Monday, December 4, 2017

Asserting Your Vaccine Right to Religious Informed Consent

School children in California are not the only victims of the Mad Vaxxers. Health Care Workers are being told they "must" receive vaccines, usually especially the failed Flu Vax, [1] or they will lose their jobs. Children, especially in California, are being faced with the unlawful choice of a "free public education" or vaccine freedom of choice.

That is not the law.  Rather, the individual right to Informed Consent overrides any employer mandates. This was acknowledged just a couple years ago in my home state, New Jersey, by an Administrative Law Judge in a unemployment insurance case, where a nurse, refusing vaccines for philosophic as opposed to religious reasons, was held to have been unlawfully fired. [2]

A similar argument can be made with regard to childhood vaccine mandates. This blog entry focuses on employment issues, but many of the same concerns should invalidate any vaccine mandate, no matter who may proclaim it or against whom it may be directed.

We must acknowledge that the national political authority (in the USA, the FDA) seeks to "privatize tyranny" [3] by having heavily conflicted (in the USA, CDC) approval committees "recommend" vaccines which then become mandated by local government, school and work authorities. As such, this nominally private actors are acting "under color of law" and must abide by all constitutional restrictions.

It is the nature of the universal right to Informed Consent that you must assert the right or it may be deemed waived. However, if asserted, the right is viable, as the US Supreme Court stated in 2013 [4]

Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… 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…”

It is further the case that US Federal Law requires employers to reasonably accommodate workers' religious beliefs (so, for example, it has long been illegal to make Jews work on the Sabbath).

With these circumstances in mind, and with wonderful information posted at the Living Whole blog [5] I drafted the following suggested language for workers to include in their request to an employer to honor their exemption from vaccination.

You can further assert your right to Informed Consent with the Advance Vaccine Directive Card, available through Natural Solutions Foundation. [6]

When employers, school administrators and others are "acting under color of law" to enforce government or private regulations, they are bound by the civil rights laws to accommodate sincere, personal religious (or equivalent philosophical) scruples.

Here is the language I suggest:

I am seeking a Religious Accommodation in the form of a Religious Exemption from Immunization because of my strongly held personal religious belief that Immunization is against my single most sincere religious belief. That belief is that I am free to worship my God as I see fit as without prejudice as afforded to me by the Laws of the United States of America. 
You will accommodate me in the workplace with a Religious Exemption From Immunization. 
The Law supports my position on the matter, including: 
1st Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” - 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII section 201- 203.
201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. 
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202. 
Forcing me to defend my Religious Conviction for a Religious Exemption or that I do not meet some imaginary preconceived religious threshold is proof that you are being prejudiced against me and you are thus seeking to segregate from public access and from gainful employment. 
Any attempt to force me to believe as you do is to proselytize me from my religion into your belief system. May I remind you that it is illegal for you to force your religion on me in as much as I can not force mine on you. 
James Madison wrote The Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments [ca. 20 June] 1785 
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.” 
In closing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said this on June 6, 2017 
“Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law.” 
The Attorney General Continues, in Point 2 
“2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs. 
“The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s belief. Federal statues, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), supports that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, by a particular religious faith.” 
To Allow a Religious Exemption for one religion and not for my religion is to show you are prejudiced against me. 
Whether or not Immunization is central to, or required by any religious group with which I may be associated is irrelevant in this matter because for me to go against my religious belief is a sin. 
To deny any and all religions (or philosophies that hold the same position in a person's life as a religion) of a Religious Accommodation, or to allow one religion or philosophy an exemption over another is a violation of my civil rights protected by the Constitution, statutory and case law, and is tyranny! 
This is a total Violation of my Inalienable Right to be free to worship, and abstain from the physical act of Immunizations. Employers are required by Federal and State law to accommodate my religious belief. 
I am choosing to abstain from Immunizations because it is against my Strongly Held Personal Religious Belief. 
I do not give Informed Consent to any vaccination. 
The correct ICD-10-CM Code that applies is Z28.1 “Vaccination not carried out for religious reasons.” 
I certify that the above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. 


[4] Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US _ (2013) – 

Friday, December 1, 2017

Is the Liberty Movement Succeeding?

Short Link to this Blog Entry:

2018 Election Update: Libertarian Party
Now a Major Third Party

"My conclusion is that the time has never been better for the Libertarian Party to confirm its “major party” status, returning real democracy to the American federal republic.  Americans no longer have just two choices.  There is a third choice to Demoncrat and (G)OP politics-as-usual.  That choice is Liberty!"

