Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic

Times of India
6 Mar 2009, 0002 hrs IST, AGENCIES

It’s emerged that virulent H5N1 bird flu was sent out by accident from an Austrian lab last year and given to ferrets in the Czech Republic

before anyone realised. As well as the risk of it escaping into the wild, the H5N1 got mixed with a human strain, which might have spawned a hybrid that could unleash a pandemic.

Last December, the Austrian branch of US vaccine company Baxter sent a batch of ordinary human H3N2 flu, altered so it couldn’t replicate, to Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, also in Austria. In February, a lab in the Czech Republic working for Avir alerted Baxter that, unexpectedly, ferrets inoculated with the sample had died. It turned out the sample contained live H5N1, which Baxter uses to make vaccine. The two seem to have been mixed in error.

Markus Reinhard of Baxter says no one was infected because the H3N2 was handled at a high level of containment. But Ab Osterhaus of Erasmus University in the Netherlands says: “We need to go to great lengths to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen.”

Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences. While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.

Homeless die after bird flu vaccine trial in Poland

21 people died after being given the vaccine

The medical staff, from the northern town of Grudziadz, are being investigated over medical trials on as many as 350 homeless and poor people last year, which prosecutors say involved an untried vaccine to the highly-contagious virus.

Authorities claim that the alleged victims received £1-2 to be tested with what they thought was a conventional flu vaccine but, according to investigators, was actually an anti bird-flu drug.

The director of a Grudziadz homeless centre, Mieczyslaw Waclawski, told a Polish newspaper that last year, 21 people from his centre died, a figure well above the average of about eight.

Although authorities have yet to prove a direct link between the deaths and the activities of the medical staff, Poland’s health minister, Ewa Kopacz, has said that the doctors and nurses involved should not return to their profession.

“It is in the interests of all doctors that those who are responsible for this are punished,” the minister added.

Investigators are also probing the possibility that the medical staff may have also have deceived the pharmaceutical companies that commissioned the trials.

The suspects said that the all those involved knew that the trial involved an anti-H5N1 drug and willingly participated.

The news of the investigation will come as another blow to the reputation of Poland’s beleaguered and poverty-stricken national health service. In 2002, a number of ambulance medics were found guilty of killing their patients for commissions from funeral companies.

CDC to mix avian, human flu viruses in pandemic study

Guilty of Being Poor

by Eric Ruder / April 23rd, 2009
Dissident Voice

The jailers of the 19th century — even in the pre-Civil War South — largely abandoned the practice of imprisoning people for falling into debt as counterproductive and ultimately barbaric. In the 1970s and ’80s, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that incarcerating people who can’t pay fines because of poverty violates the U.S. Constitution.

Apparently, though, some states and county jails never got the memo. Welcome to the debtors’ prisons of the 21st century.

“Edwina Nowlin, a poor Michigan resident, was ordered to reimburse a juvenile detention center $104 a month for holding her 16-year-old son,” the New York Times wrote in an editorial.

“When she explained to the court that she could not afford to pay, Ms. Nowlin was sent to prison. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which helped get her out last week after she spent 28 days behind bars, says it is seeing more people being sent to jail because they cannot make various court-ordered payments. That is both barbaric and unconstitutional.”

The details of Nowlin’s case are even more alarming than the Times editorial suggests. Not only was Nowlin under orders to pay a fine stemming from someone else’s actions, but she had been laid off from work and lost her home at the time she was ordered to “reimburse” the county for her son’s detention.

Despite her inability to pay, she was held in contempt of court and ordered to serve a 30-day sentence. On March 6, three days after she was incarcerated, she was released for one day to work. She also picked up her paycheck, in the amount of $178.53. This, she thought, could be used to pay the $104, and she would be released from jail.

But when she got back to the jail, the sheriff told her to sign her check over to the county — to pay $120 for her own room and board, and $22 for a drug test and booking fee.

Even more absurd, Nowlin requested but was denied a court-appointed lawyer. So because she was too poor to afford a lawyer and denied her constitutional right to have the court provide one for her, she couldn’t fight the contempt charge that stemmed from her poverty. And her contempt conviction only added to her poverty, as the fines and fees she was obligated to pay now multiplied.

