FREE GEORGE DONNELLY Rally at the Edward N. Cahn US Court House and Federal Building in Allentown, PA on June 4 2010. While filming a FIJA.org outreach George was kidnapped and charged with simple assault. The Federal Marshall lied in an affidavit but confiscated the evidence that shows what really happened to George Donnelly. If George's video camera's footage is brought to discovery we shall know the truth! SHOW US THE VIDEO! Federal Marshalls are liars!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Congressman Joe Sestak Confronted on Nanothermite AGAIN!
Issue: 9/11 Truth
Congressman Joe Sestak Confronted on Nanothermite AGAIN!
I went to the UPenn Hall of Flags to an Event hosted by the Penn Democrats because
Joe Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter's Senate seat. He opened it up for questions
immediately but little did he know someone like me was in the audience. It was important
to me to ask Joe about 9/11 and not any other topic because We Are Change NEPA had
already asked him questions and I thought it would be a good idea to reiterate those points
in order to show him that this is what the American people care about.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
"Illegal Surveillance"
Police fight cellphone recordings
Witnesses taking audio of officers arrested, charged with illegal surveillance
By Daniel RowinskiNew England Center For Investigative Reporting / January 12, 2010
Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording.
Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs.
“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’
The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.
read more here: Police fight cellphone recordings
//
Luckily (from the same article),
"But one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed individuals’ right to videotape in public. Police in Spring City and East Vincent Township agreed to adopt a written policy confirming the legality of videotaping police while on duty. The policy was hammered out as part of a settlement between authorities and ACLU attorneys representing a Spring City man who had been arrested several times last year for following police and taping them."
The National Association of State Legislatures categorizes the Pennsylvania Electronic Surveillance law as perhaps the "toughest law in the states" . See Title 18 Part II Article F Chapter 57 HERE
Another description of PA's Surveillance Law
"WIRETAPPING & ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA
By: Eric M. Noonan
Assistant Executive Deputy Attorney General
Organized Crime & Narcotics
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal. For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include the interception (to include recording) of electronic (digital pagers, computers/e-mail, fax machines), oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) and wire (telephone conversations) communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et seq.
Some 41 other states nationwide have their own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statutes. These statutes follow either a "one party consent" or "two/all party consent" rule. The former creates an exception to the foregoing general prohibition if one of the parties to the intercepted communication is aware of, and has consented to the interception. The latter reflects a more restrictive rule -- that being that both, or all parties to the intercepted communication must be aware of and have consented to its interception. Pennsylvania falls into the latter, more restrictive category."
view complete article HERE
As for the status of Philly's public surveillance program:
"In late 2007, Philadelphia government announced its plan to install 250 surveillance cameras by 2008. Unfortunately, it’s now 2009 and only 161 cameras have been installed. Out of these 161, only 98 of these cameras are usable and another 63 are sitting there waiting to be activated. The 63 cameras that are being unused have been covered in black plastic bags."
Monday, January 11, 2010
DO NOT SUBMIT YOURSELF OR YOUR CHILD TO A BODY SCAN!
| Inverted Body Scanner Image Shows Naked Body In Full Living Color This alternative news article is basically reporting on a collection of main stream news sources. THESE MACHINES ARE AGAINST THE LAW (if you want to maintain the law for your own self interest as an informed citizen) US Constitution Article 6, "This Constitution... shall be the supreme Law of the Land" Do I need to remind you of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution? It reads: "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 notWarrants 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." “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass In case you decide to go along with this phase, there are design concepts for shock bracelets (electro-muscular disruption technology) to be worn by passengers on airliners. Don't believe me? Check time stamp 3:03 in this by Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. "Lamperd less Lethal, Inc. engages in the development and manufacture of civil defense equipment." 2nd Cost for Submitting to Scans These scanners use a new frequency range called terahertz and preliminary research shows the possibility that the effects of the radiation are genotoxic. How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA TSA can't deny or refute research |
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Infowarriors Unite Against CDC
Question and Answer Session at CDC H1N1 Public Engagement Event in Bucks County, PA on August 22nd 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
H1N1 Vaccination Program Event by CDC Met with Lack of Trust
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Public Engagement Project on the 2009 H1N1 Vaccination Program in Trevose, PA in Bucks County
The event was hosted by The Keystone Center. Here is an explanation from their website.
“The Keystone Center seeks to solve our society’s most challenging environmental, energy, and public health problems. We bring together today’s public, private and civic sector leaders to confront these issues and we arm the next generation with the 21st Century intellectual and social skills required to effectively approach the questions they will face. Founded in 1975 by Robert W. Craig, The Center is a non-profit organization headquartered in Keystone, Colorado with offices in Denver, Washington, Boston, and Santa Fe.” http://www.keystone.org
These events are happening around the country. Find one in your area here:
H1N1 Public Engagement Meeting (in other states)
I attended this event which took place Saturday August 22nd 2009 and I decided to write up what happened from my perspective because the officials said a report of the event would not be available for over a week and the national findings wouldn’t be available until the end of September. More than just the Federal government or the local mainstream media needs to report on what happened at this meeting and that’s the purpose of this article.
