FISA: How a Watergate-Era “Reform” Turned into a Mechanism of Massive State Surveillance
In 50 years since the Watergate scandal—famously resulting in President Richard Nixon’s resignation—there has been a flood of “post-Watergate morality,” in which Congress pushed through a number of “reforms” designed to curb government abuses. The Nixon Administration exerted great effort to conceal its organization of the break-in, as Nixon and his aides authorized a plan instructing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to interfere with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Watergate investigation. Their actions were an abuse of presidential power and a deliberate obstruction of justice.
A newspaper article published after Nixon’s resignation detailed the CIA Watergate cover-up, sourced from the Watergate prosecutor’s office, the FBI, and CIA staff. The Watergate investigation obstruction of justice began in the White House when it was revealed some of the five Watergate burglars had a CIA background. “This gave the White House conspirators an idea. They might be able to use the CIA to cover up their own connection with the crime,” using CIA resources.
Members of Congress claimed Watergate evils came from the misuse of presidential power, including use of the spy agency for unauthorized citizen surveillance from the White House. One solution to limit increased unauthorized surveillance of US citizens was to enact a law to limit the president and federal personnel from authorizing surveillance of US citizens. This response led naturally to expanded centralized surveillance power which was the opposite of their stated intention.
Beginning on January 27, 1975, a special 11-member Congressional investigative body looked into abuses of power by the nation’s intelligence agencies. Chaired by Idaho Democratic Senator Frank Church, the Church committee called more than 800 witnesses over nine months, including several former officials from the FBI and CIA.
The Church Committee findings resulted in Congress creating permanent intelligence oversight committees in the Senate and House. They proposed creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bipartisan bill passed the House 246-128 and the Senate 95-1, and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978. The FISA was designed to prevent secret surveillance by the president and others in the federal government after Watergate. History shows how federal government surveillance grew over time when governing personnel were granted a new power by law.
The act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) as a tribunal tasked with reviewing requests from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies like the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) who sought permission to begin wiretap surveillance on any “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” within the US The FISC was comprised of seven federal district court judges (expanded to 11 judges in 2001). Each one is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and each judge serves staggered, non-renewable terms of seven years.
Details of warrant requests are not publicly disclosed, except the number of approved or denied requests. More than 34,000 requests were made and only a dozen rejected (although the government has withdrawn some requests) as of 2013. The FISC faces criticism by many, including civil liberty advocates, who see it as a rubber stamp of government surveillance requests. After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks the newly-signed USA Patriot Act expanded FISA surveillance orders duration, allowed authorities to share information placed before a grand jury with other federal agencies, and permitted authorities to gather foreign intelligence information on US citizens and non-citizens.
Federal surveillance powers expanded through the 2007 Protect America Act, passed after revelations of widespread warrantless wiretapping during the George W. Bush administration. The 2007 law amended FISA by removing warrant requirements for federal surveillance of foreign intelligence targets outside the US and anyone in the US (including US citizens) that communicated with them. The 2007 law granted immunity to telecommunications companies who provided access to data to federal law enforcement agencies without a federal search warrant.
Surveillance powers metastasized by the 2015 USA Freedom Act, passed after the scandal of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that aimed to end the NSA’s bulk collection of US telephone records and provide greater transparency in the FISA court system operations.
What started out after Watergate to prevent secret unauthorized surveillance of US citizens by the president and others in the federal government resulted with an abundance of secret and warrantless surveillance of US citizens and non-US citizens by the federal government. The executive branch surveillance power has grown in the past fifty years through use of the FISA courts. One lesson of supposed “reform” in Washington was really more centralization and expansion of federal surveillance power.
BREAKING: Dr. Peter McCullough Joins Alex Jones In-Studio To Discuss Shocking New Developments Concerning The COVID-19 Injections
Are We Too Stupid To Remove The Fluoride?
The AP recently reported, “A U.S. government report expected to stir debate concluded that fluoride in drinking water at twice the recommended limit is linked with lower IQ in children.”
