U.S. government passes draconian NDAA law behind Duck Dynasty smoke screen

 

 

Cruz Warns: 2014 NDAA Still Lets Obama Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens without Due Process

Says it “does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected”

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
December 21, 2013

Texas Senator Ted Cruz was one of a handful of legislators who took a stand against the renewal of the National Defense Reauthorization Act this week by refusing to sign onto the legislation, which Cruz says still contains wording allowing President Obama to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens absent of due process.

Just voted against NDAA because it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected http://t.co/Ewi4GAah1t

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) December 20, 2013

 

“Just voted against NDAA because it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected,” Cruz tweeted Thursday evening.

The legislation passed the Senate in an 84-15 vote late last Thursday night and “clears the Pentagon to spend $607 billion, including $527 billion in base funding and $80 billion for America’s global operations,” reports Defense News.

According to Cruz, the bill contains many provisions he supports and even introduced, including provisions requiring “an independent investigation into reports of religious discrimination against troops sharing their faith,” and one insisting on “Improved assistance for widows of troops killed in combat.”

However, the embattled senator, who earlier this year helped defeat an assault on gun rights and staged a 21-hour filibuster against the president’s namesake healthcare law, also stated in a press release that attempts to amend the bill for the betterment of due process rights were blocked.

Cruz said in a Facebook post Thursday:

Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.

The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.

I hope that next year the Senate and the House can come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the importance of our constitutional rights even in the face of ongoing terrorist threats and national security challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee toward this common goal.

Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a September 2012 decision made by U.S. District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest which ruled that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA bill, the section authorizing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, was unconstitutional. However, in less than 24 hours the Obama administration appealed the ruling.

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., writing for The New American, says the 2014 version of the bill additionally contains “frightening” provisions strengthening government surveillance powers under the Patriot Act, and will also “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center,’” whose goal it would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

“…[T]here is in the NDAA for 2014 a frightening fusion of the federal government’s constant surveillance of innocent Americans and the assistance it will give to justifying the indefinite detention of anyone labeled an enemy of the regime,” Wolverton writes.

The website Activist Post published a list of the Senators who voted for and against the 2014 NDAA:
roll call

Image

Phil Roberston is just a government smoke screen

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement regarding today’s final vote on the National Defense Authorization Act:

“Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.

“The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.

“I hope that next year the Senate and the House can come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the importance of our constitutional rights even in the face of ongoing terrorist threats and national security challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee toward this common goal.”

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pasadena/opinion/cruz-ndaa-does-not-ensure-our-most-basic-rights-as/article_186bad89-0875-5176-bd5d-0964fc38e6cb.html

What did Phil Roberston really say – Video

Do you ever notice that the people screaming the loudest about the importance of diversity don’t actually believe in diversity?

Exhibit A: Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan.

If you aren’t familiar with the show, Phil is one of the stars. This former star quarterback who played on the same college team as Terry Bradshaw went on to build a successful business making duck calls. Some say the best in the world. Phil is all about faith, family, football and duck hunting.

Phil is also a very plain-spoken 67-year-old man.

But now he is suspended from the hit show based around his family and his family business because the diversity advocates pressured A&E to drop him.

Why? Well if you read the headlines, it’s because Phil is homophobic and said homophobic things.

Let me set the record straight on that one. Anyone using that word for this story doesn’t speak English or understand the word they are using. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. That’s what a phobia is, an irrational fear.

Phil Robertson’s comments to GQ magazine might not have been genteel, they might not have been politically correct, but they are not filled with or motivated by an irrational fear.

So what did he say?

Basically, the first thing that offended the grievance mongers is Phil said he likes women, not men.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?”

Now more than 90% of the men hearing the first part of that are shaking their heads and saying, ‘Yeah man, I know what you mean. And more than 90% of women are thankful that we do.’

But wait, you say, Phil also equated homosexuality with sin. OK, news flash for you here: So does most of Christianity and Judaism and Islam. Heck, so does the beloved Dalai Lama.

Also considered sinful: Sleeping around, having relations with anyone you aren’t married to, all things that Phil also spoke out against. Shocker, he’s an unapologetic Christian. OK, but he compared homosexuality to bestiality. No he didn’t.

He listed off a lot of things that counted as sinful in the Bible. He didn’t compare the two. No one is claiming that he compared sleeping around with a lot of women to homosexuality or bestiality and that was on the same list of sins.

GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz told CNN that Robertson’s comments were out of date and he “better get in line.” GLAAD may fly the rainbow flag, the one that says everyone under the rainbow is welcome, but it’s a lie.

To be welcome in today’s society, you cannot offend the grievance mongers.

Orthodox Christians, not welcome. Duck-hunting hicks, not welcome. And that’s part of what this is about.

The Robertsons are white trash. They hunt, they fish, they make duck calls, they have those ridiculous beards.

They are part of flyover country, that part of the world the cultural gatekeepers would prefer to forget about, or transform through indoctrination.

This is as much about Robertson not speaking like a member of the faculty club as what he said. And the message is clear.

Step out of line and they will shut you down.

Or try.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/12/20131220-065045.html

How the news media controls you

 

Even though I have worked in academia for years and have enjoyed the benefits of helping learning minds to expand their horizons, I have had one gnawing concern. Learning institutions typically help students, at best, to make a living but they fail miserably at teaching how to live life. These areas pertain to the realm of accumulated wisdom. Of course, wisdom presupposes knowledge, that is, the correct and consistent application of knowledge as truth. As a behavioral professional and an academic, I wish institutions would teach practical things such as how media, government, religion, and even academia itself, can indoctrinate the masses. For the purpose of this article I will focus on the media (and a little on academia).

I can very much remember talking to journalism students and perusing their text books. I noticed the emphasis on “objective and balanced reporting.” I always laugh. Having been a student who used “qualitative methods of research” I knew very well how every bit of research made by any human being is always tainted at some level with some bias. I know some will have a cow at this but even quantum physicists tell us the same. In the media, even a well-intentioned journalist is affecting his message in some form.

I would like to focus on how the media can manipulate the masses through their message. You still see journalists reacting, “How dare you question me!” as if they belonged to some privileged priesthood directly connected to a Divine stream of ultimate truth.

I have endeavored to share just some of the tactics of psychological manipulation of mass thinking. Most reading this will easily recognize these. I don’t claim to provide an exhaustive list.

 

Guilt by Association

All that is necessary to destroy a person’s character publicly is to take that person and overtly or covertly associate them to something the masses will reject. Never mind if it is true or not, simply to question it or make the association is sufficient.

One example that comes to mind is a very clever twist I saw used by a famous newspaper. At the time, a political leader, greatly disliked by the editors of a newspaper, was portrayed in a very interesting way. They put an article and his photo strategically in very close proximity to a picture of a circus clown that was part of some other story. I thought to myself, “Now that tactic wins the prize!” It was very subtle and very subconscious in approach. The ultimate message was, “This person is a clown, therefore laugh at him and consider him non-credible like you would with a clown.”

Another very typical way of using this same tactic is to connect, even if it is through intricate stratagem, the person to some law-breaking, shady, person, organization, or action. Even if it is not true, it will leave a dark cloud of doubt in the mind of the person receiving the information. That is why slander is so effective in destroying enemies. The media will never come out and admit that they do this. They are accountable to no one, much like some sort of immaculate and narcissistic god.

Just a Little Poison

The next way the media tries to manipulate minds is through, what is called, the verisimilitude. Now that is a real mouthful. It means that something is “very similar” to something else. In this case, it is mixing a little poison or a lie with the truth. It is possible to ingest into your body gallons of healthy food. If you simply mix a small amount of extremely powerful poison with it, you would be dead soon. If we graduate the amount of poison into smaller dosages we can do the same over time, at a much slower rate but getting the same results… your demise.

All the media has to do, in order to destroy a person, is to slowly administer lies (poison) about a person mixed in with good things. Eventually, they destroy their enemy and they come out looking like choir boys; clean and glistening.

Make it Funny
I’ve already mentioned how a political leader was made to look like a clown. I remember an influential leader characterized by the media as a bafoon, idiot, and dumb person. I can still see the political cartoons drawn of him making him look like some human monkey creature. Typically, monkeys are funny and into mischief. That message stuck.

Along these lines, photos that show the bad side of a person, and everyone has them, are used to portray enemies as stupid and/or psychotic fools. You can sometimes see this approach when a publication deliberately uses a photo of a person looking cross-eyed or bizarre. The editors choose photos that make the person look their worst. In contrast, when their favorite persons are put on the same page, they are shown in a hero’s stance, making them look their best. Coincidental? Absolutely not!

