate, Sorbitan Trioleate (Span 85 or Tween 85), Aluminum Salts, Aluminum Hydroxide or QS21 (Saponin).

QS21 sounded like another gem when I read this. “QS-21 induced mild local erythema, induration, and tenderness lasting 24-72h in all patients at the 100-mcg dose. The 200-pg dose of QS-21 was associated with local tenderness and inflammation lasting 2-10days in all patients as well as mild flu-like symptoms, including low grade fever (<38.5°C), headache, and myalgia lasting 8-24h after most immunizations. No neurological abnormalities or other side effects were observed.”  Why would they be looking at neurological abnormalities or other side effects? This really bothered me.

That is enough for the Novartis vaccine patent. You have to remember that many of the ingredients will also be present in all the other vaccines especially the ingredient Squalene.

Read the entire article at ReNewAmerica.com

Another must read article is:

Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.

The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html#ixzz0ObGeqzPO

Obama: allowing international law to override the United States Constitution

To wit, according to the Centers for Disease Control’s own website, the symptoms associated with H1N1 (swine flu) are similar to seasonal influenza and the fear mongering regarding this flu is not warranted by forensic evidence that H1N1 is the potentially devastating plague the hyperbole purports it to be. In addition, the Constitution Party advises all Americans to research the safety of swine flu vaccines, taking note of adjuvant ingredients (additives) and live virus components which have been shown to cause or have caused illness in the past.

Essentially, those who refuse the live virus swine flu vaccination may be held indefinitely in quarantine camps because the so-called swine flu pandemic has been, (by many accounts unnecessarily) classified as a Level 6 Pandemic allowing international law to override the United States Constitution to justify American martial law and detention for those who refuse the vaccine.

THE ULTIMATE CONTROL

A program of mandatory injections of, potentially toxic (H1N1) “swine flu” vaccine is lurking behind a government-media contrived scare that could prove harmful, if not deadly.

Fortunately, there is a rapidly-expanding network of liberty-minded Americans. committed to protecting individual civil liberties and Constitutional guarantees of freedom to life and liberty as defined in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which states…” The right of the people to be secure in their persons… shall not be violated.”

The most fundamental of all freedoms is at risk. If government can force potentially dangerous substances into our bodies what, then, can’t government do to us?

Whether mandated by the federal government, the individual states such as Massachusetts or international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) or the United Nations (U.N.) forcing potentially dangerous chemicals on a free people is tyranny.

Health researcher Bill Sardi writes, “There is a cozy relationship here where the World Health Organization prematurely declares a pandemic which coerces more than 80 governments to purchase flu vaccines and then public health authorities invoke mandatory flu vaccination programs for school children and become the free sales agents for the vaccine makers. The vaccine makers then funnel profits back to the politicians in the form of political contributions which are veiled kickbacks.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius recently signed a document that grants immunity to swine flu vaccine makers.

In addition, legislation passed by Congress in 2004 (The BioShield Act), an Emergency Use Authorization the use of drugs not tested and approved by the FDA.

Back in 1976, the federal government alarmed the nation over a ‘swine flu” epidemic which never materialized. The L.A. Times recapped the deadly federal government mass inoculation program which cost lives and resulted in the head of the CDC, losing his job:

Americans should be irate and alarmed over the WHO wielding illegitimate authority over us as well as news the Pentagon was planning to use military troops to team up with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during a swine flu outbreak.

When you put all the pieces together, there is a sinister plan in place. The Obama administration is simply building on the foundation that his predecessor George W. and his predecessor George H.W. put into place. We have a strain of flu which has produced mild symptoms so far, and yet it appears there’s a well- orchestrated world-wide effort to launch draconian measures to deal with a “pandemic.” What is particularly concerning is the World Health Organization’s “recommendations” which would impact citizens of the United States in case a pandemic emergency is declared and this. Essentially, those who refuse the live virus swine flu vaccination may be held indefinitely in quarantine camps because the so-called swine flu pandemic has been, (by many accounts unnecessarily) classified as a Level 6 Pandemic allowing international law to override the United States Constitution to justify American martial law and detention for those who refuse the vaccine.

All liberty-loving Americans should shudder at the WHO directives which state: “During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or (individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine (overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned buildings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or implementation of emergency shifts in essential services. These decisions need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with international legislation (International Health Regulations).