“The report, based on an analysis of previously published research, marks the first time a federal agency has determined — “with moderate confidence” — that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. While the report was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoride in drinking water alone, it is a striking acknowledgment of a potential neurological risk from high levels of fluoride.”
Well if they can just dumb us down for a little bit longer maybe no one will notice.
The truth is, modern research has concluded in numerous studies that the fluoride supply, which is industrial waste, is deadly to the American population, while other countries refuse to fluoridate their water.
Take the damn fluoride out.
Mpox, Numbers, and Reality
Public health responses are most effective when they are grounded in reality.
This is particularly important if the response is intended to address an ‘emergency,’ and involves the transfer of large amounts of public money. When we reallocate resources, there is a cost, as the funds are taken from some other program. If the response involves buying lots of products from a manufacturer, there will also be a gain for the company and its investors.
So, clearly, there are three obvious requirements here to ensure good practice:
1. Accurate information is required, in context.
2. Those gaining financially can have no role at all in decision-making.
3. The organization tasked with coordinating any response would have to act with transparency, publicly weighing costs and benefits.
The World Health Organization (WHO), tasked by countries to help coordinate international public health, has just proclaimed Mpox (monkeypox) an international emergency. They considered an outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and nearby Central African countries to be a global threat, requiring an urgent global response. In declaring its emergency, WHO stated there were 537 deaths among 15,600 suspected cases this year. In its 19th August Emergency Meeting on Mpox, WHO clarified its figures:
…during the first six months of 2024, the 1854 confirmed cases of Mpox reported by States Parties in the WHO African Region account for 36% (1854/5199) of the cases observed worldwide.
The WHO reiterated that there had been 15,000 “clinically compatible” cases, and about 500 suspected deaths. The implications of these 500 unconfirmed deaths, equaling just 1.5% of the malaria deaths in DRC over the same period, are discussed in a previous article.
Journals such as the Lancet have dutifully towed the WHO’s ‘emergency’ line, though intriguingly noting that the mortality could be far lower if “adequate care” had been provided. Africa CDC agrees, with more than 17,000 cases (2,863 confirmed) and 517 (presumably suspected) deaths of Mpox have been reported across the continent.
Mpox is endemic to central and west Africa, being present in species of squirrels, rats, and other rodents. While it was identified in monkeys in a Danish lab in 1958 (hence the misnomer ‘monkeypox’), it has probably been around for thousands of years, causing intermittent infections in humans between whom it is spread by close physical contact.
Small outbreaks in Africa mostly went unnoticed by the rest of the world, mainly because they were (as now) small and confined. Mass Smallpox vaccination may also have suppressed numbers still further a few decades ago, as Smallpox is in the same Orthopoxvirus genus of viruses. So, we may be seeing an upward trend of this generally milder illness (fever, chills, and a vesicular rash) over recent decades since Smallpox vaccination ceased. The Smithsonian magazine put an informative summary together in 2022, after the first out-of-Africa outbreak which was spread by sexual contacts within a limited demographic group.
So, here we are in 2024, on the tail of a massively profit-driving (and impoverishing) outbreak called Covid-19 that enabled the largest transfer of wealth from the many to the few in human history. The WHO’s announcement that 5,000 (or less) suspected Mpox cases is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) allows it to fast-track vaccines through its Emergency Use Listing (EUL) program, bypassing the normal rigor required to approve such pharmaceuticals, and is suggesting Pharma start lining up.
At least one drugmaker is already discussing a supply of 10 million doses before year-end. The business case for this approach, from the corporate viewpoint, is well-proven. So are the harms in countries like DRC, as a mass vaccination program of this nature requires redirection of millions of dollars and thousands of health workers who would otherwise be addressing diseases of far larger burden.
The WHO is a large organization, and while some there have been on the hustings asking for money, others have been working hard to accurately inform the public (a core responsibility of the WHO, which retains some dedicated people). Like much of the WHO’s work in the past, this is thorough and commendable. Some of this information is summarized in the following graphics:
https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/
https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/
These charts provide data on confirmed cases, where someone with somewhat non-specific symptoms has been tested and shown to have evidence of Mpox virus in blood or secretions. Clearly, not everyone suspected can be tested, as Mpox is a very small issue for people facing civil wars, mass poverty, and vastly more dangerous diseases.
