The Vaccine Hoax is Over. Documents from UK reveal 30 Years of Coverup



by Andrew Baker

Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have

1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US.

Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

Freedom of Information Act filed in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.

On October 26, 2011, a Denver Post editorial expressed shock that the Obama administration, after promising to be especially transparent, was proposing changes to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow it to go beyond declaring some documents secret and to actually allow government agencies (such as the CDC) to declare some document “non-existent.”

Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary “health” not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared. Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.”

The CDC is obviously acting against the health of the American people. But the threat to the lives of the American people posed by the CDC’s behavior does not stop there. It participated in designed pandemic laws that are on the books in every state in the US, which arrange for the government to use military to force unknown, untested vaccines, drugs, chemicals, and “medical” treatments on the entire country if it declares a pandemic emergency.

The CDC’s credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 “pandemic,” the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation. What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a “pandemic” in the US.

The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC, “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].

The exposure of the vaccine hoax is running neck and neck with the much older hoax of a deadly 1918-19 flu. It was aspirin that killed people in 1918-19, not a pandemic flu. It was the greatest industrial catastrophe in human history with 20-50 million people dying but it was blamed on a flu. The beginning of the drug industry began with that success (and Monsanto was part of it). The flu myth was used by George Bush to threaten the world with “another pandemic flu that could kill millions” – a terror tactic to get pandemic laws on the books in every state and worldwide. Then the CDC used hoax of the pandemic hoax to create terror over H1N1 and to push deadly vaccines on the public, killing thousands of unborn children and others. (CDC will not release the data and continues to push the same vaccine.)

The hoax of the vaccine schedule is over, exposed by FOIAs in the UK.

The hoax of the CDC’s interest in children’s lives has been exposed by its refusal to respond to a doctor’s FOIAs around its knowledge of vaccine dangers.

The 1918-19 pandemic hoax has been exposed by Dr. Karen Starko’s work on aspirin’s role in killing people.

And despite refusing to respond to FOIAS, the CDC’s scandalous hoax of a 2009 flu pandemic and its part in creating it, was exposed by CBS NEWS.

And the Obama administration, in attempting to salvage the last vestige of secrecy around what is really happening with vaccines, by declaring agency documents non-existent, has made its claim of transparency, non-existent.

But pandemic laws arranging for unknown vaccines to be forced on the entire country are still in place with HHS creating a vaccine mixture that should never be used on anyone and all liability for vaccines having been removed. Meanwhile, a Canadian study has just proven that the flu vaccine containing the H1N1 vaccine which kills babies in utero, actually increases the risk of serious pandemic flu.

Americans who have been duped into submitting their children to the CDC’s deadly vaccines, have a means to respond now. People from every walk of life and every organization, must

1. take the information from the UK FOIAs exposing 30 years of vaccine lies, the refusal of the CDC to provide any information on what it knows about those lies, and the Obama Administration’s efforts to hide the CDC’s awareness of those lies, and go to their state legislatures, demand the immediate nullification of the CDC vaccine schedule and the pandemic laws.

2. inform every vet. active duty military person, law enforcement people, DHS agents and medical personnel they know, of the vaccine hoax, for their families are deeply threatened, too, but they may not be aware of it or that they have been folded into agency structures by the pharmaceutical industry (indistinguishable from the bankers and oil companies) that would make them agents of death for their country with the declaration of a “pandemic” emergency or “bio-terrorist” attack. It is completely clear now that the terrorism/bioterrorism structures are scams so that any actions taken to “protect” this country using those laws would in fact be what threatens the existence of Americans.

It was aspirin that killed millions in 1918-19. Now it is mandated and unknown, untested vaccines with banned adjuvants in them that threaten the country with millions of deaths. At the same time, the CDC is holding 500,000 mega-coffins, built to be incinerated, on its property outside Atlanta. Not to put to fine a point on this, but it’s clear now that the CDC should not be involved in any way with public health.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know that vaccines are not a miracle of modern medicine. Any medical or government authority which insists vaccines prevent diseases is either ignorant of government documents (and endless studies) revealing the exact opposite or of the CDC’s attempts to hide the truth about vaccines from the public, or means harm to the public.

Zionists In Africa; A trail of bloodletting on the Mother Continent (Part One; West and Central Africa)



"Blacks are irrational animals who are below mankind but above monkeys."~~Moses Maimonides, Judaism’s most celebrated rabbinic sage

by Jonathan Azaziah

Nigeria as of late has been rocked by an unrelenting campaign of violent car bombings, including a horrific attack on Christmas Day, which the Zionist media blames on an Islamic group known throughout the capital of Abuja and other cities for its social services, Boko Haram.

Nigerian Muslims view the attacks as a means of instigating a religious war to divide the country on ethno-sectarian lines, as per one of the directives of “Yinon Africa,” and Nigerian Muslims also reject the idea that Boko Haram is behind the sophisticated attacks, saying it is far beyond their scope and antithetical to their agenda. They say that Boko Haram has become a “boogeyman” used by the Goodluck Jonathan regime to obtain Western grants.

It is not by luck of any sort that the bombings in Nigeria began right around the same time that the Jonathan regime brought in a team of Mossad and CIA operatives, overseen by “Israeli” Ambassador to Nigeria Moshe Ram, to probe (read: run) its security services. The Zionist entity is attempting to break up Nigeria using the same successful methods it used in Sudan and it couldn’t be any clearer.

“Israeli” activity has even been found as far as the tiny island state of Madagascar, where an “illegal commando unit” of Zionist mercenaries led by 60-year old Joseph Akiva from the illegal Jewish settlement of Netanya were involved in a savage crackdown that left dozens of protesters dead.

Akiva and his band of goons were suppressing rivals of former Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana. Despite business interests on the Indian Ocean island involving construction, Akiva has been extradited back to occupied Palestine for his murderous criminal activity.

One of the most unknown examples of Zionist puppetry in Africa was “Emperor” of the Central African Republic, Jean-Bédel Bokassa. The closest friend of the megalomaniacal Bokassa was one of the usurping Jewish entity’s “famous generals,” General Shmuel Gonen-Gorodish. The “Israeli” general, in addition to his military and security advice, built up the public relations of Bokassa throughout the globe. Gonen-Gorodish also embezzled large amounts of taxes and customs from the state treasury.

Though their relationship didn’t last long, when a military coup ousted Bokassa from power, Gonen-Gorodish helped him flee to the Ivory Coast, where, ironically enough, the luxury hotels, palaces of the rulers and monopolistic companies were all built with the close assistance of the private firms and racist Histadrut of the Zionist entity.

The coastal West African nation of Sierra Leone has been pillaged by some of the most vile elements of International Jewry. From the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brighton Beach, the small, troubled and diamond-rich Sierra Leone was “virtually run” by Marat Balagula, the Ukranian-Jewish mob boss of the most powerful criminal organization on earth, the Red Mafiya.

Sierra Leone’s president, Joseph Momoh, didn’t have any problem with the Jewish syndicate setting up global smuggling and money laundering operations in Freetown because Balagula’s associates, in return, bankrolled Momoh’s 1985 presidential campaign. The Jewish ultra-gangster’s main contact in Sierra Leone was a Mossad agent named Shabtai Kalmanovitch, who trained Momoh’s presidential guard and assisted in the crushing of an attempted coup in 1986.

Balagula and Kalmanovitch were introduced by Rabbi Ronald Greenwald, a front man for the interests of Marc Rich, the famous billionaire Jewish criminal pardoned by Bill Clinton. This revelation shows a clear nexus between the “Israeli” entity and organized crime, united in the ancient Jewish hatred of the Black man, working together for the furtherance of Jewish interests.