The founder and CEO of Classen Immunotherapies, Dr. Bart Classen, told Congress in 1999 that a prior mandatory vaccination program(1976) had devastating effects:

“The government’s immunization policies are driven by politics and not by science….employees of the US Public Health Service….appear to be furthering their careers by acting as propaganda officers to support political agendas. In one case….employees of a foreign government, who were funded and working closely with the US Public Health Service, submitted false data to a major medical journal. The true data indicated the vaccine was dangerous; however, the false data” indicated no risk.

Read entire article at NewsWithViews.com

Obama Taking Up Where Bush Left Off

As you read this you must ask yourself………….I thought we had a Constitution with a 4th amendment that states:

“

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

”

A CULTURE OF SURVEILLANCE

By Chuck Baldwin

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. (I must ask, why are we turning over so much authority to the president, the internet, firing CEOs of public companies,control of the census, stakes in banks, what is wrong with us?)

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.

Entire article at Newswithviews.com

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’

---

---

MEDIA MATTERS

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’

Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail

---

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama’s friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O’Leary, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech.” OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”

Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory “electronic sidewalks” for the Net. These “sidewalks” would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”

“Apparently in Sunstein’s world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires,” Thierer wrote.

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns.” He also acknowledged that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Perhaps Sunstein’s most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book “Nudge,” written with Richard Thaler, for a “Civility Check” for e-mails and other online communications.

“The modern world suffers from insufficient civility,” they wrote. “Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don’t send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven’t learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month.”

That’s where the “Civility Check” comes in.

“We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you’re about to send is angry and caution you, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?’” they wrote. “(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.’ With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!).”

Sunstein’s nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
• In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”
• In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
• In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

O’Leary disagrees.

“It’s hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein,” he says. “Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that ‘limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’ If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government.”

For media inquiries for Brad O’Leary, please send an e-mail here.

Worldnetdaily.com

100 Mile: Homeland Security Enforced ‘Constitution Free Zone’

I’ve done one article a few months ago about this 100 mile “Constitution free zone” ……reminds me of the “free speech zones” at the DNC and RNC last year. I thought the Constitution applied to all of the United States, not just parts of it. Now I’m not a fan of the ACLU, but somebody needs to look into this intrusion of “suspicionless checkpoints”.  Along with the article I’m posting a couple of videos from the April 22,2009 Freedom Watch program with Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News internet stream. Now I realize this guy in the video would look suspicious to law enforcement, but think about it a minute, he was only standing on his Constitutional rights and this was a border patrol checkpoint only for checking illegal immigrates as the article explains.  Also as you read and see this remember the Homeland Security assessment just a couple of weeks about about “right wing extremists” might mention the Constitution.

The 190-Million Person Exception to the Fourth Amendment

Radley Balko | October 22, 2008, 8:03pm

In the 1976 case U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that contra the Fourth Amendment, the government can set up roadblock checkpoints within 100 miles of the nation’s borders in order to check for illegal immigrants and smuggling.  The Court ruled that if the stops are brief, limited to that purpose, and not fishing expeditions, the minimal invasion to personal privacy is outweighed by the government’s interest in protecting the border.

The ACLU says that since September 11, 2001, the government has been steadily stretching the limits of Martinez, to the point where the Department of Homeland Security is using that case and the terrorism threat to conduct more thorough, more invasive searches at dozens of checkpoints across the country.  With 33 checkpoints now in operation, we’re not exactly to the point of “Ihre Papiere, bitte” Berlin yet, but the ACLU does warn that the area of the country 100 miles from every border and coastline would include about 190 million people, or nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population (see map below).

Moreover, post-9/11, the courts have been pretty deferential to increasingly invasive searches the government says are necessary for national security purposes.  For example, federal courts have given the okay to airport seizures and thorough searches of laptops and other electronic devices belonging to people returning from abroad.  Such searches can be conducted with no individualized suspicion at all.  Some of those subjected to them have said it took weeks for the government to return their computers.

Should the courts uphold these increasingly invasive “border searches” under some vague national security exception, I don’t think it’s too much of an exaggeration to say that the Fourth Amendment would be close to non-existent for a large portion of the country.