However, the WHO has absorbed a lot of money for outbreak investigation, and so have partner organizations, so we can assume there is a fairly good effort going on to detect and confirm numbers (or where has this money gone?).
In the past 2.5 years, the WHO has confirmed 223 deaths in the whole world, with just six in July 2024 (the time when the WHO Director-General warned the world of a rapidly increasing threat). Note here that 223 deaths are just 0.2% of the 102,997 confirmed cases. In Africa, just 26 deaths have been confirmed in 2024 among 3,562 cases (0.7%), spread across 5 countries (and 12 countries with cases). They are influenza-like mortality rates, not Ebola-like.
As severe cases are more likely to be tested than mild cases, the infection fatality rate may be far lower. We also don’t know (though someone does and should tell us) what the characteristics of those dying are. Most in Africa are reported to be children, so it is likely they are malnourished, otherwise immunocompromised (e.g. HIV), and have susceptibilities that could be addressed.
As is obvious from the third graphic below, nearly all the global deaths listed above were from the previous outbreak in 2022. This was a different clade (variant) and mostly occurred outside of Africa.
https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/
It is important to note a few things here. It is difficult to confirm all cases in areas with poor infrastructure and security. Mpox symptoms and signs are also frequently mild and overlap other diseases (e.g. chickenpox or even flu) so many cases may go unnoticed. Notification of results can also lag. However, the 19 confirmed DRC Mpox deaths amongst roughly 40,000 DRC malaria deaths so far this year is about 1 versus 2000. Whichever way you count it, it is not going to become much more significant. That is what the new international emergency looks like in actual data, or if you are the population of DRC at Mpox ground zero. It is likely you would not notice anything at all.
Why has the WHO declared an international emergency? Some claim it helps mobilize resources, which is a bit pathetic. Firstly, grownups should be able to discuss a situation that has persisted for two years in a rational manner and decide what might be needed, without banging a drum. Secondly, an outbreak that is killing a tiny fraction of malaria (or tuberculosis, or HIV) deaths, and far less than those currently dying in war, may not be an international emergency.
And what should be done? Diverting resources from DRC’s major priorities would undoubtedly kill far more than are currently dying from Mpox. It is quite probable that direct adverse events from vaccination alone will kill more than the 19 DRC Mpox victims confirmed this year. We likely undercount Mpox deaths, but we also undercount pharmaceutical deaths.
Perhaps a useful response would be to improve immune competence through nutrition, providing very broad benefits (but completely failing in terms of Pharma profit). Gavi’s half-billion dollars would provide vast and broad-based benefits if applied to sanitation. Perhaps limited, well-targeted vaccination may also help some communities, but there is no business case for such approaches.
What is clear, as noted above, is the following:
1. The data on Mpox, and other competing priorities, must continue to be shown in context, along with costs and opportunity costs of the response.
2. Those who will gain financially from vaccinating millions of people must not be part of the decision-making process (whether or not such a huge resource transfer can possibly be supported for such a small disease burden).
3. The WHO should continue to act with transparency, as the public has an absolute right to know what they are paying for, and the harm (and perhaps benefit) they can expect from it.
The number of Mpox deaths will rise as more are infected, and perhaps as some suspected cases are confirmed. However, we are facing a small problem in an area with far larger ones. It is posing low local risk and minimal global risk. It is not a global emergency, by any sane, rational, public health-based definition.
The rest of the world can respond by sending vaccines and lots of foreigners who need looking after, diverting local health and security personnel and almost certainly killing more DRC residents overall. Or, we can recognize a local problem, support local responses when local populations ask, and concentrate, as the WHO once did, on addressing the underlying causes of endemic disease and inequality. They are the things that make the lives of people in DRC so difficult.
