It is an oxymoron to speak about ethics in the government of George W. Bush. And, unfortunately, there are spots in the government of Barack Obama in which ethical behavior is under pressure. So far, I have given Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt; after all, his daunting task is to resurrect an entire government -- its programs, ethos and functions -- in the midst of the worst financial/moral/ethical crisis the world has arguably ever known.

However, it is time for Mr. Obama to guarantee that Americans have the right to determine what is done to their own bodies while they are inhabiting them. With the very compelling health insurance/universal care debate often raging (although sometimes only flickering) in the halls of government and the American consciousness, it is all too easy to overlook the nefarious designs the drug companies have on our bodies, our children’s bodies and our welfare as a nation. Make no mistake: The intent of the pharmaceutical giants is to make money, as much and as quickly as they can. Unlike doctors, they are not even required to nominally agree that they will do no harm. Harm, if one ever reads the package insert from even the seemingly most innocuous drugs, is inherent in virtually every product Big Pharma industry makes. The case has been made time and again that vaccines are suspect in the rise in attention deficit disorders, autism, auto-immune diseases and more. Just as often, another study appears to contradict findings of harm. What’s the truth? Empirically, one would have to find on the side of harm; rates of so many childhood diseases have risen dramatically since the vaccine cocktails were forced on parents and children, only an idiot -- or a pharmaceutical company -- could fail to see a connection. With or without a government- or pharmaceutical manufacturer-approved study (or, can you say fox in henhouse?)

Despite the ample evidence that vaccines often cause irreparable harm, there is even more compelling evidence that the pharmaceutical companies have found an even more harmful way to speed up the action of vaccines as well as make ever smaller doses do the work by “supercharging” them with a compound almost guaranteed to cause auto-immune problems lasting months, if not forever. This tactic will, of course, maximize pharmaceutical company profits. (This subject is a huge one on its own, and will be the subject of my next column. However, for some insight, view the video below.)

However, today, it is the ethics -- or lack thereof -- in the government’s attempt to own your body that is of concern. Already, the Department of Homeland Security has hijacked your body by declaring that “any disease outbreak is a matter of homeland security” this fall and winter, according to the Department of Homeland Security itself, and reported by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) on its website.

Ridiculous. Flu is a matter of homeland security? What about measles? Or athlete’s foot?

Why not make obesity a matter of homeland security? At least then there would be an excuse for shutting down the fast-food industry, or making citizens wear muzzles to keep them from eating anything larger than a pea. Obesity, after all, is acknowledged by the pharmaceutical industry to be disadvantageous to enjoying good health; they should know, spending millions to find yet another pill to help people lose weight. Fat people can’t run from terrorists, or fight them in the streets. Yes, obesity might be the one place Homeland Security could make a cogent case for labeling a physical disorder a security threat.

Homeland Security has some assistance in their attempt to hijack your body from its much older colleague, the Department of Defense (DOD). With their George-given power in hand, the DOD has defined public demonstrations against forced vaccination as “low-level terrorism,” also as reported by NVIC.

While there may be no connection, no attempt to hide bona fide reporting, it seems the article in the Contra Costa Times that reported the DOD definition is suddenly very difficult to find, although it was published less than 60 days ago, in early June. Therefore, after working diligently to locate a cached copy after numerous paths led to “document not found” messages, I am appending selected and compelling material from it to the end of this column, as well as the url that may lead you to the document, unless it has been moved again. Note: The article does not single out anti-vaccination protests per se as low-level terrorism, but simply refers to all citizen protests as such. In short, if you want to put a sign on your lawn objecting to local zoning changes, you may end up in some FBI document as a potential terrorist. If you want to protest subjecting your child to untried and potentially harmful vaccines by carrying a sign with other like-minded parents outside the school board offices, you may be branded a terrorist wannabe, with goodness knows what consequences for you or your children down the line. Especially in a society gone nuts about “protecting” us right out of our hard-won freedoms.

Don’t think foreigners are immune to the inoculation police. The Miami Herald recently disclosed a draconian plan to reroute incoming flights to quarantine centers at designated airports -- where, it might be assumed, passengers will be forced to provide various samples from saliva to blood to prove they are not sick. The Centers for Disease Control is in charge of this pathetic scheme, which is particularly pathetic in two ways. First, it is likely anyone over 50 is pretty much immune to this new flu anyway. Second, it’s a mild flu, as flu goes.

(For what it’s worth, the Chinese instituted quarantines back in April. Hardly the regime to emulate. Please see photo above if this is your idea of welcome to a nation you might visit, or for those who might visit here.)

The bright spot is that at least in Miami, local officials believe the CDC wants localities to pay for the needed facilities and won’t carry out the plan otherwise, according to the Herald. So, it is possible that local protests (fraught with danger, note, because you will then be a low-level terrorist) could derail the establishment of one at an airport near you.

None of this is inconsequential. Not the specter of enforced vaccination. Not the attitude of a powerful department of the federal government, DOD, that bona fide citizen protests are terrorist acts. Not the potential for herding returning citizens and visitors from other lands into holding pens like so many downer cattle.

All of this reprehensible activity speaks directly to the unethical juggernaut initiated by George W. Bush’s administration, in which the government, under the ludicrous guise of protecting all citizens from all potential harm, has usurped powers far beyond what the Founding Fathers, in their worst nightmares, might have imagined.

It may be dangerous to say it (although perhaps less so than during George’s reign), but say it I must: It is ethically incumbent upon any American who believes in the individual freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and in the ethical use of government power in support of citizens established by the Constitution (not repression of citizens masquerading as protection) to investigate these issues thoroughly, and protest when protest is called for.

From the Contra Costa Times article, June 14, 2009:

Antiterrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense teach that public protests should be regarded as ‘low-level terrorism,’ according to a letter of complaint sent to the department by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

"Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than encouraged, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe as a democracy," Northern California ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington national security policy counsel Michael German wrote in the letter to Gail McGinn, acting undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness.

"DOD employees cannot accomplish their mission of protecting our nation and its values unless they understand that those values encompass the right to criticize our government through protest activities," they wrote. "It is imperative that they are taught the difference between political, religious or social activism and terrorism."

"The ACLU letter notes that this is particularly disturbing in light of the long-term pattern of government treating lawful dissent as terrorism."

Click here for a possible working link to that article.

VIEW VIDEO

www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2134-DC-Ethical-Issues-Examiner~y2009m8d4-

Can-you-be-forced-be-vaccinated-for-swine-flu-Very-possibly-or-arrested-for-refusing