----------- Original Blog -----------
The recent trend in Libertarian Party [ ] Presidential Vote Results is clearly upward: [1]

2008 - 523,715 - 0.40%
2012 - 1,275,971 - 0.99%
2016 - 4,488,914 - 3.28%

[Note that the 2016 total, when two former two term (G)OP governors carried the LP banner, was substantially larger than the 2.9 million vote difference between the two tax-eater parties.  October 2018 Update: a majority of Americans want a Third Political Party:]

I can hear Prof. Rothbard chortling!

As a result (and maybe also as an interrelated cause) the libertarian presence on social media continues to grow.  The number of people posting, for example, on the Libertarianism Facebook page escalates, as do the number of trolls. It seems that libertarian successes are being noticed and the trollocracy is on the roll. One of the recent pseudo memes has been "The LP has done nothing..." to advance liberty and, indeed, the very idea of liberty is waning in the new world order.

This is an example of a propaganda technique that attempts, in big-lie style, to ascribe to libertarians, a growing movement, the very failures of our chief opponents, the totalitarians of various stripes. 

This in the very same year that the world commemorated the 100th Anniversary of the Red Coup in Russia (the "November Revolution"*), initiating a century in which various versions of Socialism (Communist and Nazi alike) killed over a hundred million disarmed folk. 

That anniversary was not celebrated with joy anywhere on earth and happily the Red Menace of old was finally swept "into the dustbin of history." Yes, libertarians had hand in that most momentous event in 20th Century history. 

It was then young libertarians (like Prof. Jack Wheeler and then libertarian troubadour, later Reagan speechwriter, now congressperson Dana Rohrbacher) among many others interacting with anti-communists around the world (during the '68 - '89 period) which encouraged the Collapse of Communism -- that, and of course, the utter failure of central planning in the face of market innovation, and the extraordinary bravery of ordinary Eastern Europeans and Russians who finally faced down the freedom-destroying mega-state!  

It is worthy of note that about a half decade before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Red Army doctrine had loudly proclaimed that the "correlation of forces" had decidedly turned in the favor of the USSR.[3] No matter how powerful the State, the hubris of power always leads to its downfall. 

The liberty movement includes many organizations and advocates. NGOs such as the Mises Institute [ ] make the literature and commentary of liberty widely available. Others advocate for specific reforms to enhance liberty. They are an enduring source of deserved annoyance to the trollish army nipping at our heels.
Ama-gi -- Freedom

So, here was my response to the trollish claim that the LP has accomplished "nothing" --
The LP is just one of the more recent manifestations of a Liberty Movement that reaches back into American history, to before the Federal Republic. Read Murray Rothbard's 4 volume "Conceived in Liberty" [4] which covers our history to the time of the Constitution of 1787. 
Lysander Spooner identified 4 great monopolies that the Liberty Movement had to abolish to give us the opportunity for developing in freedom. They were: Chattel Slavery, the "Legal infirmities of women," the King's economic monopolies and State Churches. 
The Liberty Movement did quite well on those. It was up to succeeding generations to protect and extend freedom. We've done that in many ways, overthrowing all sorts of cultural limitations on personal expression.  
For example, recognition since the leading case on the matter in 1914 of the importance of the universal right to Informed Consent. [5] Or, for further example, the developing law built on the First Amendment, the Most Libertarian Clause in the Constitution. 
I would say that Libertarians, as inheritors of the tradition of Liggett, Warren, Thoreau [6], Spooner, Mencken, Taft, Goldwater and Ron Paul, are doing just fine as the only real opposition to the American Empire, and as the only true heirs of the Old Republic.
While the LP leadership does not always act as though it understood that the party is part of a larger Liberty Movement, it remains true that its success depends on that larger movement. 

Those who fear liberty seek to attack the voluntary associations that promote the ideas of liberty. This should not surprise us. The marketplace of ideas remains a free market, where the old state and corporate monopolies over "the press" have ended and each of us can express our commitment to liberty. How could the actualization of the goal of full personal liberty not succeed in such conditions?

Links to Some Previous Blog Postings on Libertarian Political Philosophy

[A]   Libertarian Foreign Policy:  
[B]  The Prolegomena to any Future Politics:
[C]  Privatizing Tyranny:
[D] Americans Want a Third Major Party:
[E]  Identity Politics: The Superstition that Divides
[F]  Voting 3rd Party: Only Vote that Counts
[G]  The Deep State and Crony Corporate Media

Follow-up Note [05 Feb 2018]:  Facebook controversy escalates over the claim that the LP leadership has intentionally excluded Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano from speaking at the upcoming party convention.