BREAKING: Dr. Peter McCullough Joins Alex Jones In-Studio To Discuss Shocking New Developments Concerning The COVID-19 Injections
Watch: Comedian Teaches Toddler About Left’s Woke ‘Critical Race Theory’
An unsuspecting toddler received an education on the left’s Marxist Critical Race Theory agenda, courtesy of comedian Alex Stein.
Addressing a white baby with a hand puppet that looked like black astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stein informed the months-old tyke she was an “oppressor” responsible for black people’s problems.
Teaching critical race theory to a toddler?
— Alex Stein #99 (@alexstein99) August 28, 2024
pic.twitter.com/8utf36BP5v
“Do you realize that you’re a white person and you’re responsible for all of black people’s problems?” Stein asked the toddler during a recent episode of his Blaze talk show “Prime Time with Alex Stein.”
The infant responded with unintelligible baby talk.
“Because at one point your ancestors owned slaves,” Stein continued informing the baby, who looked confused and mumbled in protest.
“Yes, they did. I don’t care what they tell you. Even if you’re not related to them,” Stein added.
“You being white is oppressive to a whole group of people. You are an oppressor. Do you understand that?”
Stein went on to let the baby know she’s not only oppressive to black people, “but also Hispanic people that are here illegally.”
“Yes, you are. You are oppressing the illegals,” Stein added.
While absurd on the surface, the skit lampoons one of the main agendas the far left wants taught in public schools, which promotes the notion of “white privilege” and blames white people for devising societal constructs that oppress people of other races — despite the fact no one chooses the skin they’re born into.
Kamala Openly Admits She Will Come For Your Guns When She Gets Elected
A Kamala Harris presidency would likely result in a ban on “assault weapons,” mandatory gun buybacks, magazine and firearm purchase restrictions and ultimately confiscation.
This report documents Harris’ history of opposing Americans’ Second Amendment rights, and her efforts to limit citizens’ God-given right to self defense.
Kamala Openly Admits She Will Come For Your Guns When She Gets Elected
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 28, 2024
Spread this video far and wide!
Trump 2024 pic.twitter.com/3CayzTwDqP
TIME Magazine Defends Ultra-Processed Foods After RFK Jr. Exposes Their Dangers to Health
TIME Magazine ran interference for the agro-industrial complex with an article defending ultra-processed foods in the wake of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. highlighting their dangers to health upon suspending his presidential campaign and endorsing Donald Trump.
The TIME article titled, “What if Ultra-Processed Foods Aren’t as Bad as You Think?” published on Tuesday made the case that not all ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are inherently bad and that some can actually be healthier for you than non-processed foods.
Under NOVA, an ultra-processed food is made largely or entirely from oils, sugars, starches, and ingredients you wouldn’t buy yourself at the grocery store.
— TIME (@TIME) August 27, 2024
Everything from packaged cookies to flavored yogurt to baby formula fits that description https://t.co/0qyUZVLXob
The article makes four main arguments in favor of UPFs:
- they can be beneficial to a healthy diet if consumed in moderation
- they can be fortified with nutrients that may not be present in non-processed sources
- they’re extremely convenient and relatively inexpensive, and
- their ubiquity in the majority of Americans’ diets make banning them impractical.
The article cites several “experts” to make its case that concerns over UPFs are overblown or unwarranted.
It also cited a study claiming UPFs can be part of a healthy, balanced diet despite admitting the researchers found links between heavily processed foods and premature death.
A 2024 study backs up the idea that people who eat processed foods can still be healthy. Although the researchers did find links between heavily processed diets and risk of premature death, they concluded that overall diet quality may be more important than how many processed foods someone eats. In other words, if someone is eating plenty of nutritious foods, maybe it’s OK if some come from a wrapper.
TIME then made the case that UPFs could be even healthier than whole foods, citing researcher Jessica Wilson’s anecdotal experiment of eating almost exclusively UPFs.
A weird thing happened. Wilson found that she had more energy and less anxiety. She didn’t need as much coffee to get through the day and felt more motivated. She felt better eating an ultra-processed diet than she had before, a change she attributes to taking in more calories by eating full meals, instead of haphazard combinations of whole-food ingredients.