In the Congo, where a catastrophic genocide has been occurring since 1996, in which up to 10 million people have died at a maddening rate of 1,500 a day, the profiteers of this downright insidious humanitarian disaster are almost exclusively Jewish and intimately linked to the larger network of international Zionism that has been responsible for every major conflict of the last century.

Gertler
Led by Dan Gertler, the grandson of Moshe Schnitzer, an Irgun terrorist known throughout the Zionist entity as “Mr. Diamond” and for founding the “Israel” Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings the usurping regime $14 billion annually in blood business, there is a Jewish-Zionist network in the Congo so interlocked, so powerful and so domineering, that it can truly make one’s head spin.

Gertler, a member of the influential Chabad Lubavitch supremacist gangster cult and guided by Rabbi Chaim Yaakov Leibovitch, is in bed with Jewish diamond dynasties that include the families of Templesman, Oppenheimer, Mendell, Blattner, Hertzov and Steinmetz, his main partner.

The Chabadnik criminal bought off the Congolese government in exchange for high-level “Israeli” defense and intelligence assistance. The endeavors of Gertler and Benny Steinmetz, one of the richest Jews in the Zionist entity, have proliferated and today, they have a monopoly over Congo’s diamonds, a dominant stake in Congo’s copper and the largest cobalt-mining company in the world.

All of this blood money ties into Jewish organized crime, “Israeli” arms dealers, multiple influential Chabad houses and the Zionist occupation itself, all the way up to Netanyahu’s office. Gertler, a Jewish supremacist of the highest order, revels in sucking the Congo’s blood and he’s so sadistically thirsty for it, he just won’t stop his criminality until there is nothing left but millions more dead.

If the late Mehdi Ben Barka was the “Moroccan Che Guevara,” Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara, the Pan-Africanist leader of Burkina Faso from 1983-1987, was certainly the “Che Guevara of Africa.” Sankara was known for his incorruptibility and radical (and successful) policies that included land reform, women’s rights, literacy promotion, education, famine prevention, resource nationalization, anti-neoliberalism, anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism, public health care, social justice and legal punishment for all previous oppressors, colonialist and collaborator alike.

Thomas Sankara was nothing short of remarkable. His extraordinary and pristine life came to an end on October 15th, 1987, when he was overthrown and executed in a coup d’état by incumbent Burkinabé president, Blaise Compaoré. It has been known, for quite some time, rather indisputably in all actuality, that French intelligence and the CIA aided the coup, but there is yet another player that isn’t discussed.

Not only has the usurping Zionist entity’s Foreign Affairs Ministry described Burkina Faso as “one of Israel’s most loyal friends in Africa,” but Blaise Compaoré is an honorary member of The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, a known front for the usurping Jewish regime’s Mossad in which Yosef A. Maiman, the aforesaid Mossad agent who runs the Merhav Group of Israel consortium that is currently targeting Somalia, sits on the Board of Directors.

The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation was founded by Argentine Jewish supremacist Baruch Tenembaum, a devoted Talmudist, Kabbalist and Zionist who made it his life’s work to undermine Christianity.

The fact that Compaoré belongs to such an organization is damning; he is a Mossad asset and has been one from the moment that he sold his soul and Burkina Faso to the enemies of Thomas Sankara. Moreover, in a startling admission from former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, it is now known that French intelligence is compromised and has been so for some time; the Zionist entity controls it. This is yet another damning piece of evidence that Thomas Sankara was indeed a martyr made so by Zionism.

The widow of Sankara, Mariam, declared with her head held high, “What remains above all of my husband is his integrity.” And just one week before Mossad asset Compaoré led the coup against him which would result in his untimely death at the tender age of 36, Thomas would famously state, “While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas .” Indeed again.

The ideas of Thomas Sankara have not died; they are more alive now than ever before, in the hearts of the Islamic Resistance of Somalia and the Libyan Green Resistance fighting Zionist-designed occupations of their ravaged homelands, and in the streets of Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco, fighting counter-revolution and repressive, pro-Israel dictatorships.

What the people of Africa, Black and Arab, Christian and Muslim, and everything in between, must know, is that the Zionist entity, inspired by a primordial Jewish supremacist ideology, has no interest in your land except to exploit it, and exploit you. Zionism is a cancer that infests, infects and destroys everything in its path. But like any other cancer, it can be counteracted and cut out, so it never returns.

Looking back... at things said in the light of today (part 3)



PRESCRIPT: We found the contents of this article, which had its edited version published in a prominent Nigerian newspaper, uncannily similar to the American situation. It's reproduction was irresistible. The writer's concerns bear a graphic resemblance to the American dilemma. I never thought I would see the day a so-called third world predicament would be comparable to that of the greatest nation on earth. It was for us, a terrible commentary on America's state of affairs.

The Editor
This Day Newspapers
35 Creek Road
Apapa
Lagos.
Friday, 7 April 2006


Democracy, Power and Terror.

"Bad laws give upthrust to disruptive tendencies that guarantee democracy's demise. They are the rhythm between the bandit and his horse and it is the illusion of invincibility which they create in the minds of leaders that disable the rule of law and accountability in government...

The exigencies of government, politics and war cannot be allowed to amend or install laws that chew up our self-worth and Democracy's essence. Impositions accommodated by jubilant expectations, nervous submission or fear, only point to a frightful turn of events...

The real terror is for democracy to go off on a tangent and decay into warlord nodes and primitive atrocities, especially, in stressed out nations such as ours. The only way to celebrate democracy and find the secured and fulfilled life is to uplift the dignity of man and add value to it; this is the real duty leaders owe to God and country."

By Michael .O. Dibiaezue

Democracy is the air that I breathe and God with the golden opportunities of a free world are my best reasons for living. The freedoms of Democracy are its pulse and the individual's right of way in life, deduct from them and the scale of power tilts away from the people. Its joy are the rule of law, civil liberties, equal opportunities and freedoms that let people be the best they can be, in its celebration of life.

Sadly, all over the world today, laws are getting increasingly discriminatory and offensive as people are fitted into tagged boxes; religion, nationality, sex, colour, wealth and even by cash carried, weight and preferences. Unusual laws are in place, which appear to severely impair free speech, freedom of worship, association, movement and assembly, property and privacy laws; the freedoms of Democracy.

Domestic policies place ordinary citizens and visitors under the microscope, innovative electronic surveillance, enriched data pools, exceptionable laws and every conceivable prying device are being infused to bolster an already intense security watch and invade privacy. People are petrified and driven into a chronic sense of insecurity that allow governments and their representatives to pass politically convenient laws that wash away freedoms and liberties, our right to ask hard questions and are difficult to reverse. There is no locomotion for the common man.

The McCain-Feingold Act which is made in America, to deal with politically incorrect speech, is a solid sucker punch that knocks out their first amendment and a bad example of how to gag citizens that may have inspired tyrannical leadership around the globe. America must understand that to many people she is the very definition of democracy and to quite a decent few, God's own country.

What does politically incorrect speech mean in the full glare of any citizen's democratically guaranteed and constitutionally protected rights of comment, dissent and legal concern? The Patriot Act, Homeland Security laws, Domestic Surveillance program, proposed new American immigration laws, French labor laws and others being put in place around the world, to my mind, permit employers, aloof government officials and spooky security agents, in the first instance, to seize property, shut down businesses, dismiss people from places of employment without due notice and compensation, deport immigrants without proper consideration and forcibly take people into custody. And in less endowed societies, remove incumbents, governments and duly constituted authority.

