Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Does Candidate Trump Love Health Freedom?

I replied to a point on TEApartyorg.ning.com

So, does Mr. Trump really "love" the TEA Party as he says he does?* If he does he will love our Core Values and core issues.

Since Informed Consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century, and our right to choose health care alternatives is being heavily restricted by govt policy, what does Mr. Trump propose? A single payer health care (rather, illness control) system. Replace Obamacare with Trumpcare.

One of the main issues that moved the TEA Party forward from being just the worthy successor to the Tax Payers Movement of the '70s and 80s and becoming a powerful political movement was Obamacare (another being Audit the Fed).

Trumpcare reminds us that Romney lost because there was not a fiat dime's difference between his Romneycare and Obamacare, leading to 3 million 2008 (G)OP voters not voting in the presidential portion of the ballot in 2012 (but electing a (G)OP majority in both House and Senate).

Does the (G)OP get the message? They cannot win the presidency without TEA Party support.

Does Trump get the message? He will not get TEA Party support unless he supports our Core Values.

[As an aside, let me say that the primary issue I'm personally involved in at the present time is the issue of Informed Consent (to vaccination). Trump takes the pro-liberty position on that: govt has no legitimate power to force anyone to undergo any medical intervention. So I like Trump on that (to me) all-important issue. See my article on Informed Consent here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/a-brief-for-informed-consent/ ]

Back to the issues upon which we all must disagree with Trump, where he has to "compromise" with US to get TEA Party support. Telling us he "loves" us is NOT enough.

IMHO, here is what he has to say to get TEA Party support; if he fails us in these issues, we MUST oppose him. These are the TEA Party Core Values and we will not support any politician who flaunts them.

1. Constitutional Republic

He must make it clear that he will obey the Constitution in its Original Intent, unless formally amended.

He must make it clear that he will sign a wholesale repeal of the Obama Regulations and Executive Decrees on inauguration day. Like Reagan did, he must be ready to abrogate unlawful executive authority from Day One.

He must acknowledge that there is not provision in the Constitution for a Central Bank. The Fed Reserve must go and we must return to Constitutional Money. Will he even acknowledge that there is an issue with the FRN fiat "money"? This must be a core TEA Party litmus test.

Any candidate who will not END the FED cannot have TEA Party support.

2. Free Markets

He must acknowledge the role of enterprise and private businesses. He must show the distinction between govt-entangled crony corporations that cooperate in the growing tyranny and truly free markets that are self-regulating through market forces. As health care should be.

He must acknowledge that socialism can never work. Obamacare will work no better than the old post office.. But, more importantly, he must acknowledge that the attempt by the Federal authorities to fix the price of money (interest rates) is doomed to failure. Just like "one payer" public schools are rapidly collapsing under the weight of bureaucracy and polypharmacy, one central bank, socialized media of exchange are not just doomed to failure, but will rob us of our prosperity (and have!).

Is Trump ready to stand for the Market and against the Cronies? I seriously doubt it.

3. Fiscal Responsibility

Has anyone in the TEA Party heard Trump utter a word about restraining Fed spending? Would a President Trump expect Congress to obediently raise the Fed Debt every time he wants to spend more? Maybe on "single payer health care" for the cronies in Big Pharma?

The Fed Debt has been frozen since this past March and the sky has not fallen. Will Trump call for a continuation of the present Debt Limit? Will he call for a steady reduction in the so-called "ceiling"??
Let's see if Mr Trump really loves the TEA Party.

Well TEA Partiers, are you ready to go on record by joining me in asking candidate Trump to be candid and either stand with us or stop telling us he loves us.

We love our Core Values. If he loved us, he'd share those values. Does he?

* http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/12/donald-trump-defends-tea-party-left-leaning-crowd-love-tea-party/

Monday, September 28, 2015



Ralph Fucetola JD

Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right
Protected Against Diminishment Through
Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial
of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious
Objections to Mandated Vaccination.