TIME also cited a study by USDA nutritionist Julie Hess to bolster its case that some UPFs are healthier and more convenient than whole foods.
The experiment highlighted that there are nutritious ultra-processed foods, and that certain ones “may make it easier and more convenient to have a healthy diet, because a lot of these foods are more shelf-stable, they’re more cost-effective, they’re sometimes easier to access,” Hess says.
TIME wrapped up by arguing that taking action against UPFs would be “disastrous” because it would derail the modern food industry.
“Stigmatizing a broad category of foods that also includes lower-cost, accessible options, especially without providing an alternative or improving access and affordability of healthy foods” is not the answer, dietician Kendra Chow said.
TIME points to infectious-disease physician Dr. Chris van Tulleken to argue that outright banning ultra-processed foods “wouldn’t be practical” in the modern world where people are “strapped for time and money.”
“He realizes a ban on them wouldn’t be practical; it would essentially wipe out the modern food system, with particularly disastrous consequences for people of lower socio-economic status,” the article reads.
Physician Casey Means however, decimated TIME’s defense of UPFs on X, noting it downplayed UPF’s known detrimental health consequences.
Mainstream media playbook: When the culture seems to be turning TOWARDS health, rapidly spin up a BS article (like this one that was published yesterday in TIME) to:
— Casey Means, MD (@CaseyMeansMD) August 28, 2024
1. SEED CONFUSION: CONFUSION IS KEY – it makes us doubt our convictions about healthy food. Key here is bringing… pic.twitter.com/ybE14eV9sh
Mainstream media playbook: When the culture seems to be turning TOWARDS health, rapidly spin up a BS article (like this one that was published yesterday in TIME) to:
1. SEED CONFUSION: CONFUSION IS KEY – it makes us doubt our convictions about healthy food. Key here is bringing in “experts” who contradict the science and say it’s sensationalized or impractical to implement.
2. NORMALIZE: talk about how nearly 80% of calories come from ultraprocessed food so it can’t be that bad, right? IGNORE that 50% of children now have a CHRONIC DISEASE. Use a meaningless anecdote like the author of the article eating 80% processed food and feeling just fine!
3. DISTRACT AND SHUT DOWN DISCOURSE BY BRINGING IN SOCIAL JUSTICE: Focus intensely on social justice issues and questions of food access rather than science (“what would people *possibly* eat if we changed the food system towards real food?!”). Rather than focusing on ANY meaningful solutions that are actually good for the health and wellbeing of all people, focus on how changing the current system would lead to more food insecurity. Don’t mention that taxpayer money is what leads these foods and to be cheap through corrupt subsidies, and we actually have a rigged system against people of lower socioeconomic status that is the ACTUAL social justice issue. Don’t mention that we could rapidly steer the billions of dollars of processed food subsidies towards REAL food access for all Americans if there was a will to do so.
4. MINIMIZE THE SCIENCE: mention but then QUICKLY minimize the innumerable studies that say ultraprocessed foods impair hormones, metabolic health, and are associated with early death.
5. DEFINITELY DON’T MENTION CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: certainly don’t talk about funding sources and conflicts of interest at NIH, USDA, FDA, academia, OR THE NEWS OUTLET THAT IS PUBLISHING THE ARTICLE. DON’T FALL INTO THE TRAP
Kennedy also reacted to the article, noting it mentioned nothing about the conflicts of interest between regulatory agencies and food processors.
“And don’t talk about the conflicts at NGO’s like NAACP and the Diabetes groups that get their funding from the processed food lobbyists,” RFK Jr. pointed out.
And don’t talk about the conflicts at NGO’s like NAACP and the Diabetes groups that get their funding from the processed food lobbyists
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 28, 2024
TIME also didn’t mention that tens of thousands of chemicals approved for UPFs in the U.S. are banned in most other countries, or that American children are the most unhealthy group of children in the world, two alarming facts RFK Jr. exposed during his Make America Healthy Again speech.
This is what propaganda by an outlet captured by the agro-industrial complex looks like.