May 20, 2013
By: Kelly Diamond, Publisher
Whether we call it “plausible deniability”, “willful ignorance” or “depraved indifference”, at the end of the day, even John Stewart of the Daily Show is seeing a rather painful pattern of the White House not knowing the goings of its organization.
The same benefit of the doubt would never be extended to the CEO of any given company if there were such egregious scandals in their ranks. After all, the same group of people who condemn irresponsible banksters and their golden parachutes, give the current administration with its Nixon-esque shenanigans a free pass!
Didn’t know about Fast & Furious. Didn’t know about the DOJ seizing AP reporters’ correspondence. Didn’t know about the IRS targeting dissenting groups. If we actually confronted him about things like the SEC’s revolving door, or the IRS violating the parameters of search warrants in California, or the EPA’s discriminatory practices toward dissenting groups’ FOIA requests, we’d probably get some similar dribble about how busy he is. Is he in over his head? Is he just incompetent? Is it a little bit of both? Any of those three are at least still giving him the benefit of the doubt! (How sad is that?!)
This is one of the inherent problems with such a large and bloated government: lack of accountability.
I wonder if the Obama Administration knows anything about this:
During the last year, the EPA has been under some scrutiny for a particular “study” it conducted on the dangers – or lack thereof – of fine particulate matter. In this particular case, the EPA hired 41 individuals at $12 per hour to deliberately inhale diesel exhaust. The study only mentioned ONE individual who endured cardiac arrest during the experiment, but nothing else. One of two things: either the others are fine, or they aren’t. But those findings were either never found or never disclosed.
The actual particulate matter is called “PM2.5”. Either PM2.5 is dangerous or it’s not. They administered 21 TIMES the EPA’s own “permissible amount” to these subjects. The EPA already deems this particulate matter as being toxic, lethal and dangerous. Aside from the abominable image of human beings in gas chambers in the name of “science” being totally reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the EPA is in a bit of a conundrum, to say the very least.
- By its own standards, the EPA violated its own “Common Rule” requirement
- Researchers must minimize risk to subjects.
- Any risks taken must be reasonable compared to anticipated benefits.
- Subjects are to be fully informed of the risks involved.
- Studies with “risk of substantial injury to a human subject” are not to be approved, except in extremely rare cases which require the permission of higher agency authorities.
The question is: if PM2.5 is already considered to be lethal, what benefit could possibly be gained by subjecting a group of people to controlled doses of it? Science advocate, Steven Milloy – who requested the FOIA information from the EPA – found that the subjects had not even been advised of the potential dangers of the particulate matter they were consuming.
Where it becomes especially problematic is that either PM2.5 IS toxic or it’s NOT. If it is, then this experiment is totally immoral. If it isn’t, then the decades claiming that PM2.5 is toxic are bogus. Either way, their credibility is on the line.
What do you say, Obama?
What consequences do any of these agencies face for such violations of civil and human rights? Maybe a slap on the wrist or a verbal sanction… Still too busy to notice? Perhaps his staff and agents are just a little more astute and aware than they are, because contrast that with people who dare to speak or act out against the government in some way. They find themselves on the receiving end of government scrutiny ranging from getting inundated with unnecessary paperwork and inquisitions to confiscations and investigations into personal information.
Dissenters? Trump Up Them Charges!
A rather sad example of how the government can ramp up sanctions and penalties on non-violent individuals is the case of three Catholic activists who decided to protest a nuclear site in Tennessee.
An 82 year old nun, a 57 year old veteran turned carpenter living in a Minnesota worker house, and a 52 year old veteran living in a D.C. worker house decide to protest a nuclear site. One night, the three cut through the first fence surrounding the facility and proceed all the way to the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF). They cut through three additional fences, put up their signs, and spray paint peace slogans on the facility building… all undetected! After they sing songs for a while on the premises, security finally shows up, at which point they surrender peacefully.