Meanness, ulterior motive, bruised ego, the look on a face, boredom, impulse or just brazen covetousness is all it takes, most times, to inflict these abuses. Arbitrary powers of arrest and seizure, coupled to the denial of immediate access to legal recourse, say we are guilty until proven innocent beyond all doubt. This is characteristic of a police state and not democracy. People pay for system-failures of governments with the erosion of their natural rights and freedoms when it is bully policies sped by government ego that promote most conflicts around the world. Terrorism and the decadence of societies tattoo inconsequential leaderships.

It is impossible not to feel endangered when people are terrorized but the feeling is mutual where counter-terrorism and anti-corruption measures deny others the joy of democracy. It is not personal inconveniences, time wasted, opportunities and income lost that are the issues here but the severe corrosion caused to democracy by the arbitrariness generated by these pursuits and the numbing run of body bags brought about by their resistance and enforcement.

In Nigeria, all our sorrows flow from a seriously flawed constitution and undemocratic system that has made our anguish continual and excruciating, showcasing total corruption and treachery, committed by ill-bred leaders and facilitated by ill-conceived laws. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines constitution as the system of basic laws and principles that a democratic country is governed by, which cannot be easily changed by the political party in power. This is to say, the nature of such laws define a democratic country and not the bent of any political party in power.

Any proposed amendment or change, therefore, to the 1999 constitution that is unpopular and unconstitutional can only be an imposition, by the party in power. Such impositions must set aside the constitution and impose change and leadership, which by another name would be called a coup. The implication would be clear, Alamieyeseigha, the King can do no wrong! I do not like the feel of things and it is starting to look like some crazy rehearsal at playing Caesar that is so lost in the 21st century.

I do not see constitutional democracy in the natural state of our constitution, what I see is a vexatious bundle of imperial laws brought to pretentious reality by our joyous abandon and democratic anxiety. It is a constitution fitted by and for people in power and government. From revenue to accountability, it is rigged for their evasive action and lordship. I see an assemblage of contradictions woven into erratic laws and thrown into space to manage vacuum, military subterfuge installed by a decadent esprit de corps.

Reviewing such a constitution would be an exercise in futility because you cannot build on what does not exist. It was conceived by anti-democratic forces for their protection and comfort while out of power. So, the question must remain, why recondition a useless vehicle from the military when you can build a brand new one at the same cost? I believe the 1999 constitution wallows in national disgust and that its natural demise will be the event to cut us loose from an odious past and a dreadful military hangover, induced by barracks terror and mentality.

The expectation is that laws will change in response to popular demand and criminal genius but with exemplary respect for democratic values and the dignity of man. Discriminatory laws that impose leadership and deny citizens constitutional rights lend an immoral hand that gives criminal advantage to politicians. Such laws are intolerable and do not define democracy.

People do not give up their rights to free speech, oxygen and suffrage or that to exercise choice and seek legal redress. It is outrageous to say any democratic nation does, or more to the point, silly to imply a people-installed constitution demands it. This is ludicrous as it excavates the basis for justice, equity and fair hearing which are true benchmarks for the rule of law. Freezing out the soul of a constitution and the inviolate-given that all men are equal before God and the law, with exceptionable and discriminatory laws, that provide constitutional cover for politicians to perpetually hang on to power, commit atrocities and spread terror at the expense of our well-being, freedoms, liberties and dignity is anti-people, provocative and oppressive. It is exactly like when an alarm goes off.

It is uniquely immoral when a people's desire for change and laws said to be derived from them, under God and country, for our salvation and remedy, become instruments that deprive us of the most important thing that we cherish as a people; the right to pick and choose our leaders. By this, such laws stop being for the common good and become impositions or evil tools that lead to abuse and depravity.

In Nigeria, these symptoms appear vivid as the fizz looks to have left the champagne. There are serious issues pertaining to Elections 2007, constitutional democracy, galloping arbitrariness, waning judicial clout, executive interference (some would say executive recklessness and lawlessness) and democratic longevity. My grief is not only over the arbitrariness generated by these situations but their tactical applications to political 'wars', in ways that pervert the rule of law and the celebration of democracy.

Bad laws come into effect when clear constitutional provisions for their enactments are not followed. The 1999 constitution clearly provides in Section 9, steps that must be followed before its contents can be amended or changed. The very first constitutional step is that the intention to so do (a Bill) must be presented to the National Assembly, detailing all such proposed amendments or alterations. The next step after this compliance deals with the actual passing of such a Bill or the observance of legislative protocol by the National Assembly. This observance, the resolution of two-thirds of the Houses of Assembly of our thirty-six states and the President's assent pronounce consent (an Act) for the alteration or amendment of such a constitution.

We all know, for a fact, that such a Bill was never gazetted by government or the National Assembly or read before the Senate or House of Representatives in compliance with legislative protocol and as demanded by our constitution. It should be said also, that the setting up of any committee in respect of such an amendment must come after the Senate or House consents to such a Bill. Let me be the first to admit that the Mantu committee is for the review of the constitution and not for its amendment, but this fact notwithstanding, Nigerians still need to know how its findings can be said to represent the views of Nigerians, by any stretch of the wildest imagination.

And considering this, how the National Assembly can co-opt its findings as the desire of Nigerians in all good conscience. What we witnessed was the flash of a two-day public hearing for well over a hundred million Nigerians induced by some joint committee of the National Assembly that appears to have no constitutional connectivity with us. Apparently lacking in thorough and widespread consultations, the Joint Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution must pretend to powers it does not have if it must claim to be speaking for Nigerians.

In this light, there can be no excuse for a third term or tenure extension outside the provisions of our present constitution. Any purported constitutional amendment that enthrones such a desire for any incumbent must surely violate the terms, expectations and spirit of constitutional democracy.

There is no doubt in my mind that President Obasanjo is a really good man, who has done remarkably well with the interest of our nation at heart. But we must look beyond the good leader and carefully weigh the consequences of such impositions against the danger it may portend for our nation, presently and in the future. The price could be calamitous to this nation and to Obasanjo's enviable track record.

Bad laws give upthrust to disruptive tendencies that guarantee democracy's demise. They are the rhythm between the bandit and his horse and it is the illusion of invincibility which they create in the minds of leaders that disable the rule of law and accountability in government. Besides, even where a good leader may derive some usefulness from them there are no guarantees to what use the next man on the saddle will put them. This fear motivates a reluctance to leave office when the bell tolls and is a most persuasive factor in the sit-tight mentality that afflicts most African leaders.

The exigencies of government, politics and war cannot be allowed to amend or install laws that chew up our self-worth and democracy's essence. Impositions accommodated by jubilant expectations, nervous submission or fear, only point to a frightful turn of events. It is my fervent prayer for these 'wars' not to flow into violent conflicts sequenced to domestic turbulence.

The real terror is for democracy to go off on a tangent and decay into warlord nodes and primitive atrocities, especially, in stressed out nations such as ours. The only way to celebrate democracy and find the secured and fulfilled life is to uplift the dignity of man and add value to it; this is the real duty leaders owe to God and country. Where they fail, things will continue to look like Iraq, Afghanistan or, as it now seems, Nigeria 's Niger Delta. We must not kid ourselves; these are the patterns of hell.

This article was originally posted by Egoigwe to this blog on Monday, October 30, 2006 under the header "Democracy, Power and Terror"

Looking back... at things said in the light of today (part 2)


Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

"... the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."~~Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

"This expose is dedicated to the exposure of his (Bryan Cunningham's) intellectual folly and its dubious origins but more importantly, to the towering stature of a most magnificent woman and her selfless commitment to jurisprudence. The incandescence of the true woman of substance; dignified, courageous, graceful and exceptionally blessed"~~Egoigwe



The only thing there is for me to fear, amongst the living, is to lose my freedom. It is the only thing that makes me less than human. I cease to exit in my natural state by that condition; to only exist by the miracle of breath. There is nothing that can be worth it, I labor in vain. In truth, I may well be dead.