Here is my comment about that development:
What is wrong with LP excluding Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano is that it sends the wrong signal to the growing Liberty Movement. When the (G)OP excluded Ron Paul from their convention in 2012 it signaled an exit from the Old Party that gave Obama a second term. The LP is just one expression of the Liberty Movement and while important, it is not the controlling factor. The LP needs alliances with the broader movement to continue to grow and gain more votes. The LP's purpose is electoral politics, while the Movement's purpose is expanding Liberty. Not the same. As a Movement we need "celebrities" to popularize the the cause of Liberty so what the LP is doing is a mistake. I suspect there is an irrational element in the LP that wants to "control" the more consistently radical Rothbardian FMA views represented by and sees Ron Paul and Judge Nap as part of that more radical wing (although Paul is not AnCap he is a supporter of the Institute; Judge Nap is well-known at Mises University and is a consistent libertarian). I've written a bit more about the Movement here:
Follow-up Note [26 October 2018]: Gallop Poll Shows Continuing Third Party Support


2d Follow-up Note [12 July 2019] Chris Powell posted 2 graphs on Facebook which up-date some of the themes in this blog posting, so here they are:

-------------------------------Notes for original blog entry:


[5]  My Brief on Informed Consent here:
[6] See the Essay on Civil Disobedience where Thoreau references "my friends the no government men..."

* Also known as the "October Revolution" due to a change in calendars.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Comments to FDA at -- Pre-DSHEA Ingredients List

Filed 26 September 2017
Filing Receipt No. 

In Re: Development of a List of           }
Pre-DSHEA Dietary Ingredients         }
Docket FDA-2017-N-4625 

Ralph Fucetola JD states as though under Oath:

1         1. This Statement is submitted as a Comment to FDA docket 2017-N-4625 in advance of the Noticed Public Meeting of October 3, 2017.

2     I am a retired Attorney-at-Law and hold a Juris Doctor Degree. I practiced law from 1971 through 2006 in New Jersey and am a Notary Public.

3     In determining regulatory standards for producing a List of Pre-Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) Dietary Ingredients (herein, the Pre-DSHEA List), the Food and Drug Administration should, among other factors, consider the relationship of the ingredient to the normal structure and function of the body.

4     Any substance or compound that was part of the food chain on the DSHEA “grandfather” date in 1994 (and not thereafter chemically changed) should be included by reference in any Pre-DSHEA List as such substances or compounds are “grandfathered” by the explicit terms of the Statute.

5     Such substances or compounds, at a minimum, should include all substances found naturally in mammalian, including human, bodies, including compounds produced by such bodies.

6     An example of a substance or compound actually produced by mammalian, including human, bodies and therefore part of the food chain to be considered “grandfathered” and part of any Pre-DSHEA List is Cannabidiol, or CBD.

7.     This substance or compound is also found in the hemp plant and other sources. It is not an intoxicant. It is a human neurotransmitter and a normal part of the cannabidiol neurotransmitter system in the human body.

8.     In 1995, while I was in practice as an Attorney-at-Law I was retained by the Life Extension Foundation to represent two of its members who had been arrested in New Jersey when importing DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) a hormone which is a normal part of the human body.

9.     It was believed by the New Jersey authorities that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) had “scheduled” DHEA as a controlled substance. That belief was false. No such “scheduling” had occurred or could occur. Eventually the charges were dropped and an order was signed determining that DHEA was a normal part of the human body, not declared “contraband” by government authority. A copy of the Order closing the cases is posted here:

10. It is my professional opinion that a substance or compound, native to mammalian, including human, bodies, and not being an intoxicant, is a Pre-DSHEA Dietary Ingredient and should be included in any such Pre-DSHEA List.

11. It is my professional opinion that Cannabidiol (CBD) is such a substance or compound.

I certify that the statements made by me in this Comment are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I recognized that I am subject to punishment as for perjury if any are willfully false.

26 September 2017

Ralph Fucetola JD                                                                                                 

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Vaccine Pushers Push Back
Against Conscientious Objectors

These past several years, across the so- called Civilized World, from California to Italy; from France to Australia, alleged democracies are adopting draconian laws to force parents to vaccinate their children against their wishes and beliefs.

Initially, decades ago, laws were adopted requiring a limited number of childhood vaccines as part of public school attendance. All these laws allowed doctors' medical excuses for individuals who were, in the words of the US Supreme Court, "not fit subjects for vaccination..." (Jacobson v Massachusetts, 1905). Nearly all allowed religious and or other conscientious exemptions.

