Vaccine Mandates and Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905

 

Covid "vaccines" are being mandated all over America. Opponents state such mandates are unconstitutional and violate human rights. Proponents claim that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that states can force people to be vaccinated. But is that really true?

While it is true that the court in 1905 did stand on the side of forced vaccines in that particular case - a case where smallpox was rampant, very deadly and the only known method of ending the epidemic was vaccination that prevented and/or cured the disease.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence that the smallpox vaccine not only cured the disease and prevented infection, but was relatively safe with very rare instances of harm, and deaths from the vaccine were virtually absent.

However, that is not the case today with these Covid injections. There are serious issues with trying to apply the 1905 ruling today, and expect it to have it survive current facts:

• In 1905 there was a lot that was not known about vaccines. They were unaware of other medical issues a vaccine could cause as there were no studies that linked vaccinations to other possible medical conditions. As new studies come to light, it appears vaccines can do great harm to a person's health. 
• Deaths caused by the vaccine for smallpox were very rare.That is not the case with Covid injections which, by definition, are not even vaccines. VAERS proves that serious injury and even deaths caused by the Covid injection are anything but rare.We also know they adversely affect our immune system. And in the case of an RNA/DNA vaccine (which is the one being tested), it could change the entire human genome, and maybe not for the better.
  
• A COVID-19 vaccine is untested as far as long-term side effects, because the vaccine was rushed. NO ONE knows what the ultimate effect would be, or if it is truly "safe". Furthermore, it has yet to even be approved by the FDA
  
• In 1905, "tracking chips" and nanotechnology did not exist, and tracking nanoparticles - or any other control device - can now be injected into the body. If included in a vaccine, no matter the reason, a person has every right to reject it. And since there currently is no way to tell if it is or is not included, individuals have the right to reject any and all vaccines in the future.
• The 1905 decision also stated that a vaccine could only be mandated if there were no alternative therapies. Regardless of what many with ulterior motives claim, there are alternatives that are proven to be effective therapeutics, not the least of which is Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine with Z-pak, zinc, and vitamin C & D3. There is also monoclonal infusion of antibodies (plasma)
• Smallpox was extremely deadly, with few survivors. Covid-19 is no more deadly than any seasonal flu. Fewer than 36,000 deaths attributed to ONLY Covid-19 when there was no vaccine available, while the flu of 2018 killed between 35,000-60,000 in spite of having a vaccine available
  

The 1905 ruling stated "all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated". The entire premise of the courts ruling was based on the vaccine preventing infection. In other words, there was an assumption the smallpox vaccine would prevent the disease. We know, however, that is not the case with Covid injections - even the makers state their injections will not prevent infection, nor prevent transmission. 

The court also stated that the smallpox vaccine had a "substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety." Whereas the Covid injections do not substantially protect the public, as statistics indicate most of the new infection are among the vaccinated, and the vaccinated are literally spreading Covid, this injection should easily fail in the courts.

Even I, as a non-attorney, could present a case that would result in a ruling in favor of opponents to any Covid injection or medication. The simple fact that the Covid injections are not even designed to prevent infection, or prevent its transmission, coupled with the very high rate of adverse effects and deaths is, itself, enough to convince any honest, unbiased judge to rule in favor of opponents to forced vaccination. Add to that the very real possibility of "microchips" or tracking devices that are already available that could easily be included among the several toxic substances in every vaccine should seal their fate forever.

/

Never Catch Another Virus

This post will be reacted to much differently according to what a person's beliefs are. All I ask is that you realize one important fact:  beliefs are not facts. Please keep an open mind, and take some time to think critically.

Those of you who are better informed as to viruses will not be surprised by this. Most of you, however - including a lot of "expert virologists" still believe in the traditional thought on "germ theory".  At the end of this post is one of several videos that experts on virology have put together, and it explains a lot that, until now, has been unexplainable.

Over 150 years ago, scientists of the time came up with "germ theory", which most medical personnel still believe to this day. When they performed an autopsy on someone who died of some disease, they found the body was infested with debris they determined to be a "virus". In fact, that debris was nothing more than dead cells breaking down.

If that is true, WHAT caused the deaths - the epidemic? Well, it could be a number of things, but what it is not is a virus (which explains why Covid-19 has NEVER been isolated having come from someone who contracted it).