Reason.com

You can find the rest of the program here on YouTube.com

Judge Skeptical Of State Secrets Privilege For NSA/Charity Case

The Obama administration suffered a bit of a legal setback this afternoon: a federal judge in California rejected the administration’s assertion of the state secrets privilege in the civil suit brought by an Islamic charity that was allegedly subjected to illegal NSA surveillance. The order, in Al-Haramain v. Bush, requires the government to come up with a way to safeguard the classified information it plans to present in the NSA’s defense by May 8. Judge Vaughn Walker noted that the government has elsewhere made provisions for the discussion of Top Secret/SCI information. It so happens that the plaintiffs attorneys have been cleared to that level. Walker crafted his order narrowly to prevent the government from appealing it immediately to the Ninth Circuit. On May 8, it will be interesting to see whether the administration presents a plan for safeguarding classified info — or whether it re-asserts the state secrets privilege.

Order.April%2017.pdf

Obama Defends:NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans

Wow what a shock…..like we already didn’t know this, just not offically acknowledged….With all the stonewalling and requests for dismissal, you know they are hiding something.

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration’s cover-up of the National Security Agency’s dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a “secret” that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

From Fox News:

NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans

The National Security Agency intercepted Americans’ e-mails and phone calls in recent months on a scale that went beyond limits set by Congress last year,(what a shock!) The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The problems were discovered during a review of the intelligence activities, the Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night, and said they had been resolved.

Citing unnamed intelligence officials, the Times said the NSA had engaged in “‘over-collection’ of domestic communications of Americans.” Sources reportedly described the practice as varying from significant to systemic to unintentional.

The agency also tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official told the Times.

The NSA believed that the congressman, whose identity was not revealed, was in contact with an extremist who had possible ties to terror and was already under surveillance. The NSA then tried to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the Times said.(without a warrant?)

A bill passed by Congress in July 2008 authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

In its statement, the Justice Department said it has taken “comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance.”

The Justice Department did not elaborate on what problems it found.(why would they not elaborate, oh I forgot, that elusive “state secret” thing to keep us from finding out exactly what violations occured.)

Once corrective measures were taken, Attorney General Eric Holder sought authorization for renewing the surveillance program, officials said.

“It is not clear to what extent the agency may have actively listened in on conversations or read e-mails of Americans without proper court authority, rather than simply obtain access to them,” the Times said.

Domestic eavesdropping has been a contentious issue since 2005, when the Times revealed that for years following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NSA intercepted international phone conversations and e-mails involving U.S. citizens without a warrant.(as the Constitution call for before a search can be done and a wiretap is a search according to the Supreme Court.)

That program ended in 2007, and the following year Congress passed legislation requiring the NSA to get court approval to monitor the purely domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion.(which they didn’t need since the Constitution already prohibits this without a warrant)

Fox News.com

Obama DOJ Invokes State-Secrets Privilege and Patriot Act To Justify Continued Bush Warrantless Wiretaps

04/09/2009 A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Christine Bowman

Illegal wiretapping cases could spell trouble for President Obama. What can the Obama Administration be thinking?

At the Obama presidential campaign website, barackobama.com, a page titled “Plan to Change Washington” describes problems in government and then presents “The Obama/Biden Plan” to correct such problems. Here’s the section on the problem of government secrecy:

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the “state secrets” privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

But then in the section on Obama’s planned solutions, the state-secrets legal tool doesn’t come up again. Was that an oversight or a deliberate omission? Was there actually no Obama/Biden plan to challenge or curtail the state-secrets claim that the Bush administration used so often? It seems so.

The fact that Keith Olbermann, an intense Obama supporter, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme the conduct of the Obama DOJ here.

President Obama’s DOJ last week filed a request for dismissal of an electronic surveillance case, Jewel v. NSA, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T clients before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco. Their arguments? State secrets must be protected, and on top of that, the government should be immune from prosecution for spying on citizens unless they willfully leak the secret information they have gathered. (yeah, like anyone is ever going to leak information that they have violated the law or Constitution….how stupid do they think we are?) They cite the Patriot Act for that part, which the Bush administration had never done.  EFF Attorney Kevin Bankston told BuzzFlash Thursday the DOJ’s arguments in the case are “plainly wrong.” He also said the Justice Department’s “chances of success on that point are not very high.”

To summarize, the DOJ wants to allow the NSA to keep doing unrestricted electronic surveillance; the DOJ wants to keep the NSA’s secret documents from being used in court; and they want the Jewel v. NSA case thrown out. The EFF wants Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable invasion of privacy upheld for American citizens. They want the case to be heard. They seek to stop what they call the government’s “illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance … of millions of Americans.” As Kevin Bankston told BuzzFlash, the EFF “believes and alleges based on widespread news reports and whistleblower evidence” that the NSA is intercepting not only the transactional information but also the contents of “practically everyone’” emails and phone calls illegally.