In the middle of the 20th Century the international law of Informed Consent, developed in response to horrendous violations of the dignity of the person during World War II.

“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.” (the Nuremburg Code)

The roots go back much further, to case law holding that a physician who engages in a medical intervention without the Informed Consent of the person commits an assault and battery (Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp, 1914).

As recently as 2013 the US Supreme Court (Missouri v McNeely) reiterated understanding of the law: even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… 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…”

For reasons about which we could speculate our elected representatives have forgotten these salutory limits on their authority.

It started in California where a measles outbreak triggered among the vaccinated became the excuse for a new law, SB277, which conditioned attendance at school upon receiving dozens of vaccines, with no religious or philosophical excuse allowed. Gov. Jerry Brownshirt signed the bill although the California Constitution guaranteed a "free public education" to each child. Apparently lawyer Brownshirt had never heard about "unconstitutional conditions" -- making someone surrender one right to gain another.

And the ball began to roll. Australia adopted a law conditioning child financial benefits on vaccination, with only medical excuses allowed. For many families the choice became having food on the table or vaccine-free children. This law was adopted despite clear constitutional language protecting the universal right to Informed Consent.

More recently both Italy and France have seen forced vaccine laws, met in Italy with mass demonstrations against the new requirements.

People across the world are rejecting these requirements and asserting their rights to Informed Consent --

So now the vaccine enforces have raised the ante again. The Australian Government just introduced a law, with the full support of the "Opposition," making it "child abuse" to refuse to subject your child to what courts around the world have called "unvoidably unsafe" vaccines. Doctors in Australia who are issuing medial exemptions are having their licenses suspended.

Late last year the US Congress adopted the "21st Century Cures (sic) Act" which, among other impositions, unlawfully exempts drug companies from obtaining written Informed Consent in certain circumstances.

Around the world it goes. The power of the vaccine pushers appears to be acendant, but, in reality, what is happening is that the opposition to forced vaccination is growing so rapidly that the Government-Pharmaceutical Complex is forced to move to ever more draconian measures to enforce the vaccinate-at-any-cost policy.

As the science becomes ever more clear, that vaccine-free children are significantly healthier than vaccinated children, the profit-driven urgency of the vaccine pushers becomes ever more desparate. That is why the recent call for a Five Year Childhood Vaccine Moratorium has been met with such feined horror, with nations like China (the world's #1 vax toxin producer) cheering on Australia's recent decsions to ban vaccine freedom campaigners from traveling to Australia, as threats to "public order."

The globalists push back hardest just before their anti-freedom policies collapse.

Push back against the vax pushers by demanding the Five Year Childhood Vaccine Moratorium here:

What will that accomplish? When implemented it will save at least 250,000 children in the USA alone from developing autism, and over 15,000 babies dying from "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" -- SIDS, another name for vaccine injury. And that's five years worth fighting for.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Privatizing Tyranny

Privatizing Tyranny
Liberty and the Crony Corporate State

Short link:

When Governor Jerry Brownshirt of California signed SB277 into law in 2015 he gave California parents an unconstitutional[1] choice between their child receiving the so-called “free public education” promised by the California Constitution, or, their family exercising the universal right to Informed Consent by interposing their conscientious objection to vaccines.

The California governor violated basic norms of civilization. He enlisted not just the government’s schools, but even private and religious schools in his plan to force children to receive dozens of “unavoidably unsafe” and uninsurable vaccines. The state pretends to recognize our traditional right to freedom of choice, but it actively seeks the abrogation of that right.

During the early centuries of the Roman Empire the old forms of the Roman Republic also remained, with annual Consular elections and traditional magistrates. But that state had in fact been turned over to the Imperator who had life and death power over all others. “I am the only free person in Rome.” Caligula

The ancient city had no room for liberty. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, commented,

"The city had been founded on a religion and constituted a church. Hence its strength; hence, also, its omnipotence and the absolute empire which it exercised over its members. In a society established on such principles, individual liberty could not exist. The citizen was subordinate in everything, and without any reserve, to the city; he belonged to it body and soul. The religion which had produced the state, and the state which supported the religion, sustained each other...”

That ancient order was, it is said, overthrown in recent centuries by the great liberal (in its original sense) revolutions which established the primacy of individual freedom,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[2]

Control over most humans had been maintained for millennia through the use of religious and, later, political ideologies inevitably justifying the dominance of the few over the many, even when the controllers pretend to speak for, and protect,  the "majority".