“Like many people in these desperate economic times, Ms. Nowlin was laid off from work, lost her home and is destitute,” said Michael Steinberg, legal director of the Michigan ACLU. “Jailing her because of her poverty is not only unconstitutional, it’s unconscionable and a shameful waste of resources. It is not a crime to be poor in this country, and the government must stop resurrecting debtor’s prisons from the dustbin of history.”

Michigan isn’t the only place where you can be imprisoned for the crime of involuntary poverty. The same Catch-22 ensnares poor defendants daily in courtrooms across the country.

In 2006, the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) filed a suit on behalf of Ora Lee Hurley, who couldn’t get out of prison until she had enough money to pay a $705 fine. But she couldn’t pay the fine because she had to pay the Georgia Department of Corrections $600 a month for room and board, and spend $76 a month on public transportation, laundry and food.

She was released five days a week to work at the K&K Soul Food restaurant, where she earned $6.50 an hour, which netted her about $700 a month after taxes. Hurley was trapped in prison for eight months beyond her initial 120-day sentence until the Southern Center intervened. Over the course of her incarceration, she earned about $7,000, but she never had enough at one time to pay off her $705 fine.

“This is a situation where if this woman was able to write a check for the amount of the fine, she would be out of there,” Sarah Geraghty, a SCHR lawyer, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution while Hurley was still imprisoned. “And because she can’t, she’s still in custody. It’s as simple as that.”

Georgia also lets for-profit probation companies prey on people too poor to pay their traffic violations and court fees. According to a 2008 SCHR report entitled “Profiting from the poor”:

In courts around Georgia, people who are charged with misdemeanors and cannot pay their fines that day in court are placed on probation under the supervision of private, for-profit companies until they pay off their fines. On probation, they must pay these companies substantial monthly “supervision fees” that may double or triple the amount that a person of means would pay for the same offense.

For example, a person of means may pay $200 for a traffic ticket on the day of court and be done with it, while a person too poor to pay that day is placed on probation and ends up paying $500 or more for the same offense.

The privatization of misdemeanor probation has placed unprecedented law enforcement authority in the hands of for-profit companies that act essentially as collection agencies. These companies, focused on profit rather than public safety or rehabilitation, are not designed to supervise people or connect them to services and jobs. Rather, they charge exorbitant monthly fees and use the threat of imprisonment and a variety of bullying tactics to squeeze money out of the men and women under their supervision.

For too many poor people convicted of misdemeanors, our state is not living up to the constitutional promise of equal justice under law.

In Gulfport, Miss., the municipal court started a “fine collection task force” to crack down on people who owed fees for misdemeanors. According to the SCHR Web site:

The task force trolled through predominantly African American neighborhoods, rounding up people who had outstanding court fines. After arresting and jailing them, the City of Gulfport processed these people through a court proceeding at which no defense attorney was present or even offered.

Many people were jailed for months after hearings lasting just seconds. While the city collected money, it also packed the jail with hundreds of people who couldn’t pay, including people who were sick, physically disabled and/or limited by mental disabilities.

The disregard of the justice system for the rights of poor people to equal protection and due process is cause for outrage. But it shouldn’t come as a surprise in an era when the government spends billions bailing out banks while letting foreclosures and unemployment ruin the lives of working people.

We need to build a movement, like the working-class struggles of the 1930s, that can demand an end to the inhuman practice of incarcerating people for no other crime than finding themselves at the bottom of the social ladder.

Important 2nd amendment quotes

Via What Really Happened

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

– Thomas Jefferson

– William Grayson

- James Madison

- Alexander Hamilton

- Thomas Paine

- Elbridge Gerry

- Patrick Henry

- George Mason

- Patrick Henry

- George Mason

- Patrick Henry

- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

- Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

“… whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

- James Monroe

- Pennsylvania Gazette, April 23, 1788

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32)

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Jefferson Papers, p. 334, C.J. Boyd, 1950)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)

“The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil…I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government…” (letter to Madison 31 July 1788, The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, p.11:212)

“I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.” (letter to Uriah Forrest, 1787, Jefferson Papers, 12:477)

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (letter to Isaac Tifany, 1819)

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia…” (In Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)

“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless – by disarming them.” (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)

“I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil.” (In Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:381)

“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” 1788(A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471)

“But it ought always be held prominently in view that the safety of these States and of everything dear to a free people must depend in an eminent degree on the militia.” (his first Inaugural Address, 1817)

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (Federalist Papers #46)

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

“They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights….the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government…” 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, 12:193, 204)

“To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (Federalist Papers #46)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” 1788 (Federal Farmer, p.169)

“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” 1788 (Federal Farmer)

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state… Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”

“The great object is, that every man be armed…. Every one who is able may have a gun.” (Elliot p.3:386)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” During Virginia Ratification Convention 1788 (Elliot p.3:45)

“I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.” (Elliot P.3:74)

“My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging wars against tyrants.” (Elliot, 3:47-48; in Virginia Ratifying Convention, before Bill of Rights)

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…” (Elliot p.3:50-52, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms.)