One example, as in the case of the Black Death in the 1300's, would be - RATS! Here is what likely happened:

In the 13th century the "Little Ice Age" began, affecting the weather in the northern hemisphere. It lasted until the middle of the 19th century. But by the 14th century (the time of the Black Death) the weather had caused a severe famine throughout Europe and places north. It was so bad that the farmers of Greenland were forced to become seafaring raiders - the Vikings. The food shortage not only affected the people, but also animals - including rats. In search of food, rats started invading homes. They left their excrement everywhere - especially in any stores of grain. People would consume the grain, and in doing so would ingest the pathogens (bacteria, NOT viruses) in the excrement, which killed the cells in the body. To this day, rats are responsible for plague such as bubonic plague that recently hit Arizona. See https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1784-2018.pdf

Bear in mind, all "viruses" are nothing more than decaying dead cells that have been killed by bacteria or other parasitic organism the people contract from outside sources, like bad water, bad food, polluted air. This is why anti-parasitics like Ivermectin and HCQ work. We are bombarded by pathogens constantly. Under normal conditions, the body's immune system can handle any such "infections". But for the last 150 years, vaccines have suppressed our immune systems to the point where they simply cannot handle the load.

In the case of the Covid vaccines, the "vaccines" themselves are attacking and killing cells, and introducing more "parasites", perhaps in the form of graphene oxide. This explains all the "variants" that seem to emanate from vaccinated people (shedding), and why most new cases are among the vaccinated.

To protect yourself from a "viral" infection, all that is required is a healthy diet, regular exercise, extra vitamin C and D3 and avoid fluoridated water or foods grown inorganically - and avoid vaccines like the plague - because they ARE the plague!

Here then is just one of the many videos where experts show the truth behind "viruses".

https://www.bitchute.com/video/EdffVJbFxb96/

 

/

Personal Sovereignty - Without It Nothing Else Matters

 

 

 “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]

Sovereignty - what is it, and what are its limitations? Sovereignty is, by definition, the right of free will; to determine your own destiny, whether that is a sovereign government, state, community or individual.

In Genesis God gives Mankind the gift of free will - personal sovereignty over our lives. We get to choose who and what we will be and do. Yet, throughout history governments were instituted to be sovereign without allowing for the personal sovereignty of its citizens. The sovereignty began and ended with the ruling class. That is why, to this day, we associate sovereignty with kings and queens. We have been conditioned to think that way.

When any person (i.e. king), organization (i.e. United Nations) or national government (i.e. CCP) retains all sovereignty unto themselves, the indivudual is no longer a free person with free will - he or she becomes property, as chattel.

Then came the founding of a new nation; a nation that would be sovereign unto itself, but with a very distinct and important feature - that sovereignty begins with the individual citizens who, in turn would delegate specific, limited powers to a government whose prime responsibility is to protect and preserve the sovereignty of its citizens from "enemies foreign and domestic". That, then, would be the singular function of government - to insure that the natural, human, God-given rights of the people are protected.

That nation is the United States of America, and those limited powers of government are codified in our Constitution.

It should be noted, however, that personal sovereignty, while it does mandate each of us may choose our own destiny and make our own choices, and that government must protect our right to do so, such personal sovereignty also mandates taking personal responsibility. We become responsible to insure our choices do not harm anyone else, or deprive any other sovereign person from exercising their own sovereignty. To insure this, the government has the power to pass laws that punish those who infringe on the rights of others. But any law that infringes on a citizens sovereignty for any reason other than to protect the sovereignty of others is a violation of the Constitution and must be determined null and void. Citizens must not be punished for exercising their sovereignty as long as they are not causing harm to others. [NOTE: Some may argue that in the case of a "health mandate", it is required to insure the protection of others. But that is not a valid argument as detailed here]

The short take: as sovereign persons, we have the right to do whatever we choose provided it does not cause harm to any other sovereign person or infringe on the rights of others, and it is the singular task of government to insure that. In fact, the role of government extends even to the point of not allowing other nations or organizations to violate the rights of American citizens.

Unfortunately, personal sovereignty has given the people a false sense of security in our persons and has made us complacent, believing government would remain limited while we sat back and just lived our lives. We did not keep a tight handle on our government and, while we were sleeping it has forcibly and illegally stolen much of our personal sovereignty, taking more and more power for itself that it was not Constitutionally empowered to take.