They were initially charged with federal trespassing, a misdemeanor which carries a penalty of up to one year in jail. Here is what the 82 year old nun had to say:
“But we had to — we were doing it because we had to reveal the truth of the criminality which is there, that’s our obligation. We have the power, and the love, and the strength and the courage to end it and transform the whole project, for which has been expended more than 7.2 trillion dollars. The truth will heal us and heal our planet, heal our diseases, which result from the disharmony of our planet caused by the worst weapons in the history of mankind, which should not exist. For this we give our lives — for the truth about the terrible existence of these weapons.”
I don’t find that at all threatening. What I DO find rather disconcerting is that an 82 year old woman could penetrate the security of a federal nuclear facility undetected!
The three carried a letter which read as follows:
“We come to the Y-12 facility because our very humanity rejects the designs of nuclearism, empire and war. Our faith in love and nonviolence encourages us to believe that our activity here is necessary; that we come to invite transformation, undo the past and present work of Y-12; disarm and end any further efforts to increase the Y-12 capacity for an economy and social structure based on war-making and empire-building.”
The Department of Energy then upped the charges to include damage to federal property, a felony punishable by zero to five years in prison. A week later, upped them AGAIN with an additional charge of damage to federal property in excess of $1000, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
The count is up to 16 years in prison for these three at this point… but they aren’t done with them yet.
Then, the courts advised them that if they didn’t plead guilty to at least ONE felony and the misdemeanor charge, they would be facing ANOTHER charge: sabotaging the U.S. government. Despite 3,000 signatures petitioning to drop such a charge, the Department of Justice levied the three with the following charge: intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States and willful damage of national security premises, punishable with up to 20 years in prison. They dropped the trespassing charge that carried a one year sentence, though. So now, the three are facing up to THIRTY-FIVE YEARS IN A CAGE! With ruthless efficiency, the federal government managed to trump up the charges from trespassing to sabotage in a matter of five months!
The three admitted what they did and why, and were convicted on all counts last year. Cutting the fences and spray painting constituted “crimes of violence”, so the three are currently incarcerated awaiting sentencing in September – despite the fact that they managed to be free during and leading up to the trial without incident. “In its decision affirming their incarceration pending their sentencing, the court ruled that both the sabotage and the damage to property convictions were defined by Congress as federal crimes of terrorism,” writes Fran Quigley, a clinical professor and director of the Health and Human Rights Clinic at Indiana University McKinney School of Law. “In ten months, an 82-year-old nun and two pacifists had been successfully transformed by the U.S. government from non-violent anti-nuclear peace protestors accused of misdemeanor trespassing into felons convicted of violent crimes of terrorism.”
So if the Federal government goons trample all over my rights and property, that’s punishable by MAYBE a “shame on you”, if anything. If or when a cop breaks down my door in a raid, shoots my dog, and throws some tear gas in for good measure, that’s him just doing his job. But three senior peace activists cut some wire fencing, put up a sign, spray paint a building, and sing some songs (and expose some rather damning security vulnerabilities) and they’re labeled terrorists and face up to 35 years in prison?
If this were a private home, no WAY would the three be facing these charges. And when it’s the government doing it to a private citizen, there aren’t any charges. But private citizens doing this to government? Roll out the pillories! We’re having a hanging tonight!
You cannot vote this type of nonsense away because no one running for office WANTS this stuff to go away! But this is the U.S. Government. This is the double standard. This is tax dollars hard at work. All you who say “we need a government to keeps us safe” should really start asking, who will keep us safe from government? Do you really feel safer knowing that YOU paid for the processing of these three peace activists? Do you feel safer knowing that these three seniors will be housed, clothed, fed and sheltered for upwards of $40,000 per year ON YOUR DIME for up to 35 years? Do you feel safer knowing that, meanwhile, IRS agents are ransacking private files both physical and electronic of thousands of citizens with total impunity? Do you feel safer knowing that the EPA is conducting gas chamber experiments on people without even disclosing the potential dangers?
At some point, people will wake up and realize that government spends more time, money and manpower hunting and punishing non-violent individuals than they do actually protecting us. It would seem they are more interested in covering their own asses, and making examples of those who pose an intellectual threat to the establishment in order to deter others from engaging in the same activity. State agents are protecting and serving alright… protecting and serving the statist quo!