(Updated!) Control of Communicable Diseases A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 08/15/2016

Here’s a perfect example of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and request for public comment as required under The Administrative Procedures Act. This one has a 2 month comment period. Beyond the fact that is a legal requirement for the agency to publish this solicitation for public comment, is it important to us?

It’s hugely important! Firstly, it makes for a permanent public record of the submitted comments, which the agency is required to consider and address in its final rule, and secondly, the proper issuance of comment gives the commenter legal standing to challenge the final rule with an action for injunctive relief against its implementation. Without this comment, it is likely that any attempt at such action would be summarily dismissed for a lack of standing by the petitioner.

As one will see, submitting a proper comment is a significant investment of time, not to mention the necessary effort and insight to “decode” the actual meanings of the proposed rules, and this is one of the ways we as “The People” are simply overwhelmed by this occupying monster we call government.

I’ve highlighted just some of the areas of interest and potential targets of comment. Some are more important than others, but they’re all important. I’m afraid you’ll have to search and read the complete areas highlighted for a complete understanding of the section in question. The entire posting is found at the hyperlink below. (‘Ctrl F’ is your friend)

“Apprehension”

“HHS/CDC requests public comment concerning the expected apprehension period (no longer than 72 hours), and whether there are any public concerns with the absence of a specific maximum apprehension period in the regulation.”

“Electronic or Internet-Based Monitoring”

“HHS/CDC specifically solicits comment regarding whether this proposed definition is sufficiently broad to apply to any new or existing technologies that would allow for the public health supervision and monitoring of an individual under a conditional release order. HHS/CDC also solicits comment regarding whether the proposed definition raises any privacy implications for an individual who is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease and who is subject to a conditional release order.”

“Indigent”

“CDC specifically requests public comment on whether the use of this standard definition is an appropriate threshold to determine whether an individual cannot afford representation and therefore should be appointed a medical representative at the government’s expense.”

“Non-Invasive”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests comment concerning this definition including whether the definition aligns with common perceptions of what constitutes non-invasive procedures that may be conducted outside of a traditional clinical setting.”

“Public Health Emergency”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this definition and its utility in identifying communicable diseases that ‘would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals’ under 42 U.S.C. 264(d)(2)(B).”

“Reasonably Believed To Be Infected, as Applied to Individuals”

“HHS/CDC specifically solicits public comment regarding this definition, in particular, whether the definition aligns with established public health practice regarding the handling of individuals exposed to or infected with communicable diseases.”

“2. § 70.5 Requirements Relating to Travelers Under a Federal Order of Isolation, Quarantine, or Conditional Release”

(IMPORTANT) “HHS/CDC recognizes that the right to engage in travel within the United States is a privilege of national citizenship protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as an aspect of liberty protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418 (1981). However, this right is not unqualified and travel restrictions based on the threat posed by communicable diseases are valid. See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1965) (“The right to travel within the United States is of course also constitutionally protected . . . [b]ut that freedom does not mean that areas ravaged by flood, fire or pestilence cannot be quarantined when it can be demonstrated that unlimited travel to the area would directly and materially interfere with the safety and welfare of the area or the Nation as a whole.”). Furthermore, HHS/CDC will afford individuals subject to these travel restrictions with adequate due process through the previously mentioned written appeals process.”(IMPORTANT)

“CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision. In particular, HHS/CDC requests comment on whether stakeholders have concerns regarding the requirement imposed on conveyance operators to not “knowingly” transport individuals under a Federal order and the feasibility of this requirement. HHS/CDC also requests public comment on the application of this provision to individuals under state/local order as well as individuals traveling entirely within a state.”

“4. § 70.10 Public Health Prevention Measures To Detect Communicable Disease”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether the public has any concerns regarding the mandatory health screening of passengers using non-invasive means as defined in this proposed rule.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision to collect additional personal information from screened individuals for the purposes of contact tracing.”

“7. § 70.13 Payment for Care and Treatment”

(IMPORTANT) “Payment for care and treatment under this section is in the CDC’s sole discretion, subject to the availability of appropriations, and after all third-party payments have been exhausted.” (IMPORTANT- Define “third-party payments??”)