Two events have brought this consideration to the fore. (1) The Anna Diggs Taylor decision. (2) Bryan Cunningham's eager sycophancy camouflaged in the obscene critique of that said decision. It is very clear that his only reason for thinking he could get away with such condescension and derogatory commentary was because he felt secured enough that cover would be provided by his sponsors through the obvious clout they wield over the mainstream media. He also figured, perhaps, that he could prey on a people's reasonable desire to live their life in peace and enjoy the comforts of their homes in quiet. I have never seen people make so much noise and still not say a thing.

Now, to what one of Bryan Cunningham’s favorite crooner calls "the who point of the Cunningham piece." Bryan’s contention rested on the fallacious assumption, I know many who said propaganda, that:

"the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an ‘exception’ to FISA’s warrant requirements.":

Annexed to the ridiculous:

"She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA’s substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA’s procedural and substantive hoops."

Ridiculous because:

"These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings."

You are either the lawyer you claim to be, Bryan, or you are not.

What Cunningham fails to show is the legal mechanism by which such evidence, when gathered, will be examined. Bryan understands and knows, or ought to know, that to examine such evidence or to hold substantive hearings would mean falling into the legal quagmire that Laird constitutes. Conspicuously subdued, he fails to cite any authority to display his juvenile assertions.

In Laird, it was held that jurisdiction of a Federal court may be invoked by a complainant who alleges that the exercise of his first amendment right is being chilled by the mere existence, WITHOUT MORE, of a government and data-gathering activity (emphasis mine). That is to say, by virtue of its mere existence, no more no less, it chills the individual's first amendment right. To ensure standing, you must show that by the simple existence of that project your first amendment right is in jeopardy. You may not excavate or dig because government will find the cover of TSP.

TSP is the privilege that shields government from revealing state secrets. Now, every time you feel violated by government snooping and go in search of legal redress, government may simply claim it would require them to reveal state secrets. By invoking this legal privilege, the courts may lack jurisdiction to inquire into your complaint and to remedy your grievances.

And this is the crux of the matter, Bryan appears to assume that it is sufficient to merely assert that it compels them to expose state secret and that once it is said, court jurisdiction is ousted. Judge Taylor seems to think not.

And you guessed it, government rushed to court with its legal dodge, to declare that the state secrets privilege bars Plaintiffs' claim because Plaintiffs cannot establish standing or a prima facie case for any of their claims without the use of state secrets. They further argued that they could not defend the case without revealing state secrets.

Judge Taylor disagreed with government on the grounds that "non-justicability" was not applicable (El-Masri v. Tenet, Totten v. United States et al.) because the Plaintiffs were not seeking to expose government secrets but to show that TSP by virtue of its mere existence was causing them severe injury. In settling this, the learned judge cited and reviewed about a dozen cases, which I considered superfluous, to embed her decision that:

" In sum, the court holds that the state secrets privilege applies to Plaintiffs’ data-mining claim and that claim is dismissed. The privilege, however, does not apply to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims challenging the validity of the TSP, since Plaintiffs are not relying on or requesting any classified information to support these claims and Defendants do not need any classified information to mount a defense against these claims."

Her reliance was by way of Ellsberg v, Mitchell, 709 F.2d@68, in which the court held:

"When properly invoked, the state secrets privilege is absolute. No
competing public or private interest can be advanced to compel
disclosure of information found to be protected by a claim of
privilege. However, because of the broad sweep of the privilege, the
Supreme Court has made clear that “[i]t is not to be lightly invoked.”
Thus, the privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly
necessary to prevent injury to national security; and, whenever
possible, sensitive information must be disentangled from
nonsensitive information to allow for the release of the latter."

That done, the next question was the consideration of standing. Government argued that Plaintiffs did not establish their standing, that their contention was merely a subjective fear of surveillance which falls short of the type of injury required to show standing. Again Judge Taylor goes through a battery of ten cases to determine if in fact Plaintiffs had established standing according to strict standards of
Presbyterian Church Vs U.S Gov-870 F.2d 518,) which qualified Laird by establishing the relevant distinction required to meet standing, to wit: that the plaintiffs were not merely alleging that they could conceivably become subject to surveillance under the TSP but that its continuation has in fact damaged them.

She found that the injury and conduct complained of was fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendants (government), observing that:

"The TSP admittedly targets communications originated or terminated outside the United States where a party to such communication is in the estimation of Defendants, a member of al Qaeda, a member of a group affiliated with al Qaeda, or an agent of al Qaeda or its affiliates. The injury to the Plaintiffs stems directly from the TSP and their injuries can unequivocally be traced to the TSP."

Having established this nexus therefore, the learned judge concluded that:

(1) "It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power is never “condense[d] ... into a single
branch of government.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507,) (plurality opinion).

We must always be mindful that:

(2) “[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681,).

(3) “It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril.” Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440,) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

And then she concludes:

“Because of the very secrecy of the activity here challenged, Plaintiffs each must be and are given to challenge it, because each of them, is injured and chilled standing substantially in the exercise of First Amendment rights so long as it continues. Indeed, as the perceived need for secrecy has apparently required that no person be notified that he is aggrieved by the activity, and there have been no prosecutions, no requests for extensions or retroactive approvals of warrants, no
victim in America would be given standing to challenge this or any other unconstitutional activity, according to the Government. The activity has been acknowledged, nevertheless. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered an actual, concrete injury traceable to Defendants and redressable by this court. Accordingly, this court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing."

To illuminate, the learned judge delved into the tortuous history of electronic surveillance in America and reviewed over half a dozen cases in the process of her illumination. They included U.S v, U.S District Court where it was held:

"... that, for lawful electronic surveillance even in domestic security matters, the Fourth Amendment requires a prior warrant."

She noted that:

"In 1976 the Congressional 'Church Committee' disclosed that every President since 1946 had engaged in warrantless wiretaps in the name of national security, and that there had been numerous political abuses, and in 1978 Congress enacted the FISA."

And this is where I take very strong exceptions to Bryan Cunningham's seeming ‘legal’ pretext and intellectual contamination. What Judge Taylor said, and herein follows her exact quote, was:

"The FISA defines a “United States person” to include each of Plaintiffs herein and requires a prior warrant for any domestic international interception of their communications. For various exigencies, exceptions are made. That is, the government is granted fifteen days from Congressional Declaration of War within which it may conduct intercepts before application for an order. It is also granted one year, ON CERTIFICATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, and seventy-two hours for other defined exigencies." (emphasis mine).

That seventy two hours was not said to be EXCLUSIVE of the Attorney General's certification as Bryan Cunningham would want his perceived gullible audience to believe.

For clarity, Judge Taylor emphasized that:

"The FISA was essentially enacted to create a secure framework by which the Executive branch may conduct legitimate electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence while meeting our national commitment to the Fourth Amendment. It is fully described in United States v. Falvey, 540 F. Supp. 1306 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), where the court held that FISA did not intrude upon the President’s undisputed right to conduct foreign affairs, but protected citizens and resident aliens within this country, as ‘United States persons.’ Id. at 1312."

The conclusion, therefore, could not be anything but obvious:

"Against this background the present program of warrantless wiretapping has been authorized by the administration and the present lawsuit filed."

The Fourth Amendment provides:

"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."

Delving extensively into the merits of Entick v, Carrington and quoting Justice Douglas and Powell profusely, Judge Taylor maintained that:

"The Fourth Amendment, accordingly, was adopted to assure that Executive abuses of the power to search would not continue in our new nation."