“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” (Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed….” (An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Webster1787)

“A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.” (Webster, p.42-43)

“Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Federalist Papers #29)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Freeman’s Journal, 20 Feb 1778)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution” Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, …will form a powerful check upon the regular troops…” (Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution of the United States of America p.20-21)

“The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons;” in Congress, 22 Dec 1790 (Elliot, p423)

“Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respect personal liberty…” (in letter to Patrick Henry)

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Elliot, 3:645-6)

Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Anti-gun/freedom/liberty Quotes

MORE QUOTES

Everyone on Liberty

CAPTAIN JOHN PARKER (Commander, Lexington Militia Company)

“Every man of you who is equipped, follow me..Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here.” Lexington, MA, 19 April 1775, as British troops approached on their march to Concord to implement gun control (Mine Eyes Have Seen, Goldstein 1997 & Quotes for the Military Writer, U.S. Army Command Information Unit, Library of HQ TRADOC)

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (farewell address)

“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined…” (Papers of the President, p.65, Richardson, ed)

“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” (Letter to Du Pont de Nemours 24 April 1816)

“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

“If ye love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may your chains set lightly upon you, and posterity forget that ye were our country men.” 1776

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

“Millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. …The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is the vigilant, the active, the brave. …Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” Excerpts of speech made before the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1775

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?…. If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to use, as in our own hands?” (3 Elliot, p. 168-9)

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

“…arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe…Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them.”

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

“A people who mean to continue free must be prepared to meet danger in person…” (22 Dec 1790, Elliot p.4:411)

“…the whole history of mankind proves that so far from parting with the powers actually delegated to it, government is constantly encroaching on the small pittance of rights reserved by the people to themselves and gradually wrestling them out of their hands…” (The Maryland Journal, 28 March 1788)

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” Speech to House of Commons, 1787

“Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little.”

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” 1784

“…but a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe.” his first Inaugural Address, 1829 (total popular vote for his election was just over one million)

“Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)

“The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” (17 September 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH)

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men.”

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.” (Rawle, A View of the Constitution, p. 125-6, 1829)

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure.”

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.” (22 October 1959)

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

“In Germany, they first came for the communist, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew…Then they came for the Catholics. I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up.”

“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; …The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” 1857

“A right delayed is a right denied.”

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally…enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p.3:746-7, 1833)

“Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority. They are self imposed restraints of a whole people upon a majority of them to secure sober action and a respect for the rights of the minority.” (22 August 1911)

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air– however slight– lest we become the unwitting victims of the darkness.”

“Fear of assassination often produces restraints compatible with dictatorship, not democracy.”

“I cannot agree with those who think of the Bill of Rights as an 18th century straitjacket, unsuited for this age…The evils it guards against are not only old, they are with us now, they exist today.” (The Great Rights, Cahn ’63, p 44-45)

“For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished freedom is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time.”

“Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.” (Whitney v. California, 1927)

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” (Olmstead v. United States, 1928)

“It would be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated ‘Militia.’ Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that . There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant.” A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton University Press

“[T]hey [the Founders] feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights.” A Matter of Interpretation

“The Constitution Protects us from our own best intentions.” (U.S. v. Printz, 1977)

“The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government’s authority. If the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to ‘keep and bear arms,’ a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government’s regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment’s protections” (U.S. v. Printz, 1997)

“Today, as always, the people, no less than the courts, must remain vigilant to preserve the principals of our Bill of Rights, lest in our desire to be secure we lose our ability to be free.” (James Madison Lecture, NY University, 1962)

“They will never outlaw all of your guns at once. But every ‘reasonable’ control they can impose without your resistance gives them one more bit of leverage to make gun ownership for you and your children and your grandchildren as difficult as possible.”

