Monday October 23, 2017
Apr-06-2011 20:41TweetFollow @OregonNews
Wisconsin: The Governor Has Laws in Place to Rule as DictatorJ Kent and D Jacobsen for Salem-News.com
Wisconsin: divided over budgets and workers rights, but one law presents a common and even greater threat.
(LONDON) - As the governor of Wisconsin defies court orders and exhibits imperious and law defying behavior, an article by Joseph Mercola, entitled "Governors as Dictators" stands out with enhanced relevant, not only for Wisconsin but for the country. For what Mercola addresses in the article would suggest that the protests in Wisconsin are not going deep enough, for they are not addressing laws on the Wisconsin books already which make the threats to union rights pale in comparison.
Dr. Mercola's article concerns the Model State Emergency Health Powers laws that were pushed through state legislatures under George Bush following 9/11 and the anthrax scare, though prepared long previous to both. No matter what position one takes on 9/11 or the anthrax scare, three things are evident.
Governor Walker's defiance of legal constraints placed by the court makes investigating the powers that Bush had inserted into state laws for governors highly relevant because all that it would require to trigger those powers is an emergency. "Emergency" was the essence of both 9/11 and the anthrax scare, and it is precisely to find out whether those emergencies were promulgated (staged) that additional investigations are being called for with both calls based on distrust of original government agencies' accounts and then of the investigations which government agencies ran and controlled.
That is, the pandemic preparedness laws in Wisconsin can go into effect based on an emergency declared by government agencies which are still under suspicion around the very two terrorizing events that were the sole basis of the pandemic laws in the first place, events that themselves were immediately questioned and gave rise to formal investigations, and the government investigations themselves now also questioned, even in the 9/11 case, by commissioners who participated.
The 2009 H1N1 pandemic is precisely the sort of event that could be used to make the state laws operative in all their power, which would give Governor Walker true dictatorial powers. Yet it has been shown in investigations by both CBS news and the EU parliament, to have been fake (and corruptly so), to have moved forward on the US based on the CDC reporting 80-98% false data, (it is the CDC which first began promoting the state emergency health laws.). Yet after the falseness of any H1N1 "pandemic" was exposed, the president immediately declared a full blown "emergency", with military implications. That emergency has never been removed. It rests on the mildest flu in recorded medical annals, but which Sibelius at HHS has "extended" until 2012. She cannot maintain a medical condition by law (the flu is long over), but she has continued the legal justification for maintaining ground troops on the ground in the US.
What powers do these laws, predicated on an ill-defined emergency that is easily declared, includes no proof of evidence, and can be extended on no medical ground, contain?
Within weeks after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began promoting health policy legislation that dramatically suspends civil rights during declared state of biological emergency. The text of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) gives public health officials and governors of the several states the power to arrest, transport, quarantine, drug and vaccinate anyone suspected of carrying a potentially infectious disease. The Boston Globe originally broke the October 31, 2001. The story was almost immediately forwarded to medical freedom activists throughout the country who responded en masse in outspoken opposition to the proposal. The article was quickly removed fromThe Globe’s website. http://farmwars.info/?p=1243
Under the proposed law, one case of smallpox or swine flu in a public school could trigger authorities to urge a governor to declare a state of emergency. Once such is declared, the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and most cherished civil liberties will be immediately suspended in addition to states being empowered to take immediate possession of private property under the doctrine of eminent domain...
Under this part, for instance, previous laws granting medical, religious, or philosophical exemptions to vaccination would be repealed. [Emphasis added.]
The laws do not depend on either a contagious disease being present or on proof of any emergency, only on the declaration of an emergency.
What accountability is there?
[Sections quoted below come from "Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) Turns Governors into Dictators" by Joseph Mercola unless otherwise indicated.] If the State does more harm than good through unfettered use of its draconian power, it can rely on the state immunity clause: "Neither the State, its political subdivisions, nor, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the Governor, the public health authority, or any other State official referenced in this Act, is liable for the death of or any injury to persons, or damage to property, as a result of complying with or attempting to comply with this Act or any rule or regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act." Article VIII Section 804. Note that the law would grant certain immunities even for deaths improperly caused, and allows such immunity even for advisors who made recommendations based on conflicts of interest.
Beginning first with the health side, and with more detail, the laws include forced diagnostic testing (unlimited in character), forced taking of bodily samples (unlimited as to what is taken), forced unknown, untested "medical" treatments, forced decontamination with unknown, untested chemicals, and forced unknown, untested vaccines. Pulled from any context of "emergency," this comprises two things, description of forced medical experimentation on anyone in Wisconsin (or any other state) and criminal physical assault. Refusal can include imprisonment.
