President Obama declares national emergency over swine flu pandemic, but why?

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 24, 2009

According to the CDC, swine flu infections have already peaked, and the pandemic is on its way out. Peak infection time was the middle of October, where one in five U.S. children experienced the flu, says the CDC. Out of nearly 14,000 suspected flu cases tested during the week ending on October 10, 2009, 99.6% of those were influenza A, and the vast majority of those were confirmed as H1N1 swine flu infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/)

Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, U.S. President Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections. The reasoning behind such a declaration? According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.
Emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights
That’s the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister. Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including:

The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population.
• The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination.
• The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city.
• The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health.
• The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.

None of this means that federal agents are going to march door to door arresting people at gunpoint if they refuse the vaccine, but they could if they wanted to. Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
What emergency?

The declaration of this national emergency seems suspicious from the start. Where’s the emergency? The number of people killed by swine flu in the United States is far smaller than the number of people killed each year from seasonal flu, according to CDC statistics. People obviously aren’t dropping dead by the millions from H1N1 influenza. Most people are just getting mild flu symptoms and a few days later they’re fine.
So where’s the emergency?

The only emergency I can see is the emergency fabricated by Big Pharma to sell more vaccines. By declaring a national emergency over the H1N1 pandemic, Obama is playing right into their hands.

I find the timing of all this curious. Two days ago, New York gave up on its efforts to require mandatory vaccinations of health care workers. This was designed to defuse a large number of planned protests from health freedom-conscious people who don’t want government-mandated chemicals pumped into their veins.

The planned protests in New York would have fueled yet more resistance among health care workers across the country, and had it been allowed to continue, it could have resulted in a huge nationwide backlash against swine flu vaccines. By backing off the vaccine mandate and blaming it on a vaccine shortage (http://www.naturalnews.com/027313_N…), and then having Obama declare a national emergency, our state and national leaders have halted the protests and put in place a pro-vaccine Big Brother mandate that can be enforced at gunpoint.
Big Pharma must be pleased with all this. With these emergency powers in place, all that’s necessary to force vaccinations upon the entire population is a larger supply of the vaccines — and that’s coming in November

TOO LONG

I want to apologize to those small few who might follow this blog. I have been very busy, and have had no time to upload news and comment. For this, I am sorry

Alex Jones: Fall of the Republic

A new film by Alex Jones. Coming October 21

Obama Supports Speech Limits at United Nations

HERE WE GO AGIAN: FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION DOWN THE DRAIN

Anne Bayefsky
The Weekly Standard
October 7, 2009

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the “reformed” Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN’s lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an “abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”

General wants 40,000 more U.S. troops for Afghan

I am not sure I understand this. The Obama administration had a platform of removing soldiers from war. Oh yes, this was from Iraq, not Afghanistan; what was I thinking. I myself am a little tired of this constant fighting, and see no need to continue. Indeed, there is the idea that "we are making America safe from terror, and, in the end, a more free nation"

Perhaps I am a bit disillusioned, but could someone please explain to me how this is making me more free? The argument is that "we are keeping terrorists at bay; by engaging them in war we are keeping them from attacking us." There is some truth to this claim, but when will the fighting stop? It's amazing to me that we are always looking for a way to gain peace, but then we make arguments such as this.

Maybe I am a bit uninformed, or simply a bit "out of touch" with the reality of this war, but sending more troops in Afghanistan not only goes against what Obama promised us, but simply does nothing to promote peace

WASHINGTON
(Reuters)

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has recommended an increase of 40,000 troops as the minimum necessary to prevail, two sources familiar with his recommendations said on Thursday.

General Stanley McChrystal also gave President Barack Obama an option of sending more than 40,000 troops, the sources said, which could be politically risky given deep doubts among Obama's fellow Democrats about the eight-year-old war.
One of the sources, both of whom spoke on condition that they not be identified because of the sensitivity of talking about recommendations to the president, said McChrystal also gave a third high-risk option of sending no more troops.

The sources spoke as a heated debate played out in Washington over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to try to put down the Taliban insurgency or to scale back the U.S. mission and focus on striking al Qaeda cells.
There are now more than 100,000 Western troops serving in Afghanistan, of whom 65,000 are U.S. troops. The number of U.S. troops already is due to increase to 68,000 later this year.