Making Sandwiches
A great technique to help build self-esteem in people, while correcting them, is called the “sandwich technique.” This approach is amazing because it uses positive reinforcement of the individual before and after you have shared a difficult area they need to change in. This assures to them that you still like them and that you respect them. It makes your message easy to accept with them.

When you take the same technique and switch it around, placing something positive in-between two negative pieces of information, it becomes quite destructive. In the media, you can come out looking objective and with a “pass” if you use this technique while still destroying your enemy. It is one of the most commonly used approaches by the media, in article after article pertaining to persons they dislike. Notice this… All you really need to hurt your opponent is to do a news piece on them. You start and close the report with negativity and doubt. This leaves a black cloud over their character. You get a free pass and you still got to be very nasty. This is like a school bully brat that gets away with murder and yet looks good.

Stacking the Experts
Have you ever noticed on TV a panel of intellectuals, journalists, etc. are chosen carefully where it is in disproportion but still looks balanced? Sometimes it is outrageously blatant and sometimes it is covert. Let’s say we dislike a position but we cannot say so for fear of looking bigoted. We can handpick the majority of our experts that will agree with us. Then we bring only one person that represents the side we dislike. We unload the pit-bull dogs on that person, all the while we look “balanced.”

Ridicule and labeling
I am often amused at the interesting adjectives used by a proponent of one side against the other. We hear words like “racist,” “Nazi,” “?-phobe,” “pin-head,” “antiquated,” “irrelevant,” “killer,” and more. By applying these labels on that person, what happens is that you freeze, isolate, and polarize that person. You make them out to look like they are part of a dangerous, scary, and insane fringe. This process is otherwise known in history as “character assassination.” In this case, it happens in the public forum on full display. Have you ever noticed that if the same is applied to the media, it is considered blasphemy? Who makes the media accountable? No one. They are free to destroy anyone they choose. That is why they secretly fear the internet. The tables can be turned on them by some little guy behind a screen.

Repetition Makes True
Incessant repetition of a lie registers as truth in the mind of the masses. Mass hysteria can be created by repeatedly reporting the dangers of some microbe infesting humans and taking over the world in tones of panic. Some of the most successful tyrants in history used great emotion and repetition to their advantage. Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister said that if “You repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” This brings us to my next point.

Make the Devil Look Like God and God Like the Devil
Hitler himself said, “By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” In this technique, the attacker makes himself look like a benefactor and savior. He twists the sides. Have you ever wondered why the media narcissistically loves to see themselves as the protectors and keepers of truth? It almost has religious indoctrination undertones, doesn’t it? In classical religious literature we are told that the Devil deceives and disguises himself as an angel of light. I call this, characteristically, the reversing of the poles by making black look like white and vice-versa.

Conclusion
I don’t claim to have covered all aspects of the art of deceit as used in the media. These are as old as man himself. I simply attempted to provide some of the more obvious typical forms of deceit used to psychologically manipulate the masses. What can we learn from this? Perhaps the biggest lesson could be that we must not be naïve.

We must discriminately keep awake and aware. We must be hungry for truth wherever we find it. We must protect it and defend it. We need to be careful to avoid coming to hasty conclusions just because the “experts” say it. It is, very much, an individual journey. It is a great quest but filled with minefields. Be careful and beware.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/02/06/media-manipulation-of-the-masses-how-the-media-psychologically-manipulates/

What did Phil Robertson really say?

I was reading about the comments made by Duck Dynasty star Phil on Homosexuality and African Americans and I am shocked how his comments are taken out of context. To be honest, I have only seen 5 mins of the show my entire life. I don’t like people with beards. Does that mean I hate them? No. I just don’t like long unshaved beard. No offense to anyone. Is the beard dirty? I don’t think so. I just don’t like long beard. Thats all. So, I don’t see this show. lol.

I am surprised, America has come to this. The media in America is controlled by huge corporations run by a few individuals who are centered in the leftist camp. I read people write “He listens to Faux News” Faux News, Faux News all the time.

Actually, we have to stop and ponder if people who tell Fox News is Faux News have any credibility themselves. I haven’t come across as many faux news in Fox News as in CNN or msnbc or other many media organizations. They are all run by corporations that want to push their own perverted agenda.