So now the only question worth asking is: what will we do about it? Will we squeeze the genie back into the bottle, or will we meekly become chattel for a ruling class?

Is there a Constitutional Attorney anywhere that would stand up and fight this to the Supreme Court? To retake that which God has given us and the founders codified?

 

/

How To Win Any Election

 

 

 

Please bear with me - some of this may rankle some of you at first, but stop and think rationally about it before discounting it offhand. For those of you saying "There won't be any more elections", worry not - there is still the final option - hostile takeover. There are 100 million of us, and under tyranny, that number will grow. But this must come first...

The first step is to create a platform with two purposes in mind. First, it needs to center around populist ideas such as patriotism, the Constitution, liberty, and smaller, less-intrusive government that is fiscally more stable. And second, it needs to be attractive to the majority of the voting public. A VAST majority. I won't pretend to be an expert in such things - the leaders we choose for our movement will work that out.

Two things that will be critical:

1. Defund the current GOP. Do NOT donate to the GOP, or any GOP candidate for which we have an alternative candidate. Instead, ALL our donations should go directly to the independent campaigns of our chosen candidates. In this manner we put a choke hold on the GOP - either they back our candidates, or they lose. Sure, they will still have their mega-donors and PACS, people who want to retain the establishment status quo. To counter that, we would have to be very vocal in making it known that THEIR candidates will NOT get our 80 million votes, and therefore cannot hope to win.
2. We must be extremely careful as to who we support. They need to be vetted like no one else has ever been vetted. They must be smart, strong, charismatic, happy, God-fearing, trustworthy and patriotic to a fault. Strong on the Constitution, fiscally responsible. Morally sound. People who easily attract others. This is not to say they need be perfect - but if they have made big mistakes in the past, they must come clean, and seek redemption so it cannot be used against them. Reagan came clean about having been a liberal Democrat early on. Yes, I know - I am describing a bunch of Ronnie Reagans, Donald Trumps (without the Trump baggage) and Kristi Noems. A tough task, but we must do it.

At this point we have one or more strong leaders, and a number of great candidates, all on board with a truly good platform that the majority of people can accept, if presented properly. The final major step is at hand - how to get our message out in a manner that attracts followers and wins people over. Note that it is not out of the question to win over a lot of liberals - Democrats that are not happy with the boot-leg liquor their party is trying to force them to drink - what is often referred to as "the koolaid". We can do this. We can win them, just as Reagan did. All we need are two things: the right message, and the proper presentation. We can have the greatest message ever delivered - but if we can't get people to listen to it - want it - we will lose, every time.

And here is how we do that. Trust me - this is one area in which I have substantial experience (which I will attempt to demonstrate at the end of this post).

To win any election there are a few simple things to consider:

1) Understand the audience (average voters). The average voter today is often not well educated, not well informed and may be inexperienced (as in under 25). The average voter does not have the time to "keep up" with the news, and is often preoccupied with entertainment and celebrity. In short, not well informed. Democrats know this, and use it to their advantage. We need to use it even better, by having a better message and presenting it in a way that grabs voters' attention. So...

2) Play to the largest share of the audience by reducing our message to its lowest common denominator. If our message is geared to the best educated and well-informed, our message will only reach 1/3 of the voters. But a message geared to the lesser informed will reach both groups - the informed, and the non-informed, which doubles the audience. Dumb it down - stop trying to show we are the smartest people in the room. That turns people off. Make them feel smart for following us.

In order to have our message resound with the greatest number of people, we must first form the message in such a way as to be understood by the least educated and least informed among them. Intelligent people will understand facts, statistics and logical explanations, but simple people will not understand such intellectual explanations. If they do not grasp our message, we will not get their votes. Use the KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid.

3) Make your message entertaining (see #1), as well as informative. If you do not entertain, you will not hold their attention, and hence will not reach them with your message. Once our message has been simplified and made easily understood by even the least educated, least informed and inexperienced, it is imperative that the message be presented in an entertaining fashion. People today are consumed with entertainment and celebrity. Show most people a picture of Kim Kardashian or Brad Pitt, they will know who it is. Show those same people a picture of Mitt Romney or General Mike Flynn and they probably will not have any clue. Try it if you don't believe me.