The First Amendment provides that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Judge Taylor, in her finest hour, noted that:

"... FISA explicitly admonishes that '. . . no United States person may be considered . . . an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'" 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3)(A). See also United
States v. Falvey, 540 F. Supp. at 1310.

And after considering Justice Powell in the Keith case, to wit:

"National security cases, moreover, often reflect a convergence of
First and Fourth Amendment values not present in cases of ‘ordinary’
crime. Though the investigative duty of the executive may be
stronger in such cases, so also is there greater jeopardy to
constitutionally protected speech. ‘Historically the struggle for
freedom of speech and press in England was bound up with the issue
of the scope of the search and seizure power,’ (citation omitted).
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government–however benevolent and benign its motives–to view with suspicion
those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment
protections become the more necessary when the targets of official
surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political
beliefs." U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. at 313-314.,

Judge Taylor was certain to find and conclude that:

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."

In considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, Judge Taylor noted that:

"The Constitution of the United States provides that '[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . .' It further provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ' And that '. . . he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . .' "

In expatiating, she noted Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown stating that he wrote;

"... the Constitution had diffused powers the better to secure liberty, the powers of the President are not fixed, but fluctuate, depending upon their junctures with the actions of Congress. Thus, if the President acted pursuant to an express or implied authorization by Congress, his power was at it maximum, or zenith. If he acted in absence of Congressional action, he was in a zone of twilight reliant upon only his own independent powers. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 636-638.

But

“when the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for he can rely only upon his own Constitutional powers minus any
Constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.” Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring).

And she very well notes Justice Jackson's conclusion:

"With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered
no technique for long preserving free government except that the
Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by
parliamentary deliberations." Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 655 (Jackson,
J., concurring)

It is clear, as Judge Taylor pronounced, that:

"In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained...In this case, if the teachings of Youngstown are law, the separation of powers doctrine has been violated. The President, undisputedly, has violated the provisions of FISA for a five-year period."

She observed that the government of the United States

"... argues here that it was given authority by that resolution to conduct the TSP in violation of both FISA and the Constitution."

That resolution being The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which states:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

She noted that:

"the AUMF says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance."

and that;

"Both statutes have made abundantly clear that prior warrants must be obtained from the FISA court for such surveillance, with limited exceptions, none of which are here even raised as applicable. Indeed, the government here claims that the AUMF has by implication granted its TSP authority for more than five years, although FISA’s longest exception, for the Declaration of War by Congress, is only fifteen days from date of such a Declaration."

She drew further legal inspiration from Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 533 (citing Cleveland Board of Education v. Laudermill, 470 U.S.). Here Justice O'Connor asserted that:

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our
Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it
is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to
the principles for which we fight abroad. Any process in which the Executive’s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short." Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 532, 537.

Judge Taylor in her judicial eloquence insisted that:

"Under Hamdi, accordingly, the Constitution of the United States must be followed. The AUMF resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine."

Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor observed and acknowledged, with complete judicial distinction, that:

"The duties and powers of the Chief Executive are carefully listed, including the duty to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Presidential Oath of Office is set forth in the Constitution and requires him to swear or affirm that he 'will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' "

But

"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself."

Noting that:

"... the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

Whereas Ex Parte Milligan teaches the
"Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace... ”

and that:

"...in Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, we were taught that no emergency can create power."

After finally disposing of practical justifications for exemptions, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor finally arrives at what was an exceptionally tortuous and considered decision, to wit:

"For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the final claim of data-mining is granted, because litigation of that claim would require violation of Defendants’ state secrets privilege."

Continuing, she states

"The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met. The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S.). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary."

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S.):
"Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."

A remarkable woman, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. At seventy-three, her intellectual stamina is outstanding and all encompassing, as I never tire to tell my associates and friends;

”She is the glowing testimony of American intellect and a most reassuring tribute that stands out against its severely hampered international relations and domestic affairs.”

The issue, as I see it, is that of constitution-hijack and the remedy of true constitutionalism. A false flag ‘precedent’ which has dubiously allowed an already very powerful president to void his accountability to the good American people that voted him into office. Bryan Cunningham must have hoped that she would become enmeshed in the pitfalls of Laird and that the tediousness of breaking her ruling down in everyday-speak would overwhelm many, but he figured wrongly.

This expose is dedicated to the exposure of his intellectual folly and its dubious origins but more importantly, to the towering stature of a most magnificent woman and her selfless commitment to jurisprudence. The incandescence of the true woman of substance; dignified, courageous, graceful and exceptionally blessed.

………… Egoigwe.
Originally written and posted by Egoigwe to this blog on Friday, October 27, 2006 under the header "THE ONLY THING TO FEAR..."

1 comment:

Dr Fredrick Stein said...

Beautifully analyzed and scripted. I am glad for the opportunity of this insight and treasure it as if it were mine. Thank you for this exceptional revelation. No-one really ever takes away from truth, it will always, in the end, ring out loud and clear.
3:35 PM, April 03, 2007

Looking back... at things said in the light of today



"Gregg,
You either don’t want to get it, don’t get, can’t get it or need a new pair of glasses.

When you stand me in line, make me sleep at the airport, listen in on my telephone conversations without my permission or judicial oversight, harass my peace of mind with ever-changing terror threat levels occasioned by unverifiable government claims (most probably manufactured under the cover of TSP), dictate who I can and cannot have a transcontinental telephone conversation with, command what I can or cannot say (a la politically incorrect speech), compel me to lose valuable time, income and opportunities via delayed flights and unsubstantiated closures premised on suspicions-what does that amount to in your neocon vocabulary?

What you have done without constitutional sanction, is to deny me my God-given rights to oxygen and clean air! You subvert my freedom of free speech, locomotion and liberty: to choose, labor and excel. To indulge in my peace of mind and live my life as I deem fit within the construct of the constitution."~~Egoigwe's comment

Pundit Review
Posted by Gregg on Aug 20, 2006 @ 15:10

Bryan Cunningham who served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush has written this fantastic piece on National Review Online.

He says of the recent decision by Carter appointee federal court judge Diggs-Taylor which ordered the “president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications.” :

We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

He argues that the ruling conatains “process fouls.”

Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an “exception” to FISA’s warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA’s substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA’s procedural and substantive hoops. These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings.

Cunningham also demonstrates other egregious errors in the judge’s decision including ignoring contrary authority, appeals Court Cherry picking, selective reading “redux”, and trivializing the 1st and 4th Amendments.

This ruling is a perfect illustration of judicial activism- substituting personal preferences for a strict interpretation of the law. And it shows why elections matter (she was a Carter appointee) and why liberals despise Bush so much (among other reasons of course, but judicial reform was a top priority of the Bush admin- replacing judicial activists with strict constructionists and originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas).

Cunningham concludes:

Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the “9/11 Part 2” British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.

As Judge Taylor’s new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” I will put my daughters to bed tonight confident that the Court of Appeals and our Supreme Court will not allow Judge Taylor’s giant step in that direction to stand.

Yet another perfect illustration of why liberals cannot be trusted with national security. they appoint judges like Diggs-Taylor.

COMMENTS

1.

Mad. Simply insanity.

Now, OT. I sure do wish you would put your PHONE NUMBER in the part where you have, “What is Pundit Review Radio.” I wanted to ask him, “When are people going to get over the fact that people who play cover for terrorists is dangerous, they’re not innocent, and they are going to die?”

I am sick and tired of our men dying because some terrorists kid is standing by his side saying, “Death to America!” Die, you SOB. Are we at war or not? If we are, let’s kill people. If we are not, let’s get the heck out there. I’m tired of babysitting. That’s about all I have to say about it.

