Original blog published March, 2017

Hold the presses! Mandates do not belong in a free society! This blog attempts to answer the question of why the Constitution cannot protect freedom, nor can it protect the violation of inherent rights.

How do free people find themselves on the cusp of universal vaccine mandates in the year 2020?

Vaccine mandates have been quietly made into laws around the world before the Coronavirus Plandemic began. Statutes were instituted to harmonize with International U.N. Treaty laws to capture city-by-city, and country-by-country while the people slept:

The Global Plan is for compulsory vaccination to expand its reach to all humans, even when the status of Covid-19, a cold virus, has been downregulated. How can mandates proceed based on a virus that cannot be validated through testing?

The Planned Pandemic

I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity,” Trump said. “Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing. – President Trump, January 30, 2018.

As if they had a crystal ball, officials passed the Healthy People 2020 Act whose guidelines were created 38 years ago. Last year, prior to hearing reference to any ‘Coronavirus,’ President Trump signed an Executive Order to Modernize and Improve Flu vaccines based upon a future pandemic.

September 2019: Experts recently have warned that the nation’s health system isn’t prepared for a pandemic. The president’s Council of Economic Advisers on Thursday estimated the economic damage caused by a pandemic could range from $413 billion to $3.79 trillion, resulting in more than half a million deaths and up to 4.3 million hospitalizations.

Event 201, held, October 2019, by the United Nations and the Gates Foundation, simulated a pandemic from a viral threat. By all estimates, experts were indeed prepared. But the people were not.

Freedom isn’t free. Health Freedom = choice + responsibility. Take away one or the other  – choice or responsibility – and you have No Freedom. Freedom requires the ability to discern when you are not free.

The opposite of freedom is slavery (People = Property). When the government tells you that you must obey, they count on your ignorance of the law, the Constitution, and especially the Declaration of independence. They count on you being unable to stand up and say, ‘No, you work for me.’

The Declaration of Independence

Officials refer to the Constitution for greater restrictions and less freedom. Why? Because, hidden in the language of the Constitution is the word “Property.” People = Property = slavery. The Constitution does not specifically mention slavery, because it was an accepted practice of the time.

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places (the Enumeration Clause, Article 1, Section 9, The Fugitive Slave Clause). Despite the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified. Today, under the false shield of the U.S. Constitution, individuals have no protections. They have no rights. The Constitution of 1787 is, thus, the “slave-holder’s Constitution.” The American Civil war changed that. Or did it?

Does the Constitution, as a legal document, enforce the continued enslavement of the people, long after racial slavery was outlawed? Is the Constitution pro-slavery propaganda? What about the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration is key. It does not contain the word Property. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson changed the phrasing of John Locke’s trinity of “Life, Liberty, and Property” by replacing “property” with “the pursuit of happiness,” even though Jefferson’s own “property” included about two hundred human beings whom he prevented from pursuing their own happiness. Jefferson referred to racial slavery as like “holding a wolf by its ears – you didn’t like it, but you dared not let go.” The constitution itself reflects this in its 3/5ths clause and fugitive slave clause.

Civil War Connection 

The Civil War was fought to codify the Declaration into law. Prior to the Civil War, the Declaration had no legal weight. The Northern and Southern Territories each had their own Constitutions. However after the formal surrender of the Confederacy, at Appomattox Courthouse, the official end of the Civil War codified the Declaration to become law. The outcome of the Civil War was that racial slavery ended. “All Men Are Created Equal.”

After the Civil War, the only thing standing in the way of a Slave State was the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the only place where the mention of “God” (secular) in “law” is found. It is the only Charter that declares plainly, “All ‘men’ are created equal.” [Note: The process of excluding people continues by categorizing people into subgroups and headings].

Lincoln reiterated equality in his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, when he said, “Four score and seven years ago….. this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Four score and seven years ago is the date of July 4th 1776, the DECLARATION —NOT the (slave-holder’s) Constitution of September 17, 1787. This was no accident. Lincoln could have easily made reference to the Constitution, since after all, he was an attorney and the President of the United States.

Without the Declaration, “slavery” is still legal under the Constitution, only racial slavery is illegal. After the Civil War, and with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, whites saw their future. They foresaw that ex-slave labor would displace white labor in the territories, thus ALL people needed to be slaves. To those in power, the issue of the Civil War was not one of race but of pure economics.

The result is that, today, everybody is a slave. Privileges replace rights under the cover of democracy and freedom. Thus, No one has rights – only the perception of having rights. And America is a police state. If you disagree, ask yourself the following:

  • Why do the courts continue to reject appeals and constitutional challenges to vaccine mandates?
  • Why must people request exemptions pertaining to vaccines (medical, religious or moral/philosophical/personal belief type) or “opt out” unless government has de facto rights over our bodies?
  • Why do Child Protection Services (CPS) remove children from the home if parents have rights to their children?
  • Why are peaceful protests shut down if the First Amendment protects free speech?