In order vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions, including vaccination, even during any declared local, national or international Health Emergency, the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected, whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical, medical, religious or no reasons at all.

 The Bill of Rights’ Speech, Privacy and Association Rights underpin Informed Consent.  The United States Code recognizes Informed Consent in Section 3512 of Title 19 and specifically, 19 USC 3512(a)(1) and (a)(2). 

This implements the general law as applied to the protection of human life, mandated, in the instance of vaccination, by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts[1].

In 1914, Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, deeming medical intervention without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass.[2]

Federal Regulation acknowledges Informed Consent for formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) overseen experimentation.[3] The recognition of the application of Informed Consent during the less formal “final stage” of experimentation on drugs (including vaccines) released to the public is not adequately implemented by law or regulation, “…Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment's long-term risks…”[4]

With regard to all communications about health care decisions, the members of the public have the right to make informed consent decisions, even if a decision may be considered a “bad” decision by the Government. The Supreme Court indicated, in Thompson v Western States[5]:

"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."

“Section 3512. Relationship of [trade] agreements to United States law and State law, of Title 19 of the United States Code:

(a) Relationship of agreements to United States law
(1) United States law to prevail in conflict...
(2) Construction: Nothing in this Act shall be construed –
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to -
(i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health,
(ii) the protection of the environment, or
(iii) worker safety, or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 2411 of this title, unless specifically provided for in this Act.”[6]

Additionally, the Statutes authorizing the various Agencies contain general provisions that support the actions requested herein. Federal Law includes provisions that grant the Cabinet Secretaries broad authority to promulgate rules and regulations “necessary to carry out the Act[s].”

The United States is bound to observe the Nuremberg Code by virtue of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials[7] and subsequent exacting of justice through penalties, including the death penalty. The Geneva Conventions[8] require that the United States be bound by these international humanitarian principles. Thus the United States is treaty-bound to implement fully Informed Consent.

Even in an emergency situation the Government Agencies involved must take a pro-active role in the full implementation of Informed Consent without “the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion…”[9] The public has a right to know, and the governments on the federal and state levels have an obligation to provide, clear information regarding the Informed Consent, to the end that government approvals, requirements, mandates and recommendations are understood to be subject to the Right of Informed Consent. Intervention by the courts must vindicate this Right.

Legitimate Government Regulation

Government Agencies have No Legitimate Interest
in Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates
in Violation of Informed Consent.

In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant "advertised himself as a 'nonmedical physician'... [and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by 'a system of drugless healing'..." p.401. That Court held that there could be no "state system of healing" p.402 and while "Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined...those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the 'practice of medicine and surgery' as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases..." p.402.

There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being. 

The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, nearly a century ago in 
State v Biggs, supra., at p.405: 
"Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, 'Forbid them not.'" (p.405).
 FDA approved drugs, including vaccines, remain in an experimental state, which the FDA calls “Phase 4” of the clinical trials system.[10]
Unless affirmatively and effectively asserted an individual’s Fundamental Right to Informed Consent, the legal ability to resist unwanted medical interventions, such as vaccines and other invasive techniques, may be ignored by the medical system under government directive. Based on the ancient legal principle that “silence is acquiescence”[11] martial law or medical emergency authorities may presume that you consent to even experimental medical interventions, as we saw imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola Panic[12]. The same is true of medical practice in “ordinary times”.

After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could - the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.