I’m sorry. I’m just so disgusted at the UN and the US for going there! Again! Argghhh!

Comment by Rosemary — August 20, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

2.

STOP WARNING PEOPLE YOU’RE COMING! Hey, Hitler. We were only kidding about that first report. We’re coming in over here. Huh?

Comment by Rosemary — August 20, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

3.

What arrant neocon tittle-tattle! A few questions. What would Bryan have us believe, that those countries which do not listen in to their citizens telephone conversations are deaf and dumb to those who would murder them en masse? So, how come they all enjoy the peace of their land and America does not? Who appoints the Attorney-General and to whom, by virtue of his appointment, will he show loyalty and gratitude?

“Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the “9/11 Part 2” British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.

As Judge Taylor’s new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

That is exactly what the Constitution demands must be done and , ridiculously as only a neo-con can be, such freedoms and liberties granted in trust and love to the America people by their founding fathers of blessed memory does not and CANNOT amount to a suicidal pact. What infamy! What the likes of Bryan seek is a political short-cut that circumvents the Constitution of the United States of America! A short-cut by which the President and his neo-con clique can evade upholding that same constitution which conveyed to him the powers to become President. 9/11, part1, is still an unfolding scenario to which George Bush may yet be complicit. ‘9/11, part 2′ is without doubt an ongoing political charade designed to manipulate the gullible into a sense of insecurity that permits the shoring-up of dubious political ‘profit’ and exactly the kind of abuse that the Diggs Taylor ruling seeks to eliminate ie. the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation.

What point is Bryan Cunningham trying to make? That Americans should shove their rights of privacy and free speech aside in preference for security parameters defined by the likes of George Bush and his neocon oil-and-contract-gluttons?

It isn’t Justice Jackson that is relevant here but Justice Warren:

“Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart… it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense we would sanction the subversion of… those liberties… which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile”
U.S Vs Robel

Comment by Egoigwe — August 20, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

4.

And here is where “Egoigwe” in the nonsensical rambling post above leads me to conclude that he is another moonbat conspiracy thoerist.

“9/11, part1, is still an unfolding scenario to which George Bush may yet be complicit. ‘9/11, part 2′ is without doubt an ongoing political charade designed to manipulate the gullible into a sense of insecurity that permits the shoring-up of dubious political ‘profit’ and exactly the kind of abuse that the Diggs Taylor ruling seeks to eliminate ie. the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation.”

OK, no coherent analysis of the NRO article I blogged about by Bryan Cunningham who served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, just a vapid screed with no thesis or supporting argument.

Yes “Egoigwe”, Bush knew about 9-11, the war on terror is a made up bogey man of the Bush “neo con conspiracy” intended to “scare gullible people”, “Hallburton,” “blood for oil,” blah, blah, balh. You are a walking talking leftist bumper sticker- a living breathing shibboleth.

Doesn’t it ever get tiring for you lugubrious Bush haters?

Try specifically detailing “the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation” to which you refer. I look forward to the specific list you provide. Although I won’t hold my breath.

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 20, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

5.

These so-called 9/11 conspiracy theorists are growing in number and voice because the government and the 9/11 Commission have not been straightforward with the American public. Too many questions regarding that day remain unanswered, and this is inexcusable given that 9/11 is used as the chief justification for the administration’s aggressive and disastrous foreign policy. Gregg, a smart guy like you shouldn’t be so dismissive of such people unless you work for the NSA, CIA, Defense Department or Mossad…which I’m starting to think you might at this point. At the very tail end of your radio show last night you basically said Rummy was doing an excellent job, and even Kevin had to set you straight. Oh well, you’re fun to converse with either way, Gregg.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 7:42 am

6.

John,

Your suggestion that “a smart guy like (me) shouldn’t be so dismissive of such people unless you work for the NSA, CIA, Defense Department or Mossad…which I’m starting to think you might at this point.” is absurd.

Think about how nonsensical that statement is John. That I am not allowed to analyze a ruling from a federal court judge because I am not in the “NSA, CIA, Defense Department or Mossad?” By that reasoning none of us can discuss or criticize any govt policy unless we ourselves serve in government. You should really try to give more thoughtful consideration to what you say. You are probably a fairly intelligent (albeit misguided person) but when you make such idiotic statements it makes you seem really ignorant and does not alter the perception that all you are is a conspiracy theorist.

But John your inability to answer any of the questions posed in our last interaction regarding Jimmy Carter adn Israel and admit that you could not substantiate your claims is evidence to me that your ego inhibits you from acknowldeging your ignorance on virtually every issue we discuss. After facts are raised which rebut your fallacious assertions you say “we’ll just agree to disagree.” Part of engaging in a rational honest discourse John is for each party to demonstarte a certain level of intellectual candor. I asked you to substantiate your claim that “war crimes” were committed by both Hezbollah and israel and “innocent people on both sides died”. I pointed out the documented war crimes committed by Hezbollah and you could not provide one committed by Israel with sourced documented evidence. Where I come from, when you are incorrect, you check your ego at the door and admit that you were wrong. That is how mature men communciate with one another. I cannot persoanlly engage in conversations with you in the future John about your inane conspiracy theories unless you acknowledge that you could not answer my questions and that you were wrong in claiming that “war crimes were committed by both Hezbollah and Israel”. Are you man enough to admit that John?

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

7.

You misunderstood me, Gregg. My quip about you working for the agencies was tongue-in-cheek and meant to insinuate that your dismissive attitude towards so-called conspiracy theorists must be the result of your employment with one of these agencies. Of course you can analyze the latest ruling. I wasn’t even referring to that as I stray off topic quite a bit.

The murder of civilians in Qana constitutes a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions and an obvious Israeli war crime. Civilians have been targeted as a report from the Human Rights Watch mentions:

“Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags…”

Moreover, former NSA agent Wayne Madsen has reported that Israel used banned chemical and biological weapons against the Lebanese. Banned chemical and biological weapons! I posted the link to his report in a previous post. Have him on the show and debate it with him.

750 Lebanese civilians have died and Beirut has been leveled. These are the facts, and Israel and Hezbollah have both played a role in this massacre.

I’m assuming you now accept that the British airline plot was overhyped for obvious political purposes as you had no response to the MSNBC piece in which a senior British official was quoted as saying the threat was not imminent. You also had no response to the fact that many of these alleged plotters hadn’t even purchased plane tickets or obtained passports. I’ll also assume you were humbled by the FOX News series on Israeli spying in the US before 9/11 as you made no mention of it either.

Gregg, the 9/11 cover up is slowly falling apart as the calls for a real investigation into government involvement grow louder and louder. The complicit mainstream media is covering for the government by slandering 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” on a more regular basis. It will be devastating to you when you learn the truth, and I will have nothing but compassion for you in those trying days. It is going to be a very difficult time for America, but the truth has to be known and this administration has to be removed before peace can be attained.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 3:34 pm

8.

John,

Human Rights Watch? Are you kidding me? That is who you are citing? You can’t be serious. one of the most left wing partisan anti-Israel organization in the world? Come on John. If you want to quote a reputable non-partisan human rights orgainzaiton that is fine. But I didn’t just fall of the turnup truck.

So when you say:

“The murder of civilians in Qana constitutes a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions and an obvious Israeli war crime. Civilians have been targeted as a report from the Human Rights Watch mentions:

“Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags…”

You are quoting a partisan organization with a long history of anti-Israel bias.

Why has the UN not acknowledged that Israel committed any war crimes in Qana John? Until you can answer that, you really don’t have a leg to stand on. But don’t give me some report from some left wing anti-semitic organization like human rights watch. Now I will ask you again. Has Israel been accused or found by the UN or any other world governing body to have committed any war crimes in Qana? Simple question. Please answer yes or no and if yes please provided documnted evidence.