Jesus, Aesop and Reagan all understood this principle of educating via entertainment. Jesus taught by using parables that entertained, yet instructed. Aesop used fables to do the same. And Reagan was "the Great Communicator" because he used stories, humor, and helped people draw a mental picture they would remember. So, instead of "political ads" on YouTube, create an entertaining video that could go viral, and inform people while entertaining them.  Make it interesting, funny, or whatever else it takes to draw and hold their attention. After all, not many voters remember the Republican ads about health care. But every voter remembers the Democrat ad of a Republican pushing a wheel-chair bound Granny over a cliff! Use topics of general interest coupled with humor and imagery and you will capture your audience, all while educating them.

4) Sell the sizzle, not the steak. People do not buy "features" - they buy the BENEFITS that those features offer. Know which "benefits" the average voter wants, then find a way to help them get those benefits by following us. 

I learned this while investing in real estate. If I told a buyer that "This home is close to schools", all I would get is a nod and a yawn. But if I told them that "Mom can sleep late because the home is close to schools", THAT got their attention. If I  said, "The missus will enjoy this great kitchen", they would roll their eyes, but if I said, "Imagine the great family gatherings and parties you could have with such a great kitchen", that would strike a chord with the buyer as they envision entertaining in that home.

Republicans are lousy at advertising the benefits of their platform, and too often concentrate on merely listing features. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great ideas and plans, but liberals are good at using imagery designed to appeal to an emotion, not intellect (which 38% of people lack in any quantity).  Remember - the liberal mind runs on emotion, not logic. By inserting emotion into our messages we can get them to remember our messages. Emotion is the glue that liberals (and many other people) use to hold onto their beliefs. If you doubt that, read the tweets of someone suffering TDS.

The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas, but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in their minds and the emotions to which they are attached. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality. Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple pictures or images that appeal to the voter's emotions.

Again, consider the impact of that visual of Republicans pushing Granny over a cliff. Many voters will not vote for you if they don't even remember your message.

Liberals win elections because they use pictures, entertainment and stories to sell their agenda. Instead of a lengthy, boring dissertation on how we can fix Medicare, they simply showed a Republican pushing Granny over a cliff. Instead of a lengthy discussion on the role of government in our lives, liberals produced "The Life of Julia." As they say - one picture is worth a thousand words.

If you doubt that last statement, think about Hurricane Sandy. More than 1/3 of voters in 2012 stated that Sandy affected their vote. They were swayed by the emotion involved. Even though President Obama actually did nothing to help the victims, everyone saw the photo op of him being praised and hugged by powerhouse Republican Governor Chris Christie. The picture told voters that Obama was "presidential" and also "praised by Republicans." That is what made an impression on voters - not the long-term misery that Obama never bothered to actually address.

We live in a culture where most voters simply cannot be reached unless they are being entertained, and the message is kept simple and creates imagery. Take that to the bank - either appeal to the audience, or lose them.

Democrats won the woman vote because they offered BENEFIT. They won Latinos because they offered BENEFIT. The won black people because they offer benefit. And recently they even stooped to offering cash cards - illegal, yet effective. Republicans need to repackage their message to offer better benefits (keeping it legal, of course) and offer them in a way that holds voter's attention.  An example - Democrats offer hungry people a fish (welfare, a benefit). Republicans offer to teach hungry people how to fish (a feature). Voters say, "Darn, I have to waste time learning something, and then spend time actually catching and cleaning those fish." Instead, Republicans should emphasize that by teaching them how to fish (feature) they and their families will never be hungry again (benefit). Get it? Sell the sizzle, not the steak.

IMPORTANT: Every patriotic conservative with a desire to restore our Republic needs to do at least this much - pass this post on to everyone you know. That is the only way this can work. It must get into the hands of the people who are capable of putting it in motion. Anything less than all of us pulling together would only mean failure, and no chance to preserve America for our children and grandchildren. Please think about that before walking away from this.

IF WE DO NOT STAND UNITED, WE WILL FALL!

 Earlier I promised you an example of teaching by entertaining. Here is one I wrote 10 years ago. 

Now it is up to conservative patriotic Americans to put in the effort if they want to give their children and grandchildren a free, viable and strong Constitutional Republic. It will not be easy, but it is the only alternative to a globalist, socialist (or communist) world, with nowhere else to run.

Oh, and by the way - you can use these same methods to be more successful in all that you do.

/