A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience and that all medical interventions were to be carried out only with fully informed [and therefore meaningfully willing] consent.
This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “I will take care that [my patients] suffer no hurt or damage” and
“Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone…:[13]

Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration[14]and the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment… Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…”[15]

“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”[16]

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”[17]

This salutary development of international law has continued with international standards promulgated, such as the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration, UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration[18] about which it has been said:

Even apart from article 7 of the ICCPR, ethical requirements for informed consent before medical or scientific treatment probably constitute international law as involving “general principles of law” under article 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The reference to “civilised nations” in this context could well introduce an ethical requirement to such evaluations that many contemporary developed nations may fail.[19]

Defining Informed Consent

“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of Right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to ‘informed consent.’ Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.”[20]

Where there is no recognition of the legal duty to obtain informed consent, the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it may unlawfully assumed or deemed to have been waived. International Humanitarian Law is clear: without clear, affirmative, memorialized informed consent, it must be concluded that Informed Consent has been withheld.

The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed.[21]

The Court opined,
 “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” (page 15; emphasis added).
If the removal of blood “implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “unavoidably unsafe”[22] will also give rise to such concerns.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes certain Rights held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government. Without clear respect for those Rights, the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society, including the Right to Informed Consent.

An earlier Supreme Court understood this, when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination.

While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake:

…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.”  [Emphasis added.][23]

In a regime of verbal obscuration of fundamental Right, only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “by a thousand (bureaucratic) cuts…” If McNeely had not engaged in protected speech stating he did not consent, the taking of his blood would probably have been allowed.

The question then becomes, “How is one to effectively assert the Right to Informed Consent, enshrined in International Humanitarian Law, for oneself and those over whom one has guardianship?” Thus, there is a need for a clear Regulation that protects the Right whether exercised by Advanced Medical Directive or otherwise, in situations that do not involve a formal IRB.

The Government Action Imposes an
Unconstitutional Condition
on the Constitutionally Protected
Right to Informed Consent

The well-established law of Unconstitutional Conditions has particular relevance in any case before the Court where a party is faced with the harsh choice of vaccinating the child or having the child banned from the public benefit of public education, required by law for all children. The regarding school vaccine mandates where the parent is faced with with denying her own expressed religious beliefs (beliefs thereby protected under the First Amendment) or denying the child access to public education.

This is precisely the type of duress condemned by the Nuremberg Code.

It is also clearly conditioning the acceptance of a public benefit on the surrender of a right.

The law of Unconstitutional Conditions is well-represented in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Courts it oversees. We do not pretend to more expertise on the issue than the Court’s own pronouncements.

The Supreme Court first mentions the phrase in Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535, 543 (1876) (Badley, J., dissenting) “Though the State may have the [police] power… it has no power to impose unconstitutional conditions…”

In Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583,594 (1925) the Court held it “would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise ot withhold… it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.”

More recently the Court applied the principle to First Amendment speech rights arising from expressive association issues directly in point here where First Amendment protected religious expressive association is involved. In Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958) 
“In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.”
And finally, of particular note is the statement in Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972):
“…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.”
It was not for no reason that the Founders grouped together in the First Amendment Religious Liberty, Speech, Assembly and Petition Rights. Rather, these stated Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to be, together, “expressive association.”


We consider meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care required by International Humanitarian Law. Truly, no free person should be forced to consent to mandated medical interventions.

There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government, or persons acting under color of state law, as are those who act to abrogate conscientious objections to mandated vaccines, can force a free and competent adult (or a child under the protection of such adult) to receive any medical treatment. That the treatment may be vaccination, which is not merely experimental and (sic) preventative but uninsurable and, according to many courts, “unavoidably unsafe” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make. Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person, rather than a slave. 

No free society can tolerate any such imposition.

 “Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” – Thomas Jefferson[24]

[1] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) wherein the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake: “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.”  [Emphasis added.]
[2] “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.” - Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
[5] Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 - 535 U.S. 357)
[6] 19 USC 3512
[10] “Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment's long-term risks, benefits, and optimal use, or to test the product in different populations of people, such as children.” Downloaded July 8, 2015: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm
[11]qui tacet consentire videtur” – “Thus, silence gives consent.” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit", that is, "when he ought to have spoken and was able to". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29
[14] The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
[18] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html which provides: Article 6 – Consent - 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. Article 28 - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity… [Emphasis added]
[22] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html
[23] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

History and Politics of Federal Vaccine Intervention

History and Politics of Federal Vaccine Intervention* 

Tell Decision Makers No Forced Vaccines! 
Protect Vaccine Conscientious Objectors 
Please Share with this link: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=24914 . 