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether there are any concerns regarding the proposal that all third party payments be exhausted prior to the Federal reimbursement of medical care or treatment for individuals placed under a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional surveillance.”

“8. § 70.14 Requirements Relating to Issuance of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

” HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision to issue Federal orders to entire groups rather than individuals.”

” HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision and whether this provision sufficiently informs the public all of the important details concerning circumstances during which HHS/CDC would issue to groups or individuals Federal orders for quarantine, isolation, and conditional release and the duration and conditions of such orders.”

“9. § 70.15 Mandatory Reassessment of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision—in particular, whether 72 hours is the necessary amount of time to conduct a reassessment after a Federal order is first issued, or if the reassessment should take place earlier or later.”

“10. § 70.16 Medical Review of a Federal Order for Quarantine, Isolation, or Conditional Release”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision—in particular, whether or not the public sees a role for the Federal government to ensure that basic living conditions, amenities, and standards are satisfactory when placing individuals under Federal orders.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this provision—in particular, whether the public believes that there may be non-indigent individuals, as defined in this NPRM, who may have difficulty affording a representative”

13. § 70.19 Penalties”

“This section clarifies that of the statutory penalties imposed for violation of quarantine regulations (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 271 and 18 U.S.C. 3571), this rule will codify the higher penalty as established in 18 U.S.C. 3571.”

“HHS/CDC specifically requests public comment on this proposed provision—in particular, whether the penalties as proposed in this rule are clearly defined and the circumstances under which such penalties may be imposed.”

. . . and there’s much, much more. Good luck!

——————————–UPDATED———————————–

“14. § 71.40 Agreements”

(EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!) “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.” (emphasis added)

Control of Communicable Diseases A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 08/15/2016

Submit your comments here: Comments on Proposed Rule

It’s So Simple, But People Continue to Deny It.

Also, it would have been directly convertible at the U.S. Treasury to 172.4 ounces of silver at the 1913 $0.58/ounce rate. People should let that sink in for a minute….

This means not only that the dollar acted as a warehouse certificate (Silver/Gold Certificate) that REQUIRED the U.S. Treasury to exchange on demand for the ACTUAL metal, but also that it significantly limited the government’s ability to PRINT dollars. This acted as an inflation control and encouraged better government.

By the way, at today’s inflated rate, those 172.4 ounces of silver are worth $3397.85 federal reserve notes. Now, let that REALLY sink in:

Then – ~1.75 oz silver = $1.00
Now – ~.05 oz silver = $1.00

(http://goldsilverworlds.com/…/silver-price-in-the-last-100…/)

A loss of tangible value of 35 times or 97% of its pre-federal reserve value.

If you haven’t noticed, this is directly representative of those “higher prices” we presently experience. But, the “prices” aren’t higher; the intrinsic value of the item priced isn’t greater. The difference is due to the demolished purchasing power of each fiat “dollar.” And, this is the direct result of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Bank.

Have you had enough yet?

U.S. traders reject GMO crops that lack global approval

“Soybeans, once considered such a simple crop to grow and market, is becoming more complicated,’ ” Bayer said. It called the situation faced by growers ‘downright
confusing.’ ” (Reuters Technology, Tom Polansek and Karl Plume, Fri May 6, 2016 5:23pm EDT)

Confusing may be a mild term. What about “massively destructive?” Rightly or wrongly a vast number of farmers who rely on selling their GMO crops (and most do) may be put completely out of business. It’s not like they can magically turn things around. It takes roughly seven years to rehabilitate the soil in order to become a non-GMO or Organic concern and it’s doubtful many have the deep pockets necessary to make that happen.

So, without being judgemental toward those who were lulled into this trap by a vicious and persuasive industry, how will these potentially bankrupted farmers make an orderly transition?  While the government may provide financial aid to affected farmers, who exactly will cover the shortfall in food? I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see the dangers looming here.

“Across the U.S. Farm Belt, top grain handlers have banned genetically modified crops that are not approved in all major overseas markets, shaking up a decades-old system that used the world’s biggest exporting country as a launchpad for new seeds from companies like Monsanto Co.

