Habeas Corpus Revived, Will It Survive?

In October 2006 President George W. Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, provisions of which trampled all over more than 230 years of American freedoms.

The bill, among other things, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the Guantánamo Bay detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants. Habeas corpus is the right defendants have to challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts.

Thankfully the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision last June, threw out provisions of the dreadful legislation, ruling that prisoners there do indeed have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their imprisonment.

You may have thought the provision a good one, because it applied to terrorists captured on the battlefield fighting the U.S. But it wasn’t restricted to foreigners. You can ask American citizen Jose Padilla, the accused “dirty bomb” suspect arrested as he stepped off an airliner at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago in May 2002. He then spent three and half years in a military brig in South Carolina, plus two more in a federal prison before his trial in January 2008.

During his military confinement he was subjected to prolonged isolation and intensive interrogations in conditions a judge called harsh. Still, no evidence of a dirty bomb plot was ever uncovered and Padilla’s conviction was for conspiring to help Islamic jihadist fighters abroad.

In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

The ruling is a good one for freedom-loving Americans, and a repudiation of heavy-handed tactics of the Bush administration and members of congress that voted for the legislation.

But keep your eye on the ball, as the Supreme Court decision left some important questions unanswered. Among them, how much evidence did the government have to show to justify a prisoner’s detention, as well as how classified evidence is to be handled and to what degree of due process are detainees entitled.

And abuses of American freedoms under the guise of protecting the republic in a crisis aren’t unprecedented. During the American Civil War President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested newspaper editors and state legislators who opposed the war. He then ignored the Supreme Court’s rulings to restore the right, and many of those arrested didn’t see the light of day until the war was over.

And now we have in office a new president, Barack Obama, who is already showing a proclivity to create a crisis and drum up fear for his own ends, freeze out members of the press he deems too critical, and is pushing harder toward freedom-crushing socialism than even Bush did.

Vaccine Guidelines—It’s All About Money

Adults Beware Vaccine Guidelines Released by Centers for Disease Control:

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released these recommended immunization schedules for adults in the U.S.

The schedule includes 11 different types of vaccines for adults, including:

  • Tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Td/Tdap)
  • Human papillomavirus (HPV)
  • Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
  • Influenza
  • Herpes zoster (shingles)

Key changes in this year’s recommendations include:

  • Varicella (chickenpox) vaccination is recommended for all adults that have no apparent immunity to the virus.
  • Zoster (shingles) vaccination is advised for all adults 60 years of age and older, regardless of whether they have had a prior shingles episode.
  • HPV vaccine is recommended for women over the age of 26, who have not already completed the three-dose series.

It is recommended that flu vaccination be administered to anyone with the following medical conditions:

  • Chronic disorders of the cardiovascular or pulmonary systems, including asthma
  • Chronic metabolic diseases, such as diabetes
  • Renal or hepatic dysfunction
  • Immunosuppression, including suppression caused by medications or HIV
  • Pregnancy during flu season

This is not for the benefit of anybody. It’s all about money for big pharma.

A Bit of History About Dr. Harvey W. Wiley and Adulterated Food

Much of the information in this article was taken from the book, History of a Crime Against The Food Law by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, 1911.

Dr. Wiley was the first head of the U.S. Bureau of The Chemistry, which later became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Dr. Wiley was forced out of office by big food companies who had a vested interest in adulterating food for commerce instead of nutrition. Commerce has always been for money, not for health.

Dr. Wiley fought many battles against adulterated food, but probably his biggest was against synthetic sweeteners—mostly adulterated corn products like glucose to corn sugar and now fructose corn syrup. One challenge was to force the corn products company to stop using flourine in the making of wheat flour.

Corn syrup, now in almost every manufactured food, is a predigested food that requires no digestive enzymes. Predigestion of foods undermines and destroys public health.

Fructose corn syrup is a chemical way of force feeding the population. Human organs of digestion together with enzymes are vital to functional health. Fructose corn syrup bypasses natural digestive function.

A synthetic sweetener bypassing the pancreas will in time create a nation of diabetics. Look about you today!

Dr. Wiley called glucose and other synthetic corn sweeteners "champion adulterants." They are not foods but cheap fillers.

Predigested food has a place for sick people, but this is normally for a short period.

Predigested foods, especially fructose corn syrup, is a very high health risk that the public is totally unaware of. It is sweet and dangerous!

First Steps Taken Toward Socialism

"I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."

This statement by founding father and President Thomas Jefferson echoes the sentiment of our nation’s founders. And freedom of the press and of speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, precisely to give citizens a venue to oppose the agents of a government with which they disagree.

But those agents of the government are hard at work chipping away at this freedom. To wit:

  • An Oklahoma City police officer stopped Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign on Harrison’s vehicle that read, “Abort Obama, not the unborn.” A police captain later apologized and returned the sign to Harrison, but before Harrison got home he received a call from Secret Service agents who were at his home requesting to search it. Harrison complied, and after a search and an interview that lasted about 30 minutes, the agents left.
  • Numerous congressmen are calling for re-institution of the “Fairness Doctrine”, a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues, in an effort to stifle talk radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity.
  • During the presidential campaign President Barack Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads.
  • The Obama campaign also sent out an email encouraging his supporters to protest and harass Chicago radio station WGN by flooding the station with angry phone calls and emails. Activists screamed insults to call-in screeners. Why? The station had the temerity to interview Ethics and Public Policy Center watchdog Stanley Kurtz, who had uncovered university records that documented a much closer relationship between Obama and Ayers than the presidential candidate had previously disclosed.
  • After Joe “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher achieved fame for his innocuous question that prompted Obama to admit he wanted “to spread the wealth around”, his tax records, voter registration, marital history and professional licensing records were searched and media members tried to slime him.
  • Obama supporters in Missouri, who happened to be law enforcement officers, responded to an Obama campaign request that they form a truth squad. They threatened to prosecute anyone, including media outlets, that printed or broadcasted material they deemed to be inaccurate about Obama.
  • Obama contributors in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights section (headed by $2,000 Obama donor and former ACLU attorney Mark Kappelhof) urged preemptive prosecution of individuals the Obama campaign believed might disrupt the November election. A cited example of anticipated disruption was to send mailings of a non-violent nature addressing voting issues unfavorable to Obama.
  • In the final days of the campaign, three newspapers that had endorsed McCain were booted from the Obama campaign bus. The New York Post, Dallas Morning News and Washington Times were removed, according to Obama campaign officials, to make room for more important media outlets: Jet and Ebony entertainment magazines.
  • An Iowa state trooper was suspended after forwarding an email showing mug shots of people wearing Obama t-shirts. Sgt. Rodney Hicok was at home and off-duty when he forwarded the emails which made disparaging remarks about 15 people in the photos and referred to Obama as having “quite a fan base.”

These are just a few of many such examples of a strong-armed government working to silence the dissenters. Unfortunately, much of the fawning mass media seem blind to the consequences.

A look at history, however, will reveal that stifling dissent is among the first steps toward a socialist government.

In Germany, on Feb. 27, 1933, after the burning of the Reichstag, Hitler issued an emergency declaration that stated, "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." There followed a roundup of dissenters who were imprisoned and murdered.

A look at current socialist/communist regimes such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China and North Korea reveals there is no dissent allowed, in the media or otherwise. Dissenters are imprisoned, gunned down or simply disappear. Even in Russia, now a quasi-democracy, press freedoms have been greatly curtailed.

This is where our once-great country is headed, and it seems the First Amendment no longer matters.