VACCINATION: Dictionary.Reference.com definition: "Noun, Medicine/Medical. The act or practice of vaccinating; inoculation with vaccine." Inoculate is relevantly defined as: "Verb - 1. to implant (a disease agent or antigen) in a person, animal, or plant to produce a disease for study or to stimulate disease resistance." 

Vaccination as a medical practice arose in Europe at about the same time as homeopathy, during the early 1700s. The practice may have also arisen in the mid 1500's in China. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination#History

Is vaccination safe and effective? The efficacy of vaccination has been challenged by holistic physicians. See, for example, http://tinyurl.com/DrRimaIndiaPaper

Vaccination has been determined to be "unavoidably unsafe" Bruesewitz vs Wyeth.

One of the primary ways the federal government is able to make policies for the states is when it makes the states dependent on federal money. But before the money can flow, there must be a perceived problem that only government is thought to be able to address.

The first widely noted Federal intervention into the vaccine issue was in 1905 in the case of Jacobson v Massachusetts. In my view the case stands for the proposition that the Federal Courts have power to intervene in vaccine matters when the safety of the recipient is at risk. I discuss that case in more detail here: http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-open-letter-to-judge.html

But let's start some time later, in 1976 when the First Swine Flu Panic happened. We were warned about a deadly new flu that would be "worse than 1918" -- the Great Influenza Pandemic** -- and the public bought into the vaccine company propaganda, reinforced by dire CDC pronouncements. Millions lined up for the shot; hundreds died; no pandemic materialized and the vaxx companies, facing hundreds of law suits, pulled the toxic brew from the market. Vaccine drugs were shown to be uninsurable risks.

So what it Big Pharma do? It went to Congress and cajoled its well-paid politicians, and threatened to stop making vaccines unless Congress protected the industry from the laws of the marketplace. 

[BTW, a few decades later, when the herb Ephedra was linked to three deaths of people who were at high risk and abused the herb, and the insurance companies told the vitamin companies there would be no insurance coverage for Ephedra, the companies did not slink off to Congress with threats and bribes; rather, the industry stopped providing the product. The market spoke; the companies responded.] 

In the case of vaccination, however, Congress went to work for its crony paymasters and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was born.

We lost our rights to sue for the foreseeable harms of vaccination. Now consider HR-2232, pending in Congress (below). This new bill threatens to withhold grants to state departments of health if they retain religious and philosophical exemptions to mandated vaccines. Consider also what the government might not have known in the mid 1980s: vaccines must cause harm -- which is what it knows now, since the Supreme Court told it, that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

Consider that the new Federal forced vaxx bill, HR-2232, means there would be a strong economic incentive for states to rescind existing philosophical and religious conscientious objection
exemptions, and make sure medical waivers are not easy to obtain. We discuss that bill in more detail here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/congress-to-punish-states-that-protect-vaxx-conscientious-objectors/

How did the federal government manage to get involved in vaccine funding? That was legislation known as NCVIA of 1986. 

The bill made federal taxpayers liable (thru arbitration) to pay tort claims against corporations that manufacture vaccines in the US. . The bill [as adopted] expressly prohibited tort lawsuits against vaccine makers. Some public figures such as Dr. Anthony Morris explained that the bill would be a disaster for parents. They warned that once the federal government has an economic stake in something, it believes it has the license to make policy on that something. 

[BTW, although I use the pronoun "it" when referring to government, we do understand that we are talking about specific people engaging in specific human action; there is no "government" doing this; there are plenty of human persons acting as though they were automatons under the control of some collective entity they call "government." Moral choices are always individual choices.]