Why? Because People = Property.

If the State has the power to grant a privilege, the State can also remove it. “By asking permission to ‘opt out’ from any mandate issued by the State, you inadvertently grant your Government de facto authority over your body.”

1866, The Year That Reestablished Slavery

In 1866, two events took place to reestablish slavery for all:

  1. The 14th amendment was “ratified” by Executive Order in 1866 and never signed by the President. This represents a color-of-law fraud used by the government and the courts to hold power over the people [Google 14th amendment Trojan horse].
  2. case law ensured that the Declaration would not stand for freedom. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution granted corporations rights above persons. By virtue of the phrase obiter dictum – “by the way”- freedom and the Declaration were legally upended. 

Economic slavery was made legal and expanded by Santa Clara et. seq. under the 14th Amendment which became effective in 1866. Later rulings (Citizens United v. FEC; Bush v. Gore) reinforced this. The result is that People = Property. No inherent rights. Only State-granted privileges. In re: Bush v. Gore, the majority opinion echoed that the “average citizen” has no constitutional right to elect the POTUS and that this Right rests firmly with the Electors.

The Vaccine Narrative

Freedom is lost by stealth when individuals give up responsibility and unknowingly become victims. Even before laws are written, “experts” are chosen to develop the narrative. For the Vaccine Agenda, there is Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California, Irvine school of law and adviser to California SB 277,

In 2016, Chemerinsky wrote the essay, Compulsory Vaccination Laws Are Constitutional. Chemerinsky used the following arguments:

“There is no doubt that compulsory vaccination is constitutional. In 1905, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court held that state compulsory vaccination laws are constitutional when they are “necessary for the public health or the public safety.”

“In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause cannot be used to challenge a neutral law of general applicability.”

“the profound public health threat posed by refusing vaccinations.”

“Therefore, there is no basis for a First Amendment challenge to compulsory vaccination laws.”

Earlier, in his February 2015 Op-Ed article in the Orange County Register, Professor Chemerinsky wrote, “As a matter of constitutional law, parents have no right to not vaccinate their children. However, the government has a compelling interest in stopping the spread of communicable diseases.” He proclaimed that state law allows for police power to enforce obligatory vaccine laws. Professor Chemerinsky believes the Constitution holds no weight as a tool of freedom. He is averse to the Declaration. His views reflect Postmodernism.

Postmodernism & Scientism

Postmodernism = modernism without the optimism.

If you convince everyone that they’re a victim, they’ll start acting like victims. Postmodernists rule above the law, with no morality, no accountability, and no responsibility. Everyone is a slave, though some slaves are above other slaves. Postmodernist recognize no “God” – defined as that power above mortal men and universal. The Declaration of Independence refers this “God” as “natural law or nature’s law, unalienable…and the Creator.”

The Postmodernist dogma says that mortals are gods and that their power to rule over lesser gods is absolute. All “men” are not created equal – some are gods, above the law, with no moral compass, only Agendas. Postmodernists misuse science to distract from the discussion of power and freedom. They claim science forms the basis of absolute truth about man and the universe. This is Scientism – the fusion of religion & science. Scientism elevates scientists to the level of priesthood.  In Scientism discourse the use of “beliefs” (subjective) replace verifiable evidence (objective).

Scientism rejects any inquiry that does not agree with its Agenda. It is embedded in Darwinism (man originating from beast – not God or in his image — thus can be treated as beast) and believes there is no God (agnostic) for without God (pursuant to the Declaration of Independence) there can be no rights. Therefore, Scientism is a PsyOps exercise designed to distract people’s attention away from real truths and solutions, substituting in their place, a rationalization based upon beliefs instead of verifiable evidence.

Scientism is the narrative by an”independent” Task Force on Community Preventive Services approved by the Centers For Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). The Task Force fulfills a role of providing “disclosure” though its document entitled, Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights to reiterate that the “The constitutional basis of vaccination requirements rests in the police power of the state.”  (Emphasis added).

Scientism predicts the future: “The police power is the authority reserved to the states by the Constitution and embraces “such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety” (197 U.S. at 25, 25 S.Ct. at 361).

Professor Chemerinsky and others find legal fodder against religious exemption from another Constitutionalist, Supreme Court’s Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote his 1997 opinion in City of Boerne v. Flores:

“the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’”

Scalia stressed that it should be the political, not judicial process, that provides for exemptions in laws to protect religious beliefs. While the Court defers to the State for religious freedoms, and the State defers to Scientism to keep the herd distracted, freedom gets lost in the shuffle.

Freedom Is Individual

Freedom in the legal sense is still found through the Declaration of Independence, though it now must be codified into law. In our current system, if anyone is to claim his power to refuse vaccines, or parent a child without government interference, then this document must be reinstated in its rightful place. Without the Declaration, rights are abolished.