Let us look at what Phil said

“In a wide-ranging interview with GQ, Robertson didn’t hold back when sharing his thoughts about homosexuality and sinning.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine,” he said. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Paraphrasing Corinthians he added: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Have we become such douche bags? To be offended by even a small innocent comment.

The media keeps repeating this again and again trying to make this old man look like a monster. Do you think this is a coincidence that the media keeps on attacking him? No.

Anyone true and honest unaffiliated with either of the parties with clear knowledge of the English language can see for themselves, how the media is twisting his comments.

Now, lets see what Phil had to say about African Americans

Taken from Gospel Coaltion (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/12/20/race-reconciliation-and-phil-robertson)

[

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues. – Phil

I’ve watched every season of Duck Dynasty. I’m a fan of the entire family, and especially of their patriarch, Phil Robertson. Robertson is funny, intelligent, and oddly charming. But one thing he is not is articulate. Although he’s a man of relatively few words, Robertson has a tendency to ramble, as if he needs to keep talking while he’s searching for the right words to make his point. From watching his TV series and listening to his sermons it becomes apparent that his ending sentence is usually the key to understanding what he’s trying to say. Indeed, I believe that in those rambling discourses you can often start with his last sentence and read forward and his thought makes more sense. His quote on growing up in a pre-civil-rights-era Louisiana is a prime example:

No one was singing the blues. They were happy; they were godly.

Although the journalist doing the interview was interested in framing the question in the context of segregation-era Southern politics, Robertson appears to have been trying to steer it back to one of his primary themes: Happiness is a result of godliness.

The context makes it clear that Robertson is not addressing the situation of all African Americans in the pre-civil-rights South. He is relating his own experience, what he saw (“with my eyes”), in the narrow context of impoverished agricultural laborers. And what he claims to have seen is people who were happy because they were godly.]

So you see, even though it was a naive comment, its horribly naive to say Phil is a racist.

So the question we should ask is “Why is the media targeting the Duck Dynasty?”

It is like a sniper shot, targeted and precise. Snipers take out valuable target. The simple answer is, the Elitist in power is scared of the Duck Dynasty and the conservatives that follow them. Phil Roberston is much admired by the right and there is quite a following. The people in power just tried to destroy the bud before it grew into a flower. I hope you understand the analogy.

What did Phil say after this issue on Wednesday?

Earlier Wednesday, Roberston had responded to critics who had slammed him for very graphic statements he made about his preference for heterosexual sex over homosexual sex.

“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior,” he said in a statement sent to FOX411.

“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity

– Phil Robertson

Seriously flocks, it is time to learn how the media manipulates the people.

Watch this video for more clarity on what I said

OBAMA HAS 19.5 MILLION FAKE TWITTER FOLLOWERS

Account ranks No. 1 in deception among American politicians

ImageFakest of the fake? Barack Obama’s Twitter following includes 19.5 million people who don’t exist, and the first lady has 1.9 million nonexistent fans of her own

Among influential U.S. political tweeters, President Barack Obama is the undisputed king of the fake followers. A MailOnline analysis ranks his sizable Twitter following as the most deceptive total among the 21 most influential accounts run by American politicians: More than 19.5 million of his 36.9 million Twitter followers are accounts that don’t correspond to real people.

The four phoniest accounts in the sample, which included Democratic and Republican Party leaders in Washington, D.C., were those belonging to President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, first lady Michelle Obama and the White House communications shop.

Of the president’s 36.9 million Twitter followers, an astonishing 53 per cent – or 19.5 million – are fake accounts, according to a search engine at the Internet research vendorStatusPeople.com. Just 20 per cent of Obama’s Twitter buddies are real people who are active users.

Overall, the five most influential accounts linked to the Obama administration – the first lady has two – account for 23.4 million fake followers.

Biden’s nonexistent fans make up 46 per cent of his Twitter total, with 20 per cent being ‘real’ followers. The White House’s followers are 37 per cent fake and 25 per cent active; the first lady’s primary account is 36 per cent fake and 29 per cent active.

The Daily Caller reported on Tuesday that Michelle Obama’s Twitter followers included nearly 2 million nonexistent people, a number that lines up with MailOnline’s findings.