“The advice on self-defense that I received after [my] assault was ‘Don’t get a gun. It will only add to the violence.’ Never having been exposed to guns before, this seemed to make sense — until I was attacked again.”

“…the only background check I’d support is one on politicians.”

“Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It’s quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than to dial 911 if you’re being robbed.” The Washington Post

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” (My Autobiography, p. 446)

“What should we think of a gentleman, who, upon hiring a waiting-man, should say to him ‘my friend, please take notice, before we come together, that I shall always claim the liberty of eating when and what I please, of fishing and hunting upon my own ground, of keeping as many horses and hounds as I can maintain, and of speaking and writing any sentiments upon all subjects.’ (A) master reserves to himself…every thing else which he has not committed to the care of those servants.” [editor's translation: Bill of Rights not needed; repetitive]

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; …The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty — so dear to men, …and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” On Crime and Punishment, p.145 (1819) originally published in 1764

“…most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.” (Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604)

“I blame the deaths of my parents on those legislators who deny me my right to defend myself.” (Both her parents and 20 others were killed by a mad man in the Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, TX, 1991. TX law prevented her from carrying her handgun into the restaurant, so she left it in the car)

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

“Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice in the act.”

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy….If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”

Those who disagree with the previous quotes

BRITISH MAJOR JOHN PITCAIRN (Commander of Advance Guard of British forces marching to Concord, MA)

“Disperse you rebels; damn you, throw down your arms and disperse.” (order to American militiamen at Lexington, 1775)

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles…that we are unable to think about reality.” (USA Today, 11 March 93, pg. 2A)

“The last time I checked, the Constitution said ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’. That’s what the Declaration of Independence says.” Reuters News Agency ([Editor's note: actually those words are in neither of those documents, but part of The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln]

“I don’t think the American people are there right now. But with more than 200 million guns in circulation, we’ve got so much more to do on this issue before we even reach that. I don’t think that’s an option now. But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed.” when asked of the possibility of a federal law banning handguns, interview in Rolling Stone magazine, 9 Dec 93, pg. 45

“We’ve banned these guns ['assault' weapons] because you don’t need an Uzi to go deer hunting, and everyone knows it.” Weekly radio address, 15 Nov 97, the Roosevelt Room, the White House

“We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns [to ban]” (Los Angeles Times, 22 Oct 97, Mr. Cerda was named as a “White House official who specializes in gun control.”)

“The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type. Instead, the Second Amendment is deemed to be a collective right belonging to the state and not to an individual. Accordingly, the Second Amendment is interpreted by this administration as prohibiting the federal government from preventing a state government from forming or having a state recognized militia force. With this understanding in mind, the source of citizens’ authority to possess a handgun has never been particularly identified in American law.” In a letter written on behalf of President Clinton

“Gun registration is not enough.” (Associated Press 10 Dec 93)

“I’ve always proposed state licensing…with some federal standards.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America” 10 Dec 93)

“[Assault weapons] are used on school yards, at airports, in bank lobbies, on trains, in traffic and in front of the White House. They have no legitimate sporting purpose, and you won’t find them in a duck blind or at the Olympics.” (The Washington Times, 22 March 96, A4)

“What we have got to do is make sure that before a person possesses a gun, they have exhibited by test that they know how to safely and lawfully use the weapon and by experience that they are capable of doing that.” (Associated Press, 29 Mar 99)

“I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily.” (Mother Jones magazine, Jan/Feb ’94)

“Armas para que?” (“Guns, for what?”) (response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

“I have made it considerably tougher for residents to get handgun permits.” (in his book Safe and Sane, 1984)

“…we could tax them [firearms] out of existence.” (Washington Post 4 Nov 93)

“My bill…establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.” (Congressional Record 10 Nov 93)

“The second article of amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.” (U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY)

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]

“If it were up to me, we’d ban them all [firearms].” (CNN Crossfire 9 Dec 93)

“Kennedy said he favors an outright ban on handguns, but doubts its palatability in the current political climate.” (Providence Journal, 4 Jan 99)

“We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of all guns – is going to take time…..The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.” (New Yorker Magazine, p.57-58, 26 Jul 76)

“There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 June 97, pg. 6)