Soon after the bill was adopted and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established, CDC forced states to adopt vigorous mandates for school vaccination, or else lose federal money. Just like Rep. Wilson's bill HR 2232 is doing now with respect to religious and philosophical exemptions.

There was great naivete in trusting the CDC to make vaccines safer; to believe that drug companies, relieved of legal responsibility would make vaccines safer. 

Some who believed in vaccine efficacy were alarmed that the normal market forces "prevented" vaccine makers from getting their dangerous products insured. To them, that was a bad thing! . But to many parents, it was a good thing. Unsafe products should not be sold. The free market worked. But those who believed in the efficacy of government action (sometimes referred to as "statists") threw a monkey wrench in the works.

What they ended up doing was not only getting unsafe products to market, but making them compulsory (for school), and making the producers free from all legal liability. . Only someone with unlimited faith in government benevolence could do such a thing. One who believes in "the common good" and "government knows best" with "one-size-fits-all" policies.***

We saw the same process of threatening removal of Federal government funding used to commit a horrid vaccine atrocity in 2007. It too is part of the backstory for what is unfolding in Congress, as are the recent adoption of a forced vaxx law in California (SB277) and the defeat of such laws in several other states. 

In 2007 Prince Georges County, a majority Black county, found that significant federal funding was about to be lost due to low vaccine rates. Over a thousand children, and their parents, were summonsed to the County Court where a State's Attorney who did not vaccinate his own children ("too dangerous") oversaw, with a State Judge, the vaccination, sometimes for a second time as the schools had lost the records, of hundreds of children. The parents were not informed of their basic human right to Informed Consent nor were they told of Maryland's vaccine exemptions. They were herded into Court between lines of police with dogs. No child's medical history was taken. More about that here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/tiburon-declaration-on-compulsory-vaccination/ 

That's what Rep. Wilson's bill would do, initially to all Head Start children. 

And entirely based on the use of Federal Funds, taken from the Taxpayers, and dangled before State, County and Local officials. That it is unlawful to force someone to surrender a right (such as the right to Informed Consent) to receive a public benefit does not seem to have been even considered by the vaxx pushers. . Thus in 1954 the Supreme Court unambiguously held that government could not do this. Speiser v Randall -- the Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions is discussed in detail here: http://www.rbs2.com/duc.pdf

Alas, the history of bad Federal policy decisions regarding vaccination continues before and after Rep. Wilson's bill. Back in 2009 was the Second Swine Flu Panic... this one involving about $7 billion Taxpayer Dollars wasted on the unsafety tested vaccine which very few people were willing to accept. With 3.5 million emails generated through our Educate Decision Makers system and mass refusal to cooperate, the whole program floundered when efforts to mandate the vaccine for First Responders failed.

And in recent weeks, after the minor measles outbreak, among the vaccinated, at California Disneyland early in 2015, we have the formerly-pro-choice Gov. of California signed the draconian SB277, abrogating our conscientious objector rights in California, joined during the past few days by the two US Senators from California who want Federal vaccine mandates for all...