Read more : http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-has-19-5-million-fake-twitter-followers/

New York Jets hires a Palestinian Terrorist

As a lifelong fan of the New York Jets, Cahnman’s Musings was disappointed and disturbed to read this report from Breitbart Sports yesterday.Image

Last April, the Jets used their fifth round draft pick to select Oday Aboushai, a Palestinian (*) offensive linemen who was born in Samaria and grew up in Brooklyn.  While Aboushai possesses physical stature, he lacks athleticism.  The football justification for this pick is questionable.

Aboushai’s life off-field, however, includes the following:

 This is an alarming draft pick.  The Jets owe fans an explanation, especially after theirshameful treatment of Tim Tebow.  It appears the New York Jets are more concerned with faithful Christians than open terrorist sympathizers.

—–

Cahnman’s Musings urges readers to contact the following institutions:

New York Jets:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/jets
Twitter: @NYJETS

National Football League:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/nfl
Twitter: @NFL

WFAN Sports Radio New York:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/wfan660
Twitter: @WFAN660

New York Post:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/nypost
Twitter: @NYPOST

New York Daily News:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/thenewyorkdailynews
Twitter: @NYDAILYNEWS

[NY Jets Owner] Robert Wood Johnson Memorial Foundation:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation
Twitter: @RWJF_PubHealth

Council on American-Islamic Relations — New York
Twitter: @CAIRNewYork

Obama paralyzed by fear

U.S. general: Obama paralyzed by fear

 

By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)

Now I understand! For years, many veterans and active military have been alarmed about the idiocy of the changes in battlefield aeromedical evacuation known as Dust Off. For reasons having nothing to do with patient care, Dust Off has been removed from the control of the professionals, the medics, and put under the control of amateurs, aviation staff officers, or ASOs. This is the first such change since the Civil War.

I document the unparalleled excellence of Dust Off, and the effects of the changes, in my book, “Dead Men Flying.” Needless to say, it was the most outstanding battlefield operating system of that war – some one million souls saved and unprecedented survival rates. No warrior of Vietnam is more revered than the Dust Off crews.

In the words of Gen. Creighton Abrams, former U.S. Army chief of staff and former supreme commander in Vietnam: “A special word about the Dust Offs … Courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them. It was a daily thing, part of the way they lived. That’s the great part, and it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dust Off was there. It was a great thing for our people.”

Fast forward to current battlefields. We hear horror stories about patients waiting and dying because Dust Off didn’t launch or came too late. The launch standard in my unit in Vietnam was two minutes; today it is 15 minutes! Can anyone imagine a fire truck taking 15 minutes to get under way? I could go on and on, but one has to ask, why? Why the changes to an excellent, proven system?

The answer is the Obama-Panetta Doctrine. In response to the horrible abandonment of dying Americans in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Panetta said: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

On its face, that is a remarkable, indeed incomprehensible, change from America’s doctrine in past wars. By that standard, there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact, I can’t think of a war we fought in which we didn’t go into harm’s way without real-time information or to save lives – something the president refused to do in Benghazi. Dust Off would never launch in Vietnam under that doctrine.

To fully understand the doctrinal change, one has to understand President Obama. He has a dearth of understanding of our military and military matters. We hear he is uncomfortable in the presence of ranking military and seldom meets with them. He is not a person who can make decisions, and he takes an extraordinary amount of time to do so, leading to such unseemly labels for a commander in chief as “ditherer in chief.”

President Obama may have set records for voting “present” on important issues. He cowers from crisis decisions.He is a politician who thinks only in terms of votes and his image. Although I was a psychology major back in the day (I’d love to hear a professional analyze risk and Obama), I won’t try to define his insides, but I believe he is risk-averse – fearful of risk – and that is the basis of the Obama-Panetta doctrine.

This aversion for risk dominates Dust Off rescue operations where, in addition to an unconscionable reaction time, risk assessment is the primary consideration for mission launch – not patient care. In two years flying Dust Off in Vietnam, I never heard that term, nor did any Dust pilot I know. The ASOs, remote from the battle, have developed time-consuming algorithms to analyze risk while the patient bleeds, something that’s impossible to do by anyone other than the pilot and the ground forces at the scene.

And Obama’s terror of risk contributed to the massacre of Americans by terrorists in Benghazi. We hear that the president did not even convene the Counterterrorism SecurityGroup while the Benghazi terrorist massacre was visually and verbally available in real time. That is like ignoring FEMA during Hurricane Sandy. But once you bring in a group labeled anti-terrorist, you have to acknowledge terror exists, something the president is loath to do.