“Bold yellow signs from global trader Bunge Ltd are posted at U.S. grain elevators barring 19 varieties of GMO corn and soybeans that lack approval in important markets.

“CHS Inc, the country’s largest farm cooperative, wants companies to keep seeds with new biotech traits off the market until they have full approval from major foreign buyers, Gary Anderson, a senior vice president for CHS, told Reuters.”

Continue reading the Reuters article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gmo-crops-idUSKCN0XX2AV

MEP Luke Flanagan’s visit to the viewing room for TTIP: A farce

Do NOT scroll past! WATCH! This EU model may give a glimpse into the type of “Global Democratic Governance” that awaits everyone in the wings.

Also, consider the amount of other peoples’ monies that must have been appropriated to build such a sprawling, enclosed complex.

European Parliament MEP Luke Flanagan takes us on an amazing journey down an outrageous rabbit-hole of “democratic privilege.”

“Excuse the quality of the video at times, as it gets a little foggy! Appropriate really for an agreement that is foggy when it comes keeping its contents from the general public. As you will see the process is a farce. Please share.”

Just Exactly What is Mossack Fonseca?

Mossack Fonseca
Information from an Irish Times investigation provides some evidence that Mossack Fonseca may in fact be an off-the-books, deep-cover, “Trojan horse-styled” intelligence gathering operation. And, if it’s not, someone in the intelligence community was asleep at the switch and missed an amazing potential.

“(Jürgen) Mossack was born in Germany in 1948. He moved to Panama with his family in the early 1960s, according to his law partner.

320px-Jurgen_Mossack(By Jandrade97 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40133127)

“Mossack’s father had been a member of the Waffen-SS, the notorious armed wing of the Nazi Party during World War II, according to U.S. Army intelligence files obtained by ICIJ.

“After the war the father offered his services to the U.S. government as an informant, the files show, claiming ‘he was about to join a clandestine organization, either of former Nazis now turned Communist . . . or of unconverted Nazis cloaking themselves as Communists.’  An Army intelligence officer wrote that the offer to spy for the U.S. might simply be ‘a shrewd attempt to get out of an awkward situation.’

“Nevertheless, the old intelligence files indicate that Mossack’s father later ended up in Panama, where he offered to spy, this time for the CIA, on Communist activity in nearby Cuba.”

Paper Clip? Gladio?

Read more at the link below:

Panimanian Law Firm Is Gatekeeper To Vast Flow of Murky Offshore Secrets

On The Matter of Jury Nullification

jury-nullification-jefferson  Upon occasion, the topic of jury nullification arises. In post-modern thought it is typically believed to not exist and is presented as radicalized bane to our present judicial system. One can only speculate as to why that might be as it is certainly not supported by any legal history. In fact, the precise opposite may be found:

“Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable (sic), that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.” [Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)] (1)

So, in very simple language, there you have it. It was originally understood that there were three mechanisms available to overturn an unjust law: Both Legislative and Executive authority exercised under State Sovereignty or by Jury Nullification.
Marbury vs Madison (1803) (2) created a fourth method (previously unheard of and NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution) called “Judicial Review.” (3)

And then, it gets a bit more complicated: “[I]n 1895 in Sparf v. United States, the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors’ inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged.” (4)

“In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.

“In criminal cases, it is competent for the court to instruct the jury as to the legal presumptions arising from a given state of facts, but it may not, by a peremptory instruction, require the jury to find the accused guilty of the offense charged, nor of any offense less than that charged.” (5)

Some will argue that Sparf v. United States established that there is no jury nullification in federal Article 3 Courts; however, is that really what SCOTUS said? Let’s deconstruct,
“. . . [S]ubject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.” SCOTUS is very clearly saying “by a general verdict,” meaning by the established precedence, “jury . . . determines both law and fact as compounded (meaning intermixed) in the issue submitted to them . . . .” So, it is valid to presume, based on their own language, that SCOTUS said if the “law” element within the admixture of the “compound” were viewed as flawed, then the entire “compound” was flawed. I cannot see where anyone could properly assert otherwise.