Entrance into the event
After pre-registering on the Internet and being checked off at the entrance of the event, attendees were handed a questionnaire/survey. The contents of this survey seemed to be questions concerning simple facts about the flu and also questions concerning a person’s attitudes and opinions about a mass vaccination program. The same survey was handed to us at the very end of the event, taking stock of any changes in our understanding and opinions of a federal vaccination program.
The first activity was introducing the woman representing the CDC, Marsha Vanderford and a Pennsylvania health official whose name I didn’t take down. Then a video was shown to bring general information about the flu. This video can be viewed here:
http://www.keystone.org/H1N1media/Influenza_768K_Stream.wmv
Some major factoids from the video:
H1n1 appeared in 1977
Current virus is related to h1n1
Novel h1n1 Mexico pig flu
Seasonal h1n1 is different
Average age of infected people from current novel H1N1 virus is 12
3 Major Flu Pandemics in 20th Century:
1918 Spanish
1957 Hong Kong
1968 Asian
2 types of flu vaccine:
1. Inactivated h and n protein from surface of virus
2. Live (weakened) attenuated influenza virus
(LAIV)
Current program to start in the middle of October
1976 vaccine caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) incidence 1 per 100,000 vaccinated
The Pennsylvania representative also gave us numbers on Pennsylvania after the video:
2000 novel h1n1 cases in PA
10 deaths
58 hospitalizations
7 health care workers
11 pregnant women
Q & A – Bring it On!
Directly after this data was presented, Keystone representatives opened up the presentation to an informal Question and Answer period where they asked the questions to be related to the information contained in the video. This took place for a few questions but quickly morphed into many major questions bringing up allegations of misconduct, lack of transparency, corruption, and general suspicion of the alleged safety of a novel H1N1 vaccine.
One major question was asked to the CDC representative concerning which company owns patent of a swine flu vaccine. The CDC representative said she did not know of a patent for such a vaccine and the concerned quickly rebutted with the name Baxter International and that this company filed for a patent in 2007 for an H1N1 vaccine. This was prior to any swine flu outbreak and they were concerned that this patent was evidence of a consciously orchestrated outbreak. Here are links concerning this allegation.
Articles:
Big Pharma: Baxter Files Swine Flu Vaccine Patent a Year Ahead of Outbreak
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14430
Baxter Applies for H1N1 Vaccine Patent One-Year Prior to Outbreak
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276194
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Kistner.IN.&OS=IN/Kistner&RS=IN/Kistner
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Baxter%20Vaccine%20Patent%20Application.pdf
The Questions Keep Coming
Another question was asked regarding a plan to have children take H1N1 vaccines in order to enroll in school, and the concerned citizen said that it may be happening in Texas.
CDC: School kids may have to get up to 4 flu shots in the fall
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2009/07/15/0715swineflu.html
They simply dismissed this question saying that they don’t have any information about Texas and alluded to it being an irrelevant question.
Another citizen voiced concerns with vaccine manufacturers not being made to comply with existing FDA testing for the novel H1N1 vaccine because the time period to create it and deploy it is has been fast-tracked to preemptively stop an outbreak. The CDC representative addressed the question by confirming the names of the corporations manufacturing the vaccine (CSL Biotherapeutics, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis and others) but did not address the issue concerning the FDA’s fast track approach. Another citizen asked whether vaccines would be available with out the mercury based preservative thimerosal due to concerns of evidence of the toxicity of that preservative. The citizen also mentioned that these preservatives were being used due to the desire to have multi-dose containers and this caused the need for the preservative and would the CDC consider not using multi-dose containers for the vaccines. The CDC representative said there would be doses available with out thimerosal, but did not address the multi-dose point. Another concerned citizen asked a question concerning whether the synthetic adjuvants like squalene would be in this vaccine and the CDC representative said there wouldn’t be adjuvants in the vaccine. Another citizen asked why the scientific community was recommending the vaccine be administered in two doses, increasing the susceptibility to toxins from the vaccine. The CDC representative simply reassured attendees that this decision was made after rigorous scientific testing. I asked a question concerning the executive branch granting legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers in the event of unintended consequences but the CDC representative said she couldn’t comment on the legal aspects of the vaccine.
Legal Immunity Set for Swine Flu Vaccine Makers
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Miscellaneous/200820090722_legal_immunity_set_for_swine_flu_vaccine_makers.html
The question and answer period came to a fever pitch when a citizen voiced clearly that she didn’t trust the government and the concern that the federal government hides information from the people. This onslaught of hard questions hopefully woke up other attendees to the risks associated with this program.