“We have a tremendous opportunity to take a giant leap forward in our fight to require gun licensing in this country if Initiative 676 succeeds, there’s no question but that we will have created enormous momentum for a national gun licensing law.” (HCI fund-raising letter, Oct 97, speaking of Initiative 676 in WA)

“I don’t believe gun owners have rights. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted that way and every court case that’s ever come down has shown that.” (“Guns in America: Part III”, Hearst Newspaper 1997, By Holly Yeager)

“To end the crisis [of gun violence], we have to regulate -or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban -the product. We are far past the [point] where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.” (Mother Jones Magazine, Jan/Feb 94, article titled “Reverse Fire”)

“Under such a plan (proposed by Sugarmann, where ATF would have total say on legality of guns) would result in an immediate ban on the future production and sale of handguns and assault weapons” (Mother Jones Magazine, Jan/Feb 94, article titled “Reverse Fire”)

“the semiautomatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion ..[that] anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” (“Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” [Washington, DC Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New Right Watch] Sep 88, p. 26)

“We endorse a handgun ban. I will tell you that right now. We absolutely endorse that ban and we are absolutely vocal about it.” [answering: "What is your ultimate goal?"] (Talk Show Front Page on WVLK AM 590, Lexington, KY, 3 Dec 97)

“If you’ve got to resist [an attacker], your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.” (Health magazine, Mar/Apr 94 )

“There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or military person to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.” (USA Today 16 Jan 92)

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” 29 Dec 93

“A bill requiring all handguns to be given to the government will be introduced Tuesday by Sen. John Chafee.” 1 Jun 92

“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?…who can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” 28 Dec 93

“The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of ‘assault weapons’ will reduce the crime rate is laughable…Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity…Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation…De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades. (The Washington Post, 5 April 1996)

“The plain fact is that the United States is now hostage to a harrowing epidemic of gun violence, and the Brady bill won’t do much to change that. The National Rifle Association has been saying this all along, and the NRA is right. The NRA has also argued that a waiting period won’t prevent criminals from getting guns. And it’s right about that, too. Enactment of the Brady bill will, however, represent a victory of some political significance – a visible defeat for the tenacious lobbying power of the NRA. Thus the limited scope of the Brady bill was justified as a necessary first step toward breaking the NRA’s power – a way to demonstrate that politicians could support a moderate version of control and survive.” (Rolling Stone, article entitled: “A Pistol-whipped Nation – Pass the Brady Bill – then ban handguns”, 30 Sep 93, pg. 31)

“I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of record keeping procedure (gun registration) is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another” in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime

“We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). We can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period! (1981 article)

“as long as authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my family.” (1988 article titled “At Least They’re Not Writing My Obituary”, after shooting an unarmed trespasser with an unregistered handgun)

“Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction.” [her husband is among NYC elite that has been issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun]

“The only way to make America safe: go house to house and confiscate every gun.” (Access Hollywood, 8 June 98)

“Their movement [2nd Amendment supporters] is so well grounded in the Constitution, it’s 200 years old. Our movement is probably 20 years from reaching its peak.” (Reuters)

“Maybe we brought out the extremist vote with this one.” (The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA 6 Nov 97, after their ballot measure requiring gun licenses was defeated 71% – 29%)

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.”

Monsanto and greedy GM farmers pwned by mother nature

France24
Sunday 19 April 2009

‘Superweed’ explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands

“Superweeds” are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.

The gospel of high-tech genetically modified (GM) crops is not sounding quite so sweet in the land of the converted. A new pest, the evil pigweed, is hitting headlines and chomping its way across Sun Belt states, threatening to transform cotton and soybean plots into weed battlefields.

In late 2004, “superweeds” that resisted Monsanto’s iconic “Roundup” herbicide, popped up in GM crops in the county of Macon, Georgia. Monsanto, the US multinational biotech corporation, is the world’s leading producer of Roundup, as well as genetically engineered seeds. Company figures show that nine out of 10 US farmers produce Roundup Ready seeds for their soybean crops.

Superweeds have since alarmingly appeared in other parts of Georgia, as well as South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, according to media reports. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the USA.

GM protesters demonstrate near the French town of Toulouse in March 2008.

How has this happened? Farmers over-relied on Monsanto’s revolutionary and controversial combination of a single “round up” herbicide and a high-tech seed with a built-in resistance to glyphosate, scientists say.

Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia.