After adding this to your “data base,” in the future, when anyone elects to challenge the existence of jury nullification, you might have a word in your mouth. Please comment as you like.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_1794
(2) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(4) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States
(5) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/51/

 

The Fuss Over Zika and Mosquito Control (Updated!!)

lnkmosquito_110308

All this is quite interesting to this writer (from an analytical point-of-view of course). The latest “HooRah,” WHO, Pandemic scare seems to be focused on this “insidious” Zika virus (with its purported “association” with Microcephaly) and the now, seeming hysterically driven, mosquito (vector) control programs along with an amazing amount of “emergency funding” ($1.8 B) (also to “encourage” BigPharma to “discover” a new vaccine). But, for the purpose of this examination, let’s just focus on vector control, which reportedly is using particular Larvicide products such as “VectoBac.” VectoBac 12AS Biological Larvicide Aqueous Suspension lists the following ingredients: https://drive.google.com/…/0B0vNY24fkkHTRmpTNWZ…/view… (1)

Okay, having clicked on the link and viewed the data, let’s now examine “Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), a group of bacteria used as biological control agents for larvae stages of certain dipterans. Bti produces toxins which are effective in killing various species of mosquitoes, fungus gnats, and blackflies, while having ALMOST no effect on other organisms. Indeed, this is one of the major advantages of B. thuringiensis products in general is that THEY ARE THOUGHT to affect few nontarget species.” (2) (emphasis added)

Now, where have we heard this “bacillus thuringiensis” before? Oh! That’s right:

“When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified ‘Bt’ corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

“But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

“Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

“Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.(Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

“According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which ‘appears to blow a hole in’ safety claims, ‘has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food.’ Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.” (3)

Next on the ingredient list, we find PROXEL GXL. Although listed amount as only .10% it’s still important to note: “Corrosive to eyes, skin and mucous membranes, Possible skin sensitizer” (4) Also, “Inhalation: Repeated inhalation exposure may cause impairment of lung function and permanent lung damage.” (5) It gets more interesting so please read the reference.

Then, finally, we come to the remaining 88.29% that is simply labeled, “Trade Secret – Other Ingredients – withheld as Trade Secret” (6) Please feel free to arrive at your own conclusion with respect to that while also bearing in mind that VectoBac is NOT a chemical product, it is a biological one.

So, why does this all seem quite suspicious? Well, the evidence seems to be “heating up” and we’ll continue to pull on this thread to see what else unravels.

(1) http://www.sccgov.org/sites/vector/Documents/VEC12ASm.pdf
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/…/Bacillus_thuringiensis…
(3) http://articles.mercola.com/…/dangerous-toxins-from-gmo…
(4) http://formosa.msdssoftware.com/…/A3400760F10D40B9AF882…
(5) ibid
(6) http://www.sccgov.org/sites/vector/Documents/VEC12ASm.pdf

Update!!

It appears that we were on the right track albeit perhaps in a slightly different direction:

“A report from the Argentine doctors’ organisation, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, challenges the theory that the Zika virus epidemic in Brazil is the cause of the increase in the birth defect microcephaly among newborns.

“The increase in this birth defect, in which the baby is born with an abnormally small head and often has brain damage, was quickly linked to the Zika virus by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. However, according to the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, the Ministry failed to recognise that in the area where most sick people live, a chemical larvicide that produces malformations in mosquitoes was introduced into the drinking water supply in 2014. This poison, Pyriproxyfen, is used in a State-controlled programme aimed at eradicating disease-carrying mosquitoes.” (1)

So, it appears that they may have”rolled the dice” by putting Pyriproxyfen in the drinking water…

“Pyriproxyfen was not evaluated in the first edition of the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, published in 1984, in the second edition, published in 1993, or in the addendum to the second edition, published in 1998. In the third edition of the Guidelines, a guideline value of 0.3 mg/litre was established for pyriproxyfen in drinking-water.” (2)

(1) http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/doctors-name-monsantos-larvicide-as-cause-of-brazilian-microcephaly-outbreak/
(2) http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/Pyriproxyfensum.pdf