The laws overturn all exemptions for vaccines, even medical exemptions that were given to protect people allergic to them who would die if given them. The laws replaced long-standing constitutional public health laws that included the option to self-quarantine, the historic and most relied upon of public health options in an epidemic. Instead, quarantining would be forced and into public facilities if someone refuses to submit to intimate and potentially life-threatening physical assault. Under the CDC promoted state health power laws, quarantine is indistinguishable from imprisonment for not complying with forced medical procedures - procedures based on no proven medical emergency and not requiring an infectious disease even exist.
Anyone refusing these state-forced medical actions, could be herded together in detainment centers or prison, ideal setting for spreading disease and terrible settings for medical help if one becomes infected there.
Article V Section 504(b). Although it might in some circumstances be prudent and justified to quarantine a person who refuses immunization during an outbreak, it is tyrannical to criminalize the medical choice to decline a treatment. An immunization or treatment might well cause serious harm to certain individuals even if the public health authority does not recognize that it is "reasonably likely" to lead to "serious harm"-another two important undefined terms. Article V Section 504(a)(4). The Act gives the public health authority the right to isolate or quarantine a person on an ex parte court order, with no hearing for at least 72 hours. If the public health authority decides that an unvaccinated person is a risk to others, even if uninfected, he could be quarantined. Article V Section 503(e). It is quite possible that public health authorities could force such a person from his home to a place of quarantine, where he will be exposed to infected persons. Such places shall be maintained in a safe and hygienic manner "to the extent possible," and "all reasonable means shall be taken to prevent the transmission of infection among isolated or quarantined individuals." Article V Section 503(a). The Act itself thus implies that an uninfected person is at risk by being placed in such a facility; it is quite likely that he could be at greater risk than if he had the freedom to protect himself as he saw fit. It is assumed that public health authorities will be "reasonable"; however, this assumption is questionable.
How would the emergency that would trigger any of this be declared? How is it defined?
Declaring an Emergency: Under this Act, any Governor could appoint himself dictator by declaring a "public health emergency." He doesn't even have to consult anyone. The Act requires that he "shall consult with the public health authority," but "nothing in the duty to consult ... shall be construed to limit the Governor's authority to act without such consultation when the situation calls for prompt and timely action." The legislature is prohibited from intervening for 60 days, after which it may terminate the state of emergency only by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. (Apparently, it does not have the authority to find that the state of emergency never really existed.) Article III, Section 305(c). There is also the possibility that the Governor could declare a new emergency as soon as his powers were about to expire. What is a public health emergency? It is whatever the Governor decides it should be. By the definition in the Act, it could be an "occurrence"-or just an "imminent threat"-of basically any cause that involves a biological agent or biological toxin that poses a "substantial risk" of a "significant number" of human fatalities or disability. Article I, Section 104(g). Terrorism need not be involved; any threat of an epidemic would suffice...
What kind of power would the governor have? And under such a law, what limits could be placed on Governor Walker?
Unlimited Power: How would the Governor handle the emergency? By whatever means he chose. He is under no obligation to use scientifically valid methods, or to choose the least destructive method, or to perform any kind of risk-benefit analysis. He may suspend any regulatory statute, or the rules of any state agency, if they would "prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action."Article III, Section 303(a)(1). Among the laws to be suspended would probably be those permitting religious, medical, or philosophical exemptions to mandatory vaccines. The Governor may not only utilize all the resources of the State and its political subdivisions, but commandeer any private facilities or resources considered necessary, and "take immediate possession thereof. Such materials and facilities include, but are not limited to, communication devices, carriers, real estate, fuels, food, clothing, and health care facilities."
Taking possession of "communication devices, carriers, real estate, fuels, food, clothing, and health care facilities" describes martial law.
The governor, by such a law, would not be taking control of "communication devices" such as cell phones, but of all communications in the state. "Carriers" are all transportation, "real estate" is all property and land, "fuels" are all utilities as well as oil, gas, coal, water (used for hydro-electric power), private solar power, wind power, water power; "food" is all food in the state including farms, privately stored food, any businesses that produce or provide food; and "health care facilities" could include any place where they may assert that "health" measures are being taken, which could include prisons and detainment camps. (Why would clothing be listed?)
Doctors and health workers would be compelled to comply.
Article IV Section 402(a). He may "compel a health care facility to provide services," but it is not clear what means he may use to compel its personnel to work
What of legislative laws and funding as an obstacle to putting any of this in place?
The Act grants Governors the exclusive power to control the expenditure of funds appropriated for emergencies; the intent and priorities set by the Legislature would be irrelevant.
What of constitutional protections in terms of elections and delegation of power?