After this question and answer period, discussions began at each table of between 7-10 people. The purpose was to review the pros and cons of a “go easy” approach, a “middle of the road” approach, and a “full throttle” approach. Each attendee was given a packet with rubrics inside to denote already determined pros and cons of each type of vaccination program. Each table had a facilitator who had previously been trained to take part in this event. A major aspect of the guidance of the discussions was a list of assumptions that all groups were to adhere to in order to come to their conclusions.
Assumption points:
-Severity of the virus is similar to what's already observed since April 2009
-Risk of serious illness (GBS) is 1-10 per million persons vaccinated
-Supply: Vaccine made available from Oct to February
-Vaccine purchased by Feds & made available to all states according to population
-Recommendations: 5 population sub groups served at first
-Seasonal vaccine: novel and seasonal flu seasons will overlap
These discussions took place for about two hours and then lunch was served for about an hour. After lunch polling questions were reviewed in order to prepare for an individualized electronic poll which would take place at the end of the event. Within my group we found evidence in the polling questions and the rubric pros and cons of valuated phrasing designed to make the participant more likely to choose a “full throttle” approach in order to prevent seeming like they didn’t care about the general populace or that they were willing to take risks of low security or low numbers of volunteer personnel which may be unable to meet the needs of the public. In my opinion all questions, assumptions and the video was problematic because there was a base assumption that this type of program is part of the proper role of the federal government in the first place. There was no discussion of other therapies to combat the virus, not even mainstream antiviral drugs like Tamiflu. This was concerning and surely a programmed design to make all attendees subconsciously assume the only way to solve the virus problem is with a vaccine and even more so with a federal vaccination program. The never overtly said ‘we have come to this conclusion’ it was just implied through all the literature and media.
After the polling questions were reviewed the whole group was brought back into a general discussion so each group facilitator could present their group’s finding of consensus or if an agreement wasn’t reached among all table members and what concerns still remained.
Here is a shorthand break down of the remarks from each table’s facilitator:
(This table number system is based on the order of presentation, not the number written on the table ID.)
Table 1. -Availability of education
-Studies aren't long enough
-Govt not being straight forward
Table 2. -Safety is primary concern
-Govt involvement secondary
-More clinical trials are needed
-Not trusting the govt
Table 3. consensus of “middle of the road”
-Major education effort is necessary
-Other methods of prevention should be addressed
-Science data more important than
emotion or politics
Table 4. consensus against ”full throttle” approach
-Safety concern
Table 5. -Mostly “middle of the road” and “full throttle” supporters
-Emphasis on concern for mass immunization
Table 6. consensus of “full throttle”
-Concern that the government is creating demand through scare tactics
-Didn't want to be forced
-Concerns of vaccine not properly being tested
-Having verifiable test results
-Need more emphasis on nonpharmaceutical intervention
Table 7. consensus of “middle of the road” approach
- This choice was made because it gave govt room to decide best course of action
-Information and communication should be a priority
Table 8. consensus of “Go slow” approach
-Concern will their be enough vaccine and of the type without adjuvant
-Need results from critical trials before moving forward
-Give people equal opportunity to vaccinate regardless of risk factors
Table 9. Most members supported “full throttle”
-safety was a concern
-Prevention through educating was a concern
-Doctor should play a part and emphasize dialogue with doctor
-Don't feel they are getting the whole truth about the vaccine
Table 10. consensus of Mixed approach borrowing for multiple approaches
-“full throttle” on education/ prevention
-“full throttle” on supply and manpower
-“go slow” on implementation
Table 11. Most supported “go slow”
-More testing in larger numbers is needed
-emphasized flexibility
-emphasized more access to CDC numbers
-Concerned with side effects and current data on this is needed
-Concern with whether lower economic status people are going to have access to the vaccine
Follow up General Concerns
After the tables reported their findings the event leaders opened up the event for other concerns that individuals weren’t able to articulate previously. These ideas were:
-Advisories should be written in simpler language
-Mandatory side effects reporting should be done quickly
-There are concerns with virus shedding from bodily fluids as a result of the attenuated virus vaccine
Secondary Transmission: The short and sweet about live virus vaccine shedding
Swine Flu Vaccines Contain LIVE H1N1 VIRUS!
http://noworldsystem.com/2009/08/03/swine-flu-vaccines-contain-live-h1n1-virus/
-Vaccine information sheet should be available during the administration of vaccine similar to administration of pharmaceuticals
-Further distrust in government
Liability waiver to vaccine companies
-A suggestion to have direct mailing from CDC to citizens concerning the novel H1N1 flu vaccine program
After this last open discussion period the electronic polling took place. Luckily, the question, “Which option do you prefer? Go Slow, Moderate Effort, or Full Throttle?” had a result of more people supporting “Go Slow” than “Full Throttle”. This may be the most important finding from the entire event from my perspective.