The EFF must respond in writing to the DOJ filing, and then Judge Walker, who has resisted Justice Department attempts to claim the state-secrets privilege before, will hear oral arguments from both sides June 25 (assuming no calendar changes).

Tim Jones explains the DOJ’s arguments in the case further at the EFF website:

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses “sovereign immunity” from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government’s ability to wiretap. (yeah,one important law is in the Constitution, it’s called the 4th amendment)The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.(duh…what about that thing called the Constitution?)

Regrettably, this is not the first electronic wiretapping case where Eric Holder’s DOJ has tried to claim the state-secrets privilege. Another involves the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.

More legal arguments will be made in writing and in court in the coming months, but what of the political side to this story? Many Obama supporters are losing faith. The President they helped to elect on a platform of change and transparency, and the one who was an expert on constitutional law, no less, now seems ready to usurp essential citizens’ rights that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. As a candidate, he had decried governmental overreach.

Will President Obama be able to restore that loss of faith, or even try? Doesn’t he realize his base is boiling mad about domestic spying and warrantless wiretaps? The disconnect between campaign rhetoric and courtroom maneuvering is a problem the President must confront — on this issue as well as on others.

Domestic spying is not a progressive value, or even a centrist or conservative value. It’s a breach of the inalienable 4th Amendment rights of all Americans.

Buzzflash.com

One of Obama’s most supportive boosters in the liberal blogosphere – Booman – emphatically condemns Obama for what his DOJ is doing in this case, and says “it is extremely disappointing, it is unjustifiable, and it is dangerous.”

Obama’s Biggest Moral Failing

by BooMan
Wed Apr 8th, 2009 at 01:38:30 AM EST

There is really nothing I can disagree about in this piece by Glenn Greenwald. The Department of Justice is making insane and insupportable claims of executive power (.pdf) in an effort to prevent the public from learning the true scope of Bush’s illegal warrantless surveillance. They are even making arguments that are broader than anything (except the Unitary Executive nonsense) that the Bush administration attempted in court. It is extremely disappointing, it is unjustifiable, and it is dangerous. If the Obama administration’s position prevails we will have fourth amendment rights but no means of protecting them.I know that Obama doesn’t want to get a bad reputation with the Intelligence Community like JFK, who wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds” after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But this is not acceptable. This is wrong, and it is not consistent with his oath to uphold the Constitution. I will wait to see if opponents of this attempted power grab emerge on the right. They were mostly silent during the Bush years but we could use their help now because Obama is riding high and the left is distracted with economic matters.

Booman Tribune.com

Following Bush lead, Obama moves to block challenge to wiretapping program

The more things change the more they stay the same!

“President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston in the release. “But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration’s cover-up of the National Security Agency’s dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a ’secret’ that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.”

By: John Byrne

Source: Rawstory

President Barack Obama invoked “state secrets” to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency’s warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed.

The move — which holds that information surrounding the massive eavesdropping program should be kept from the public because of its sensitivity (yeah, it violates the 4th amendment of the Constitution)– follows an earlier decision in March to block handover of documents relating to the Bush Administration’s decision to spy on a charity. The arguments also mirror the Bush Administration’s efforts to dismiss an earlier suit against AT&T.

The Friday brief involves a lawsuit filed by the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the NSA for the wiretapping program. The agency monitored the telephone calls and emails of thousands of people within the United States without a court’s approval in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks.

In attempting to block a San Fransisco court from reviewing documents relating to the NSA program, the Obama Administration is also protecting other individuals named as defendants in the suit: Vice President Dick Cheney, former Cheney chief of staff David Addington and former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Friday brief responded to the government agencies being sued; the individual defendants have asked for more time to prepare their response.

It also stands firmly behind the telecommunications giant AT&T. AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein revealed that the company allowed the agency to install network monitoring hardware to spy on American citizens.

The Director of National Intelligence, the Justice Department says, “has set forth a more than reasonable basis to conclude that harm to national security would result from the disclosure of whether the NSA has worked with any telecommunications carrier.” AT&T is specifically mentioned. Public reports have fingered AT&T, Verizon, MCI and Sprint as participating in the government’s eavesdropping efforts.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz penned the brief on behalf of the Obama Justice Department.