Image by John R Perry from Pixabay

True freedom is knowing Private Property is individual. You own your body. Freedom is not found in any document or court, not in any group or herd. Freedom is embodied as a state of mind and a way of being. Freedom lives under Nature’s law, created by nature’s God. This is why God matters in the secular context, not a religious one. Note: all NATO countries promote war for a Globalist Agenda. They are Freemason monarchies, except the EU run by the British (City of London). While Russia and Syria recognize the secular God, they appear to be part of a globalist agenda.

Nature’s law guarantees the power of the Individual and the right to private property, the Self. No one is above Nature’s law. Nature has her own legal argument:

The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his (God’s) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.

Contradictions & Inconsistencies

old rusty ring fixed in stone brick wall, slavery concept

Man’s laws (case law) are traps that lead to tyranny. They enforce the Master-Slave dynamic because they are written by a few men with an agenda. They retain the narrative as long as the slaves consent and ask for permission from their Masters. Masters are fallible. Chemerinsky’s flawed science:

…robust evidence lends strong support to our argument that vaccinations are essential to save children’s lives. But compulsory vaccinations also are crucial to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, such as infants, and those for whom vaccinations are medically inadvisable, such as those with compromised immune systems. Because there always will be a portion of the population for whom vaccinations will not work, achieving the highest vaccination rates possible for all others remains important.

If vaccines are “safe and effective” then shouldn’t the weakest in the community be able to tolerate them? If they are “protective” why did the U.S. Supreme court rule in 2011 that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe?”

Officials do not believe that any “right” exists outside State “rights,” which are  privileges that can be denied as easily as they are granted. Masters are deconstructionists that write laws and change definitions to advance their agenda to abolish Property Rights. Chemerinsky writes:

Simply put, the government’s interest in protecting children and preventing the spread of communicable disease justifies mandatory vaccinations for all children in the United States.”

The government’s only true “interest” should be to protect the liberty of the people. Any other interest for “safety” or “security”or “Public Health” is a ruse to take the power of the people away. See Declaration:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

The Ruse of Scientific Consensus

Prior to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, it was scientific consensus in the South that defined slaves – mostly Africans or Negroes, as scientifically inferior. This consensus formed the foundation that excluded them from any rights guaranteed to others.

Today not much has changed. If the foundation for vaccine rights rests solely and exclusively on scientific arguments, then this is an admission that rights are privileges, based on scientific consensus. No Right was ever granted by scientific consensus and so no science can form the foundation for any abolition of a Right. Science is a moot point when it comes to rights. Arguing the science keeps us slaves when what we seek is the power to make a choice about how we see the science.

Today, as in the past, the Globalist strategy is to control the opposition by becoming the opposition. The Occupy Wall Street movement was hijacked by NGO’s and other Foundations and eliminated. Globalists control both sides of the divide to generate controversy, incite riots, and create turmoil, only to swoop in to quell the chaos and restore order. Order – out of chaos. This is the Hegelian Dialectic of Problem, Reaction, Solution. Experts like Chemerinsky don’t seek to suspend the Constitution, but to abolish it though mandates using the Constitution.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. -City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).

How to Protect Rights?

The true Charter of Freedom on which America was founded is the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln said slavery was never expressed in the Constitution but was implied. The declaration, alone, is the legal foundation for freedom in a corrupt judicial system. The Constitution allows for the continuation of slavery and always will without the Declaration. How can we maintain our collective survival and the freedoms that are fast slipping away?

  1. Instead of fighting a never-ending fight over mandates, withdraw consent.
  2. Apply the Declaration of Independence. Self-determination means claiming responsibility for your rights to choose and affirming that you are a body and a soul.
  3. According the Declaration of Independence, our rights come from “God” (secular) not the State. Reaffirmation of “God” means a divorce from Postmodernism where “men” are god – above the law and without any moral compass.
  4. Refrain from arguing the science as the primary foundation for vaccine choice. The vaccine debate cannot become a distraction. If all rights are abolished, there will be no more discussion, no reason to argue the science.
  5. Under quarantine of sick and healthy people, it is impossible to gather communities together to become self-sufficient. Without the ability to create community gardens, create your own garden until you can merge your garden with others.
  6. Create a local Time Bank that barters for services.
  7. Avoid the cities.

A Coming Civil War?

We cannot allow Coronavirus, or any virus, to become a “race-to-the-bottom” and a divide-n-conquer exercise. New apps encourage people to “snitch” on their neighbors for disobeying quarantine.

We must expand the base. Refuse to consent to dictates that turn you into an animal.  Project your inner warrior for the desired outcome!

History will judge us not by our words, but by our actions, and in-actions. If countries continue to be locked down, and food is rationed, there will be a new Civil War. States may secede over basic human rights being lost. What then?

We need to see everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they are treated that way. If you have a free and prosperous society all of a sudden this group mentality melts away.” – Ron Paul

Print Friendly, PDF & Email