This was when 80 people voted and the results were: 30% Go Slow, 49% Moderate Effort and 21% Full Throttle.
Results of Entire Poll
Question 2, 3, 4 used the same choices, having to do with why you wanted a particular first choice, a particular second choice, and a particular third choice. This was to determine what issues were governing your choices. These choices were:
I want to avoid as many vaccine side effects as possible
I want to allow more time for testing larger numbers of people with novel H1N1 vaccine
I want to spend government resources for other more pressing needs
I want to avoid unduly alarming the population
I lack trust in government sponsored programs
I prefer a balanced approach that includes some of the advantages of the other two approaches
I prefer an approach that allows some flexibility and is easiest to ramp up or down to be responsive
I want to prevent the maximum number of deaths and hospitalizations caused by the novel H1N1
I prefer to be as prepared as possible in advance of the epidemic
I want to avoid the costs associated with the loss of life and hospitalizations
I will report the top three percentages for each question.
Question 2: 2009 Vaccination program preference – first choice?
27% I prefer an approach that allows some flexibility and is easiest to ramp up or down to be responsive
21% I want to avoid as many vaccine side effects as possible
14% I prefer to be as prepared as possible in advance of the epidemic
Question 3: 2009 Vaccination program preference – second choice?
20% I want to avoid as many vaccine side effects as possible
14% I prefer a balanced approach that includes some of the advantages of the other two approaches
14% I want to prevent the maximum number of deaths and hospitalizations caused by the novel H1N1
13% I prefer an approach that allows some flexibility and is easiest to ramp up or down to be responsive
Question 4: 2009 Vaccination program preference – third choice?
18% I want to avoid as many vaccine side effects as possible
18% I want to prevent the maximum number of deaths and hospitalizations caused by the novel H1N1
14% I prefer an approach that allows some flexibility and is easiest to ramp up or down to be responsive
11% I want to avoid unduly alarming the population
This certainly shows that people were generally concerned with the vaccine side effects.
Now in question 5, 6, and 7 the same question was asked with a group of choices also all used for each of the three choices. Here are the options used for questions 5 6 and 7. These choices are:
I want to protect the maximum number of persons from just getting sick from H1N1 in the first place.
I want a vaccination program that gives everyone an equal chance of being vaccinated regardless of age or risk or status.
I want a vaccination program on a first come first served basis while supply is limited.
I want to make sure to protect the subgroups in the population who have been traditionally underserved.
I want to protect our citizens but also conserve vaccine for donation to other poor countries which need vaccine.
I want to accelerate vaccine availability before all testing is completed.
I want to allow more time for educating the population and raising awareness about H1N1 virus.
None of these (If you are opposed to the vaccination program, you can select this one each time.)
I will report the top three percentages for each question.
Question 5. Are there other potential purposes the vaccination program should have? First Choice
43% I want to protect the maximum number of persons from just getting sick from H1N1 in the first place.
18% I want a vaccination program that gives everyone an equal chance of being vaccinated regardless of age or risk or status.
16% None of these (If you are opposed to the vaccination program, you can select this one each time.)
Question 6. Are there other potential purposes the vaccination program should have? Second Choice
22% I want to allow more time for educating the population and raising awareness about H1N1 virus.
22% I want a vaccination program that gives everyone an equal chance of being vaccinated regardless of age or risk or status.
19% None of these (If you are opposed to the vaccination program, you can select this one each time.)
18% I want to protect the maximum number of persons from just getting sick from H1N1 in the first place.
Question 7. Are there other potential purposes the vaccination program should have? Third Choice
24% None of these (If you are opposed to the vaccination program, you can select this one each time.)
17% I want to allow more time for educating the population and raising awareness about H1N1 virus.
14% I want to make sure to protect the subgroups in the population who have been traditionally underserved.
It’s interesting that “None of these” showed up in the top percentages of these three questions. Here are the results for the last two questions, which had expected results based on common sense:
8. If the H1N1 outbreak is less severe than expected, which option do you prefer?
54% I prefer Option 1 – Go slow
44% I prefer Option 2 – Moderate Effort
3% I prefer Option 3 – Full Throttle
9. If the H1N1 outbreak is more severe than expected, which option do you prefer?
21% I prefer Option 1 – Go slow
29% I prefer Option 2 – Moderate Effort
50% I prefer Option 3 – Full Throttle
Future Events online
At the end of the event it was mentioned that an online 2 day discussion event hosted by the CDC would take place twice in the near future(Aug 26-27 or Aug 31-Sept 1). If you want to get involved here is the information for the events.
H1N1 Public Engagement WebDialogue
Make your voice heard on a decision facing Americans about the H1N1 vaccine... http://www.webdialogues.net/pub/htdocs/h1n1home.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)