“The grounds for this motion to dismiss are that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to plaintiffs’ statutory claims against the United States because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity, and summary judgment for the Government on all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims against all parties… is required because information necessary to litigate plantiffs’ claims is property subject to and excluded from use in this case by the state secrets privilege and related statutory privileges,” Hertz and other trial attorneys for the Justice Department wrote.

The Justice Department also holds that the lawsuit can’t proceed because of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They assert that the US government has “sovereign immunity” against statutory claims that it illegally wiretapped or accessed communications data.

Congress expanded the wiretapping program in 2008 with passage of amendments to the Act, which gave telecom companies immunity for past and future participation in the program and expanded the legal use of warrantless wiretaps from 48 hours to seven days. The revised Act also allowed the government to destroy records of previous taps.

Obama voted for the revised Act while a senator last year.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation fired off a scathing press release Monday.

“President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston in the release. “But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration’s cover-up of the National Security Agency’s dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a ’secret’ that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.”

LibertyNewsRadio.com

‘drastic federal intervention’ Give Obama Control of Internet

Yeah, this is just what we need to do …give the government the power to fire CEOs,dictate to the Banks, Insurance companies, the Secretary of the Treasury power to force bankruptcies, the federal reserve give taxpayer money to bailout recepients and then not tell where all the money went and now the internet? Don’t we in the US realize what we are doing?

---

---

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER

Will bill give Obama control of Internet?

Proposed new powers called ‘drastic federal intervention’

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared “cyber emergency.”

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what’s being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.(What about Congressional oversight?)

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.”

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act’s broadly drawn government powers.

“The cybersecurity threat is real,” says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, “but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”

“The whole thing smells bad to me,” writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. “I don’t like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don’t like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president.” (kind of like Obama appointing the CEO of General Motors? and then dictating what GM will do or else?)

According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation “addresses our country’s unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure.”

In a statement explaining the bill’s introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on.”

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, “If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect “critical infrastructure” networks from the Internet – including private citizens’ banks and health records, if Rockefeller’s examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as “the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information,” including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the “critical infrastructure.”

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power.

“There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government behind them,” writes Seltzer in eWeek. “This is not the same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and who can do it.”

“It’s an incredibly broad authority,” CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws “could fall to this authority.”

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.”

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the “critical” networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure in the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.

“What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are ‘banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.‘ Let’s think about this,” writes Seltzer. “I’m especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash.”

Worldnet Daily.com

Obama Administration: Constitution (4th amendment) Does Not Protect Cell-Site Records

4th amendment…..The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

People if you haven’t read or studied the Constitution….it’s time you did and remember the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were written directly to the federal government that they were about to create in order to restrict their authority.

Here’s what James Madison said in Federalist Paper #45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite….The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”

Obama Administration: Constitution Does Not Protect Cell-Site Records

By David Kravets March 17, 2009 | 2:21:35 PMCategories: Surveillance

The Obama administration says the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers.

The position is being staked out in a little-noticed surveillance case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The case has wide-ranging implications for Americans, as most citizens have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan.

At issue is whether the government can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant. While judges have varied on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution.

Mobile phone providers keep such information for up to 18 months. Historical cell-site location information includes the tower connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call.

“Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user’s whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest,” the Obama administration wrote (.pdf) Feb. 13 to the federal appeals court.

The court filing underscores that the Obama administration is continuing to maintain the Bush administration’s hard-line position when it comes to supporting warrantless surveillance.

The latest surveillance case is believed to be the only one of its kind to reach the federal appellate level, said Jennifer Granick, the civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Almost everybody in the United States carries or will carry a cell phone,” she said. “This tracking ability is a means where the government can find out the location of pretty much everybody without much effort or expense.”

The EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday urged (.pdf) the federal appeals court to side against the Obama administration.

The case on appeal concerns the government’s ongoing investigation into “large-scale narcotics trafficking and various related crimes.”(In those cases they should have probable cause with no problem) A Philadelphia federal judge denied requiring the disclosure of the cell-site information until the government provided an application for a search warrant. The government refused. (Because they didn’t have probable cause, the government was wanting to go on a fishing expedition and it didn’t work)

The appeals court did not indicate when it would rule.

Read at blog.Wired.com