Tell Decision Makers No Forced Vaccines! Here: http://tinyurl.com/vaccinationISviolation Protect Vaccine Conscientious Objectors .
New House bill creates federal vaccine mandate All federally-recommended shots required, no parental exemptions. Here is what Capwiz Issues says about the bill: . Florida Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson (D-24) has introduced a bill, House Resolution H.R. 2232, that will require all states to mandate all students enrolled in public schools receive all the vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Policy, a federal body compromised of vaccine-industry representatives, which includes vaccines for HPV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, Paul Offit?s rota virus vaccine, annual flu shots, and dozens of others. States that do not comply will not be eligible for grants for "preventive health services" under the Public Health Services Act. . And please call Rep. Wilson's office in Washington, DC, and let them know politely why this bill is a bad idea: Rep. Frederica S. Wilson, 202-225-4506 . Wilson's bill, if passed, would for the first time establish a federal vaccination requirement to attend school. Current vaccines policies are set by the states, but with the increasing federal control over schools with No Child Left Behind and the Common Core, Wilson?s bill maybe an indicator of what is coming. This bill would also deliver to the vaccine industry two of their primary goals: completely removing any parental involvement in vaccine decisions for our children, and requiring the entire ACIP schedule, which no state currently does. . Exemptions would not be allowed for either religious or secular reasons. Medical exemptions are quite tenuously allowed provided a physician submits a letter demonstrating (to the satisfaction of the individual in charge of the health program at the student's school) that the physician's opinion conforms to the accepted standard of medical care. So the final authority rests with the person in charge of the health program at the school who probably would not be a physician, and this language obviously allows the physician's judgment to be overridden by anyone who disagrees with the exemption, regardless of that person's qualifications. They aren't even required to examine the child, or even the child?s medical records before overriding a physician. . As a Democrat in the House there is little likelihood Wilson's bill will pass. As of today it has no co-sponsors, but similar legislation with stronger support may emerge and we must act to protect our rights and our children. This would be an unprecedented expansion of the federal government into an area of law and policy long recognized as the preserve of the states. . The bill would allow anyone, without any medical training, to override the medical decision of a physician. . It ignores the principle of informed choice as the bedrock of any ethical medical procedure, and eliminates any parental say over what is injected into their child's body. . It violates the ethical code of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which requires that vaccines should be administered only to minors with the informed consent of a child's parents. . This bill is wildly out of line with existing state policy, 48 of which allow religious exemptions, and 19 states, where more than half of the American population lives, allow exemptions for secular reasons, essentially providing the parent final say on what is injected into their children's bodies. . H. R. 2232 defies the de facto vaccine standard of the developed democracies, which allow parents to make the final choice. There are no such things as required vaccines in Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, Ireland, Israel, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc. [Recently Israel joined the few jurisdictions that condition receipt of government support on childhood vaccination, apparently forgetting about the Nuremberg Code. RF]
Please share this message with friends and family and please post to social networks.

Tell Decision Makers No Forced Vaccines! 
Protect Vaccine Conscientious Objectors

* - We thank Gary Krasner of the Coalition for Informed Choice -- www.cfic.us -- for some of the "insider information" that formed the basis for this historical review... but it's not just history, because bad policy choices of three decades ago allow the bad policy choices of the present to continue. RF

** It is instructive to note that the 1918 Great Flu Pandemic that killed as many as 50 million people at the end of WWI appears to have been an example of a "perfect storm" unleashed against the war-weakened population of Europe, spreading to the rest of the world. If one were a eugenocidal maniac who wanted to trigger a pandemic, 1918 is the case study.

Since it has been proven that better nutrition, hygiene and sanitation (not vaccines) defeated the pandemic diseases [see: http://drrimatruthreports.com/pro-vaxx-statistics-lie/ ] the way to start a pandemic is to start with a weakened population (like, say, the war-wrecked population of West Africa just before the recent Ebola outbreak) with low levels of nutrition, hygiene and sanitation, and then send viral vectors at them [yes, we are all "vectors and victims" of pandemics; see: http://tinyurl.com/EndGHSI ].

That's what happened in 1918. Thousands of US soldiers were given an experimental live flu vaccine during basic training. Then they were given the new wonder drug aspirin to control the resulting fevers (preventing the fever from curing the flu; allowing the viruses to mutate into a more virulent version). Then they and their horses and the pigs and chickens they were to eat were herded onto cattle cars and the like, shipped cross-country to ports of debarkation where they were all crowded into ships for a long trip to Europe.

Once in war-ravaged Europe the troops went through war exercises in Spain where, among other stressors, they were subjected to mustard gas training. And so the Spanish Flu started... the perfect storm.

 *** The trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation find themselves agreeing with Gary Krasner's insider information and mirror his views in some of the language in this article.