Stay focussed john.

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

9.
And you quoted National Review, a strongly conservative publication. You also regularly cite the WSJ editorial page, another conservatively biased outlet. The vast majority of the blogs you quote are from right leaning sources. You can’t have it both ways. If you’re simply going to label anything I post as biased, I will do the same to you. And just so you know, I hate having to mention this left vs. right bias because it’s terribly tiring and unproductive.

It has been reported by several sources that Israel has used banned weapons against the Lebanese.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAS20060813&articleId=2950

This is a heinous war crime, and I don’t need to wait for the UN to formally condemn it before doing so myself.

As for Qana, I don’t believe the investigations have been completed, though there is a good bet that John Bolton will strongarm the UN into remaining silent.

At the end of the day, I’m trying to get you to understand that Muslims deaths are never “collateral damage” and should be mourned in the same manner as Israeli deaths. I may be wrong, but I think Muslim deaths are rationalized and excused away (i.e. Fallujah) on this site, and I find that profoundly unfortunate. We’re all humans and we all mourn the loss of our family members. Please remember this.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 6:31 pm

10.

Gregg,
You either don’t want to get it, don’t get, can’t get it or need a new pair of glasses. When you stand me in line, make me sleep at the airport, listen in on my telephone conversations without my permission or judicial oversight, harass my peace of mind with ever-changing terror threat levels occasioned by unverifiable government claims (most probably manufactured under the cover of TSP), dictate who i can and cannot have a transcontinental telephone conversation with, command what i can or cannot say ( a la politically incorrect speech), compel me to lose valuable time, income and opportunities via delayed flights and unsubstantiated closures premised on suspicions-what does that amount to in your neocon vocabulary? What you have done without constitutional sanction, is to deny me my God-given rights to oxygen and clean air! You subvert my freedom of free speech, locomotion and liberty: to choose, labor and excel. To indulge in my peace of mind and live my life as i deem fit within the construct of the constitution. If you still don’t get it , try this:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison

Comment by Egoigwe — August 21, 2006 @ 7:23 pm

11.

I repeat egiugwe:

Try specifically detailing “the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation” to which you refer. I look forward to the specific list you provide. Although I won’t hold my breath. YOur having to stand in line or have the govt tap your phone line if you are talking to an Al qaeda terrorist doesn not violate you constitutional guarantees. You know that. authoriazaton of military force and executive presidential war powers gives the executive the power to use “all necessary force…in thwarting a terrorist attack.” There is legal precedent.

Comment by Gregg Jackson — August 21, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

12.

Judge Diggs-Taylor just ruled the NSA wiretap program unconstitutional, so there’s your first example of “the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation”.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 8:02 pm

13.

How specific do you want me to get gregg? The legal precedent is, as John so easily put it, Judge Diggs Taylor’s ruling. In the face of that ruling , you may not sit in your neocon chambers and tell me they do not violate my “constitutional guarantees” and subverting the Constitution of the United States does not and cannot amount to “all necessary force…in thwarting a terrorist attack.”

Comment by Egoigwe — August 21, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

14.

Can either of you conspiracy theorists/Bush haters cite any pertinent legal precedent that demonstrates that her “opinion” justifies her decision? That is the who point of the Cunningham piece. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for her activist/groundless ruling as he explains with numerous examples of legal precedent which rebuts the central argumens posited by the judge. That is the point. Her decision is not prima facia evidence that the NSA wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Her case is not “precedent” especially since nither neither of the two higher courts have heard the case (both of which are likely to reverse it)CAn you please cite any relevant legal precedents that would lead anybody to believe that her decision is grounded in solid legal case law/precedent. that is the question neither of you two gentlemen can answer. And please, the “neocon” references make you sound like an idiot and an anti-Semite. Can you engage in civil discourse without going to the “neocon” card? Elevate your argument with factual evidence not ad hom vitriol.

Gregg

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 9:48 pm

15.

John, by the way you still have avoided my previous question in post #8. I will assume you cannot answer it. I am glad you acknowldge the many war crimes committed by Hezbollah which I have cited and you have not rebutted and their terrorist sponsors (Iran and Syria). That is well documented. What is not documented by any reputable world body are the purported Israeli “war crimes” you allege. Sorry, the anti-Semititc/anti-American group “Human Rights Watch” doesn’t qualify for a non-partisan world body with any jurisdiction in judging these matters. But what do you expect from a moonbat who deludes himself into believing 9-11 was an “inside job” that we will “all find out soon enough about.” and that “the war on terror” is contrived bogeyman of the Bush admin. Time to start your own blog I think john. It is truly a waste of time talking to you.
Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 10:01 pm

16.

I was pleased to hear you again this evening..you are both terrific and made my night

I must admit I was stunned by Judge Taylor’s ruling..until I researched WHO APPOINTED HER! Her ruling was HOGWASH and showed Partisanship in a Very Un- Judge like manner. Even the Lunatic Judges letting child molesters walk or spend 60 days in jail have NOTHING ON HER RULING! What happened in this case is that she is so full of hate for Republicans and especially GWB that she is blinded to the DANGER she threatens us all with! Of course, she may feel it “doesn’t matter” since the NY TIMES exposed the program as well! But to me it does matter..Her ruling was so VILE and filled with Hate that I cannot imagine she could be a judge. A judge must use points of LAW to make decisions..not Feelings and blatant hatred. Of course, she has extra security since some of the lunatics judges like her let go..returned to kill judges… but I digress…between the ACLU and the Liberals..I have great fear for the future of our country! All who love this country need to realize that just a decade ago our then president allowed an assistant to Janet Reno FORBID our FBI, CIA and other security agencies from sharing information. This Blocking of “dialogue” (by libs who like “dialoging” was meant to MAKE SURE WE TOOK THE STEPS TO GO TO TRIAL..IF WE DIDN’T ADD TO THE TRIAL WORK..WHERE WOULD ALL THE ATTORNIES BE? Rather then keep us safe, this member later of the 9/11 commission..obviously put there to provide COVER..(Jamie Gorelick who made the rule in the 90’s)..raised the bar and PROBABLY HELPED THE TERRORISTS..perhaps unwittingly, but HELP THEM SHE DID! Personally, I fear the IRS more than the NSA and I always try to do my taxes correctly..so that SAYS a LOT! but when I heard the head of the ACLU say that the Warrantless wiretaps made his clients afraid and unable to do their work..I COULD ONLY THINK..WHAT WORK AND WHAT CLIENTS..WHEN I FOUND OUT WHO THEY WERE..lawyers and journalists ..lawyers for terror suspects..I ws amazed. Brings me back to my chidlhood when my mom was watching a UN meeting on TV and Kruschev was their pounding on his podum and telling us that HE WILL DEFEAT THE US FROM WITHIN…I was little and HE SCARED ME..my mother had grown up at the end of the depression and during WW2..she was SCARED TOO..but she knew what he meant..now I understand VERY WELL what he was saying..THAT SHOULD BE REPLAYED DAY AFTER DAY so that all Americans FIGURE OUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING…and the commercial time should be allotted to 9/11 replays and the reading of Jamie Gorelick’s memo…and everyone SHOULD read the congressional testimony by J F Kerry. The most interesting commentary was not his War Crimes Diatribe, but the comments by the Senator who asked Kerry if he thought the US GOVERNMENT was going to be taken over by the Anti War Crowd ..between the lines..it shows a Congress frightened by Kerry’s gang..most of whom were phonies and Commie supporters..or at least pushed to fury by certain operatives and sympathizers! May I suggest you research Hitler’s Aryan Myths..you know the GREAT Pure Germanic folks? These stories were for the most part taught to the youth in Germany during the lead up to WW2 and were actually Persian Lore (Iranian) .. check out Baathist party as well..a Socialist/Communist party…begun on the beliefs of Nazi hatred for Jews, added to later when Russian Commies had great influence on the Mid East..and Sadaam who is a hero due to the fact that he combined the Socialist view of NON VIOLENT take over with the communist VIOLENT over throw..Sadaam supported a WEAK candidate in Iraq..and shortly after (about 1 year) he killed him and TOOK OVER..He was a HERO to all Socialists …and that is why they all, including our liberal Dems who call themselves “progressives” cry so loudly today to STOP THE War! Deep Down, his downfall was a BLOW to The Socialists…you should also research the lead in to America’s joining in WW2. There were protest galore when Hitler and Stalin made a “peace” pact..protests that WE SHOULD IGNORE HITLER and stay out of the frey..but Suddenly Hitler attacked Stalin and all hands were aboard…the protestors did not like us aiding England..they thought Hitler ..the leader of the German Socialist party was a HERO and man of his WORD..sort of like Joe Kennedy and interstingly enough..Old Joe the ambassador to England, got Recalled (fired) for his support of HITLER.. FDR made a DEAL with the Communist during his first election..”The Farm Labor Socialist Dems..the ones who still use that name in Minnesota..his deal was SS and more..but the events abroad stalled some things and the Supreme Court and even then the Patriotic Congress saw the light and stopped many of his NEW DEALS..He did end up working on the WAR..against complaints from his Cohorts..but by then his speeches had won the hearts of most Americans and the Commie/Socialists couldn’t push further..I have read a lot of history and his Military landing in North Africa was a Farce ..he actually ordered the ships to announce their arrival to the Vichy French..we are here to RESCUE you and we are landing at Dawn..naturally the Vichy French shot at our landing parties and ignored the offer of Freedom…instead, the naval commanders took the time to DESTROY the French Navy which had been sent there for SAFETY..something they have held against us ever after! I think I will call the Judge a Vichy Judge..