“Farmers are taking this threat very seriously. It took us two years to make them understand how serious it was. But once they understood, they started taking a very aggressive approach to the weed,” Culpepper told FRANCE 24.

“Just to illustrate how aggressive we are, last year we hand-weeded 45% of our severely infested fields,” said Culpepper, adding that the fight involved “spending a lot of money.”

In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicentre of the superweed explosion, North Carolina State University’s Alan York told local media.

Had Monsanto wanted to design a deadlier weed, they probably could not have done better. Resistant pigweed is the most feared superweed, alongside horseweed, ragweed and waterhemp.

“Palmer pigweed is the one pest you don’t want, it is so dominating,” says Culpepper. Pigweed can produce 10,000 seeds at a time, is drought-resistant, and has very diverse genetics. It can grow to three metres high and easily smother young cotton plants.

Today, farmers are struggling to find an effective herbicide they can safely use over cotton plants.

In an interview with FRANCE 24, Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed superweeds were manageable. “The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said.

Cole encourages farmers to alternate crops and use different makes of herbicides.

Indeed, according to Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive harm and mental impairment. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare in Vietnam in the 1960s.

FRANCE 24 report: French scientist Eric Seralini says research shows Roundup herbicide is highly toxic to human beings.

Questioned on the environmental impact and toxicity of such mixtures, Monsanto’s public affairs director, Janice Person, said that “they didn’t recommend any mixtures that were not approved by the EPA,” she said, referring to the US federal Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, Monsanto was well aware of the risk of superweeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds.

“The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,” says a 2002 Soil Association report.

In the face of the weed explosion in cotton and soybean crops, some farmers are even considering moving back to non-GM seeds. “It’s good for us to go back, people have overdone the Roundup seeds,” Alan Rowland, a soybean seed producer based in Dudley, Missouri, told FRANCE 24. He used to sell 80% Monsanto “Roundup Ready” soybeans and now has gone back to traditional crops, in a market overwhelmingly dominated by Monsanto.

According to a number of agricultural specialists, farmers are considering moving back to conventional crops. But it’s all down to economics, they say. GM crops are becoming expensive, growers say.

While farmers and specialists are reluctant to blame Monsanto, Rowland says he’s started to “see people rebelling against the higher costs.”

Pirate Bay judge is member of Copyright Association

ZDNet
Richard Koman
April 23, 2009

The Pirate Bay may have grounds for a retrial. It turns out that the judge in the case, Tomas Norstrom, might have a slight conflict of interest. He’s a member of the Swedish Copyright Association and sits on the board of Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property.

Peter Althin, the lawyer for TPB cofounder Peter Sunde, said he’s asking the Swedish appeals court to consider ordering a retrial based on the judge’s possible bias, the BBC reports.

“In the autumn I received information that a lay judge could have similar connections. I sent these to the court and the judge was excluded in order to prevent a conflict of interest. It would have been reasonable to then review this situation as well,” Althin told Sveriges Radio.

BBC also offers perspective on Swedish law from former senior attorney Sven-Erik Alhem, who says it’s unlikely this will result in – a former senior attorney in Sweden – said the judge had made an error of judgement, but a retrial was unlikely.

The judge should have told the parties of his other engagements. Had he done that then they could make a decision on whether they wanted him as a judge in their case. I’m not sure the superior court could say that this was unfair, but had he been open then it wouldn’t have been an issue.

The legalities of Swedish judicial ethics aside, this seems to me to be very bad form for a case of such public interest and import. A judicial system needs to appear — and be — independent and unbiased. That’s exactly the image the court strove to present in its very matter-of-fact comments after the decision:

The court first tried whether there was any question of breach of copyright by the file-sharing application and that has been proved, that the offence was committed…

To then find out that a judge has very definite leanings towards one party really makes a mockery of the unbiased judiciary. As Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, told the BBC:

“The judge in one of Sweden’s most high profile case ever is also a member of an interest organisation for one side and associates with the prosecution trial lawyers in his free time? That is inexcusable corruption.

Again, no idea what the Swedish appeals court will do, but the moral authority of the decision has been critically weakened by this revelation.

Government wants to drug nursing moms on anti-depressants: HR-20 passes house

Five years ago, when my wife was pregnant with our son,  I fought a battle over this issue, to keep them from drugging my wife.  And believe me, if your wife is anything like mine, and trusts the psychiatric industry, this is a difficult battle to fight.  But I did it to protect my son from the known brain damaging effects of antidepresants that pass thru the placenta and the milk into the baby, and cause permanent neural damage. Luckily she didn’t go on the drugs.