The Governor may delegate powers at his sole discretion to unelected political appointees.
On the property side, the mere declaration that a building or property is contaminated would be grounds from destruction of the structure (including by burning) and the appropriation of land, specifically true of farmland, of which Wisconsin has some of the richest in the country.
The Governor may destroy any material or property "of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it may endanger the public health." Article IV Section 401(b). And while the State shall pay just compensation to the owner of any facilities that are "lawfully taken" or appropriated (Article IV Section 406), there is a huge exception: [Emphasis added.]
The health power laws include seizure of arms.
.... the Act empowers the Governor to ration, fix prices, and otherwise control the allocation, sale, use, or transportation of any item as deemed "reasonable and necessary for emergency response."
Rarely noted by those favoring gun control as a means for public safety, Gandhi condemned the seizure of arms as the most terrible thing the British did in their centuries of brutal rule in India.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Bush put in place international and intersecting agreements around the War on Terror, a war that former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative," and one based on a potentially promulgated attack on the US. The Model State Emergency Health Power state laws also intersect with international agreements, most specifically with the WHO and UN and were put in place during Bush's time in office.
One quote, allegedly from the WHO 2005 declaration around pandemics, gives some indication how (undefined) health authorities could urge governors to declare a pandemic emergency and of the potential danger such declaration (once again, with no definition or evidence of proof) could have on the future of the US.
“Under special pandemic plans enacted around the world including the USA, in 2005, national governments are to be dissolved in the event of a pandemic emergency and replaced by special crisis committees, which take charge of the health and security infrastructure of a country, and which are answerable to the WHO and EU in Europe and to the WHO and UN in North America.
As a side note, but one relevant to the forced vaccination of people in each state, a series of vaccines, including the H1N1 (much urged by the CDC onto pregnant women especially) contain the preferred ingredient in a patent on a "fertility damaging vaccine." That ingredient, polysorbate 80, is known as a sterilizing agent. Until the patent was brought to light, suggesting it was meant to do harm would have been filed under conspiracy theory. But with the patent clearly designed to damage fertility and polysorbate 80 being preferred to accomplish that damage, its presence in any vaccine, especially those being mandated, becomes significant. It is some of the most controversial vaccines:
The certain knowledge now of a preferred harmful ingredient being placed broadly in many vaccines that are being pushed or mandated by the CDC should raise concerns about any mandates on vaccines. Through the state health powers laws, unknown and untested vaccines could be forced on an entire state (or states) even though vaccines routinely kill a certain percentage of those given them, and they would definitely kill people who are allergic.
In being aware of the fertility damaging ingredient in many vaccines now, the following information takes on added significance. Last year, Bill Gates suggested that the new vaccines can lower world population by 10-15% and the FDA added a new rule allowing vaccine manufacturers to insert or change any ingredient with the approval of a single employee at the FDA; in the last few weeks, the Supreme Court has given the vaccine manufacturers total immunity from liability and referred injured people to the Vaccine Compensation Court which does not list infertility or sterility as vaccine injuries); at approximately the same time as the Supreme Court ruling, Bill Gates went on TV and demonized parents questioning vaccines' safety as killers of children; and at the present time, the FDA is in court asserting the public has no fundamental right to its bodily or physical health.
It is in the context of all this that the suspicions surrounding 9/11, the anthrax scare, and the falseness of the H1N1 pandemic become especially relevant, and offer the gift of a warning about the use of false events, and how those in government have used suspect events to pass laws, laws written months before the pivotal events happened. Those laws threaten the US as a nation, based solely on the declaration of an emergency that doesn't need to be dangerous or even real. 9/11 and the anthrax scare expose that attacks and diseases and bio-terrorism can be caused. Historically, such false attacks have been used to take over countries, including taking over in Germany in the 1930s.
The Wisconsin public and legislature have been divided over budgets and workers rights, but state health powers law presents a common and much greater threat to each person personally and to their families. It threatens lives.
Seeing it and the danger it represents, the Wisconsin public can demand it be repealed along with all mandated medical procedures. Those laws are similar in their threat to the Patriot Act and the Food Modernization Act and all can be looked at again, with states removing laws that intersect with them, and putting in place laws that specifically counter them with health sovereignty bills and food and farm sovereignty bills and state sovereignty over federal military control.
The country has reason demand a formal investigation of Bush and his connections and any involvement in WHO and UN plans around pandemics, of CDC-promoted State Emergency Health Powers laws, and of the insertion of fertility-damaging ingredients into vaccines which are mandated to American children and being urged for all adults.
Articles for April 5, 2011 | Articles for April 6, 2011 | Articles for April 7, 2011