sorry I strayed but some of the points may prove worth checking out for yourself…another intersting resource on understanding the background of the Terror movement is The crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis..I note too that I think there were two very great men in the middle east..the King of Jordan who died and the leader of Egypt..Anwar Sadat..both men who wanted peace and did not worry about Their Futures! Brave men who saw value in making peace with Isreal and not afraid to Visit Israel either! To this day in Jordan there are many Jewish businesses operating and prividing a decent life for Joradanians who would otherwise be bereft of work and a decent life! To this day you can travel from and to Israel and Jordan..Brave Countries ..Palestine when given back settlement land and buildings chose through their sickness of hate to tear them down..even hydroponic farms which could have supplied jobs and food to their fellow citizens…were destroyed by the Lunatics! The middle east is such a sick area that I feel their is no hope…when an entire group of people are so filled with hatred they would teach their children to Blow themselves up and dress their babies in bomb belts..there is not much WORTH SAVING…

caron/Abington

Comment by caron Mc Carthy — August 21, 2006 @ 10:14 pm

17.

Ellsberg Vs Mitchell-privilege may not shield any material necessary etc.
709 F.2d@56&68

Presbyterian church Vs U.S Gov-870 F.2d 518, 522 (1989)

Ozonoff vs Berzak-744F.2d@228-229

friends of the Earth Vs Laidlaw Environmental Services-528 U.S@184

Jabara Vs Kelley Id. @561, 568 E.D Mich 1979
” It is within the court’s power to ensure that power is never condensed… into a single branch of government” Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld

“We must always be mindful that when the President takes official action, the court has authority to determine whether he has acted within the law”
Clinton Vs Jones
“It remains one of the most vital functions of this court to police with care the separation of the governing powers…”
Public Citizen Vs U.S Dept of Justice

U.S Vs U.S District Court ( the Keith case)… for lawful electronic surveillance even in domestic security matters, the 4th amendment requires a prior warrant.

U.S Vs Karo-”… a private residence is a place in which society recognizes an expression of privacy; the warrantless searches of such places are presumptively unreasonable…”

see also: Dombrowski v. Pfister, Zweibon ( bates v. City of little Rock.

Finally, Ex parte Milligan teaches that laws are for rulers and people, equally, in war and in peace.

Judge Anna Diggs is about the rule of law, civil liberties and true constitutionalism. She is the profile of courage, intellect and judicial competence. A portrait in dignity, wisdom and grace.

And finally, silence they say is the best answer for a fool. Period.

Comment by Egoigwe — August 21, 2006 @ 11:42 pm

18.

“Elevate your argument with factual evidence not ad hom vitriol.”

Yeah, Egoigwe, you moonbat, Bush hating, anti-Semite conspiracy theorist.

And I apologize for ever criticizing the state of Israel. They are without fault, and I should have known this. Those 750 Lebanese dead paid the just price for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

George Bush is a well spoken American hero.

Comment by John — August 22, 2006 @ 7:56 am

19.

wow, this has been very entertaining. I am on pins and needles waiting for Gregg’s rebuttal to the cases cited above (of which I have no idea at all what they mean. I am too simple minded for legalese. Ask Kevin.)

This is going to be very good reading.

PS: I don’t have an opinion either way that I will share. I just love good discussions.

Comment by The Optimist — August 22, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

20.

Wow, this is simply amazing. The country has become so incredibly divided. I, for one, want to live and prosper, in relative safety.

Given that everyone wants to feel safe, I *REALLY* hope that no one exploits my desire to feel safe for their own goals.

Do you not realize that there are people that spend their entire careers studying the way to shape and mold phrases, images, and illustrations to literally *FORCE* a response from the audience..?

Imagine a room with 15 senior consultants with 20 years experience each. There are 300 years of knowledge and wisdom trying to get you to digest an advertisement..!

Only an advertisement? Why not a news story?
If I were crafting news, would I leave it up to amateurs, who might accidentally draw the wrong emotion from the reader/viewer?

No, I would control it, craft the news to bring forth the appropriate emotion, and use these tactics to achieve my goal.

Would you truly be so bold as to claim that there has never been a political motive behind news stories? Right or left, both have done it, depending on who’s in charge behind the scenes.

## A different note:
Did I really just hear someone say that 750 people dead is the ‘just price’ for 2 kidnappings? A *kidnapping*? They aren’t even dead..?
That is the EXACT type of thought process that leads to radical ethnic/religious vendettas. Look! You and the radical islamic/muslim have the same thoughts!

“My ______ belief is so strong I am willing to kill for it! Your ______ group hates my freedom and way of life so much that you want to kill all of us! My son/brother/father was killed by you and your _____ army!”
- Interchange the words ‘muslim’, ‘islam’, ‘jewish’, ‘american’, ‘christian’, ‘israeli’, etc as your grammar sees fit.

To blindly follow a leader because of political affiliation would be wasting our god given responsibility to question unjust use of authority.

## Another thought
If jesus lived today, wouldn’t you call him a ‘anti-semite liberal hippie’?

- He preached compassion, forgiveness, love. Yeah, that’s hippie.
- He ‘radically’ opposed the current religious leaders, who happened to be jewish. Yeah, that’s anti-semite.
- They were ultra orthadox, he was more … ‘liberal’?

Perhaps you will be more concerned with your civil liberties(like privacy, religion, free speech, etc) when they disappear, and you are completely helpless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fascism

Comment by byte_off_more — August 23, 2006 @ 12:20 am

This article and commentaries were originally posted to this blog by Egoigwe on Saturday, October 28, 2006 under the header "One Grovelling Sycophant and his Discourse"