Disagreements like this cost me my marriage but thank God she got thru the pregnancy without going on the drugs like they (and she) wanted. My son is healthy and absolutely brilliant. I can only imagine how he would have turned out if he had suffered a daily Prozac drugging.

Babies who’s moms have taken prozac while pregnant often have “weak or absent cry,” or are born “emotionless.”  Any drug that can suppress this essential instinct in a newborn is going to have profound and permanent detrimental effects on neural development.

Big pharma and corporate media will deny it, but seriously people, use a little common sense.  I’ve heard rationalizations such as “If the mother gets upset it reduces blood flow to the fetus, and that can be dangerous.” Even if there is a grain of truth to this, there are millions of years of biological precedent for a fetus to survive maternal distress and anxiety. There is absolutely zero biological precedent for a fetus to survive being poisoned by brand new (evolutionarily speaking) antidepressant drugs.

I don’t want to sound callous with regard to the very real emotional turmoil many women experience while pregnant and post-partum.  Preganancy is no joke.  But do you want to fry your baby’s brain so you can get what you think is going to be some relief from depression and anxiety?

Some studies show SRI drugs are no better than placebo at treating depression.  But many studies show they do cause psychotic breaks, suicide, and other aberrent behavior in a small but significant percentage of users.

This bill only deals with screening for post-partum depression, but I’ve seen first hand how they push drugs on pregnant women as well.  There is plenty of opportunity for them to “evaluate” pregnant women for depression due to constant doctor and hospital visits during pregnancy, and they have no reservations about prescribing anti-depressants in spite of research showing negative impact on neural development of the fetus/baby.

Women: Be strong.  Do not cave to the will of big pharma.  Do not let them fry your baby’s brain in utero and do not let them deny you one of the greatest gifts you can give your child, breastfeeding.

http://www.govtrack.us/co…

A sweeping government policy for all new births in the United States has just passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. The Mother’s Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital. Just imagine that after your child is born, you are told that you can’t take them home since a multiple choice questionnaire wasn’t answered correctly. Just imagine being told that the only way you can take your child home is if you or your spouse goes into treatment or on anti-depressants which we know causes psychosis, delusions, and even homocidal thoughts. It just doesn’t make sense. Unfortunately, this bill is on a fast track–No public debate, no public disclosure of the broad impact on our society and that is why we need you to act now!

The Mother’s Act violates our Constitutional right to privacy and your right to liberty and it is just outright dangerous. That is why we need you to help stop this. We urgently need you to call and email each Senator on the HELP Committee and tell them you STRONGLY OPPOSE the MOTHER’S ACT and that you are OUTRAGED that there was NO public debate or disclosure on the impact this would have on our society as a whole.

Send a letter by going here: http://salsa.democracyina…

Please call the following Senators on the HELP Committee and tell them that you want the Mother’s Act to die in committee.

Lisa Murkowski, R: 202-224-6665, AK
John McCain, R: 202-224-2235, AZ
Christopher Dodd, D: 202-224-2823, CT
Johnny Isakson, R: 202-224-3643, GA
Tom Harkin, D: 202-224-3254, IA
Pat Roberts, R: 202-224-4774, KS
Edward Kennedy D: 202-224-4543, MA
Barbara Mikulski D: 202-224-4654, MD
Richard Burr, R: 202-224-3154, NC
Kay Hagan, D: 202-224-6342, NC
Judd Gregg, R: 202-224-3324, NH
Jeff Bingaman, D: 202-224-5521, NM
Sherrod Brown, D 202-224-2315, OH
Tom Coburn, R 202-224-5754, OK
Jeff Merkley, D 202-224-3753, OR
Bob Casey, D 202-224-6324, PA
Jack Reed, D 202-224-4642, RI
Lamar Alexander R 202-224-4944, TN
Orrin Hatch R 202-224-5251, UT
Bernard Sanders, I: 202-224-5141, VT
Patty Murray, D, 202-224-2621, WA
Michael Enzi, R, 202-224-3424, WY

Thank you so much for caring enough to call and take action! Remember “We The People” are in charge!
Respectfully,
Sheila Matthews
Cofounder www.ablechild.org