My veteran friends are horrified by the Obama-Panetta doctrine. At least 359 retired flag officers support Mitt Romney – only five that I know of support Obama. Some 150 former prisoners of war also support Romney; I know of none who support Obama.

America needs to listen to these veterans. They understand leadership. They know how to deal with risk in war. They would not want this man with them in combat or crisis. They never left a needy comrade behind. Obama did.


Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/u-s-general-obama-paralyzed-by-fear/

Aside

Report urges programs to develop consumer confidence in government research

 

In an age when government demands nude X-ray images for someone to be an airplane passenger and is planning to have the IRS watch what kind of health coverage one has, is there any area of life that actually is private?

Well, maybe DNA, at least until the feds launch their programs to convince consumers to trust government agents with their most personal data, that which can reveal not only present characteristics but possible future outcomes for that person and his or her family.

The U.S. government now has released a report called “Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing,” that comes from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

Its goal was to “find the most feasible ways of reconciling the enormous medical potential of whole genome sequencing with the pressing privacy and data access issues raised by the rapid emergence of low-cost whole genome sequencing.”

The chairman, Amy Gutmann, said without the cooperation of millions of Americans the research will falter, perhaps fail.

“The life-saving potential of genome sequencing depends on gathering genetic information from many thousands (perhaps millions) of individuals, most of whom will not directly benefit from the research,” she said.

“Those who are willing to share some of the most intimate information about themselves for the sake of medical progress should be assured appropriate confidentiality, for example, about any discovered genetic variations that link to increased likelihood of certain diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, heart disease and schizophrenia.”

She warned that without assurances in place, “individuals are less likely to voluntarily supply the data that have the potential to benefit us all with life-saving treatments for genetic diseases.”

The commission’s report found that current procedures vary. On one end of the scale would be secure methods of protecting such private information – and on the other end?

“In many states someone could legally pick up a discarded coffee cup and send a saliva sample to a commercial sequencing entity in an attempt to discover an individual’s predisposition to neurodegenerative disease. The information might then be misused, for example, by a contentious spouse as evidence of unfitness to parent in a custody case. Or, the information might be publicized by a malicious stranger or acquaintance without the individual’s knowledge or consent in a social networking space, which could adversely affect that individual’s chance of finding a spouse, achieving standing in a community, or pursuing a desired career path,” the report said.

That cooperation will be needed from many is not the question.

“Realizing the promise of whole genome sequencing requires widespread public participation and individual willingness to share genomic data and relevant medical information,” said commission vice chair James W. Wagner. “In other words, scientists and clinicians must have access to data from large numbers of people who are willing to share their private information.

“This, in turn,” he said, “requires public trust that any whole genome sequence data shared by individuals with clinicians and researchers will be adequately protected.”

A primary goal, then, would be for procedures to be established so that all genomic data is protected, and that would include a ban on whole genome sequencing without the consent of the person.

“Your genome sequenced at your doctor’s office would be the same as your genome sequenced during research,” Gutmann suggested. “However, the sequence information collected in a doctor’s office is protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act … and the sequence information collected during research is protected by what’s known as the Common Rule… These are just a few discrepancies in public policy that can create confusion and uncertainty.”

She continued, “Confusion and uncertainty tend to erode trust, and trust is the key to amassing the large number of genomic data sets needed to make powerful life-saving discoveries.”

The medical experts putting the report together said, “Currently, the majority of the benefits anticipated from whole genome sequencing research will accrue to society, while associated risks fall to the individuals sharing their data.”

Among the recommendations:

  • All those involved in genomic research, from those who fund it to server companies that offer computing availability, “should maintain or establish clear policies defining acceptable access to and permissible uses of whole genome sequence data.”
  • There should be a “consistent floor of privacy protections … regardless of how they were obtained.”
  • “Professional ethical standards” related to privacy and confidentiality would have to be observed by every researcher, manager, operation of any database and others. Penalties would apply for failure.
  • Access by “law enforcement or defense and security” to biospecimens should be allowed “only in exceptional circumstances.”
  • “Robust and workable consent processes” should be developed so participants fully understand who has access to their information and for what purpose.
  • A clear procedure for revealing to patients “incidental findings” must be established. Those could involve markers that could indicate a proclivity for development of a specific disease, such as cancer.

“Respect for persons implies not only respecting individual privacy, but also respecting research participants as autonomous persons who might choose to share their own data. Public beneficence is advanced by giving researchers access to plentiful data from which they can work to advance health care. Regulatory parsimony recommends only as much oversight as is truly necessary and effective in ensuring an adequate degree of privacy, justice and fairness, and security and safety while pursuing the public benefits of whole genome sequencing. Therefore, existing privacy protections and those being contemplated should be parsimonious and not impose high barriers to data sharing,” the report said.

“Clinicians and researchers must also act responsibly to earn public trust for the research enterprise,” the report said.

WND previously has reported on disputes over DNA data, including a case in Minnesota where the state was warehousing the DNA of all newborns.

Ultimately, the state Supreme Court gave privacy advocates a huge victory over their state government, deciding state law does not allow Minnesota’s health agencies to take, keep and use the blood spots that include DNA data for each child without restriction.

The state had argued that officials were entitled to the information and could use it for outside studies as they chose.

The case had been brought by nine families with 25 children. The Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom, which monitored the case’s progress since it was launched, had expressed concern about the possible eugenics influences that could result from inappropriate use of DNA data.

President Twila Brase said at the time last year, “We are cheered by this good news. When our organization discovered the state health department’s baby DNA warehouse in 2003 and the use of newborn DNA for genetic research without parent consent, we determined to do all that we could to stop this practice. No state law expressly permits these activities.”

She said, “We are pleased that these nine families were willing to sue the state of Minnesota. Their action and this decision now secures the genetic privacy rights and informed written consent rights of all Minnesota parents and newborn citizens.”

The ItsMyDNA.org website posts information for consumers, especially parents of newborns, to show what their own state does regarding the acquisition, maintenance and use of babies’ DNA.

She said there are 18 states that keep such information from 10 years to indefinitely.

“We know at the federal level, researchers want the states to become the steward of these blood spots,” she warned. “We’re saying that this DNA is the property of the children and the state doesn’t have a right to claim ownership.”

She continued, “We are not government subjects of research by virtue of being born, and our DNA is not government property.”

In a previous report, Brase warned that the accumulation of DNA data on entire generations of the population could result in unwelcome actions.

“Suppose … expanded screening of an infant reveals not a fatal and incurable disease but instead a host of genetic variants, each of which merely confers elevated risk for some condition or other,” her report said. “Who is to say at what point an uncovered defect becomes serious enough to warrant preventing the birth of other children who might carry it? At what point have we crossed the line from legitimate family planning to capricious and morally dubious eugenics?”

WND reported earlier when Brase’s report said the concept of “identifying” those who would be “unsuitable” for reproduction is enough reason for parents to be alarmed.

Her report said most parents “have no idea that government is doing the testing or retaining the data and DNA.”

“It is not hard to imagine the day when any discovered but nonsymptomatic condition could become a ‘pre-existing condition’ for which private insurers would not pay. The eugenic implications are obvious. Thus, the growing collection of genetic test results and newborn DNA could easily enable a eugenics agenda on the part of government agencies and private industry,” the report said.

WND also reported when the state of Texas forwarded the DNA from hundreds of newborn babies to a military database without parental permission or knowledge.

The Texas Tribune, an online publication founded by a former editor of the Texas Monthly and a longtime owner of the Texas Weekly, had published a story about the Department of State Health Services in Texas giving some 800 DNA samples to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology’s DNA Identification Laboratory.

The actions were uncovered as part of the publication’s review of nine years’ worth of e-mails over the collection of babies’ DNA, which recently was targeted by a lawsuit.

WND reported late last year that the dispute was settled out of court, providing a victory for genetic privacy.

According to the Tribune report, Texas officials routinely collected blood spots to screen for health issues. Then around 2002, officials started storing the blood spots on cards at Texas A&M University.

But officials never obtained parental permission and found themselves targeted by a lawsuit over their actions.

The Tribune reported that in addition to storing the blood spots, the state gave 800 samples – from which it removed identifying labels such as names and dates – to the military operation.

Brase said at the time there remain concerns, “This is the government. This is what people forget. This is the government planning to create a DNA warehouse of citizens.”

Would you trust the federal government with your DNA?

Obama says trust us with your DNA