Through the use of what early freedom theorists such as the American abolitionist Lysandor Spooner saw as the great monopolies created by political power, this strict social control dominated human society for most of its existence. These included the monopolies over conscience embodied by state religions, over the bodies of certain people (e.g., chattel slavery; prisoners, war captives, caste system members, etc.), or the property rights of approximately half of the species (the legal “infirmities” of women, etc.) and over all property through royal claims to “own” the land and economic activities of a territory (feudalism and mercantilism).

But in more modern times the structure of bureaucracy itself has been redesigned to become, not just to serve, the control system. Consider, for, example, how the regulatory structure of the Military Draft was used in the USA during the 1960s and ‘70s to “channel” students into certain fields, such as science, engineering and weapons design, which were considered of benefit to the state.

Now we see the same process at work with the incessant demands for ever more vaccines, and for forcing adults and children to receive all the vaccines that crony corporatist-tainted science can concoct without regard for either scientific validation or personal rights.

However, in 2009, during the Swine Flu Vax Panic, the would-be tyrants, who planned to vaccinate every American “starting with the volunteers” with unsafety tested vaccines (with the supply “stretched” by adding the adjuvant Squalene, at levels shown to cause irreversible infertility in Patents held by the US government) found themselves stymied by a population that refused to cooperate and who, in the millions, told their “representatives” so.  The plan collapsed and even the first responders were able to escape state vax mandates unharmed, though that took a law suit. There was no pandemic.

The incipient tyrants learned an important lesson from the power of our Push Back: overt Federal mandates will be resisted.

That is when we began to see the authorities passing off the mandates to allegedly private actors for enforcement. While we will see, below, how this privatizing of tyranny works to increase censorship and impose unlawful financial controls, the vax mandate gambit remains a primary example of this political process.

The drug companies (the most crony of the crony corporatist interests) start by obtaining a Patent for their vaccine or other drug. A Patent is a monopoly grant of power from government. The regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and FTC, are obligated under US case law to deem the formal Claims in the Patent as legally substantiated – as “true.”

So the FDA does not have to look further than the Patent when approving a vaccine for use. First the FDA accepts the drug company’s self-serving clinical trials which underlie the Patent and then it approves the vaccine. Then the CDC, another agency of the HHS department, “recommends” the use of said vaccine.

The CDC committee that does so is completely corrupted by crony corporate interests. So much so that they had to change the rules to allow the conflicted members to vote nonetheless, or there would never be a quorum.

One example: a so-called “ethicist” and physician from a famous children’s hospital, was allowed to vote to “recommend” a vaccine in which he had a Patent interest; his vote netted him tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile the US government, deeply involved in approving and disseminating vaccines, through mandates and sponsored propaganda, owns financial interests in over 50 vaccine Patents.[3]

After the CDC “recommendation” is voted the privatization of the mandate starts, with some local governments issuing mandates, but with private hospitals requiring staff to be vaccinated, even staff members who never have patient contact. Similarly schools join in the rush to increase their vaccine levels (as higher vaccination rates translate into more money for the institution) – in one particularly egregious example from 2007, Prince Georges County, Maryland revaccinated hundreds of children literally at gun point to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in Federal subsidies. The school system claimed it had lost the vaccination records of nearly a thousand children.

We now see a disturbing trend where private employers join the mandate madness although the businesses have nothing to do with health care.

This trend is building despite the fact that the courts  have clearly held that people retain their right to Informed Consent even where governments are restricting religious and philosophical conscientious objections to vaccination. Several years ago an Administrative Judge in New Jersey held that it was illegal to fire a nurse for refusing vaccines for philosophical reasons while the people were permitted to assert a religious conscientious objection to refuse the injection. [4]

As recently as 2013 the US Supreme Court upheld Informed Consent, stating,

Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… 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…” Missouri v McNeely 133 SCt 1553.

As a side note, McNeely teaches us that unless you assert your right to Informed Consent, it will be deemed waived. Assert your conscientious objection to forced vaccination with the Advance Vaccine Directive card, - an advance medical directive that must be respected by ethical health care professionals.

It’s not just vaccines where the tyranny is privatized. One can conceive of the so-called Affordable Care Act (or its potential “single payer” or even market-oriented replacements) as a law enfranchising insurance industry control over health care decisions, abrogating our right to Freedom of Choice in Health Care. Thus, government “death committees” and rationing of health care are privatized with the insurance industry acting as the depopulationist government’s surrogate.

Nor is it just health care where the tyranny is privatized. Consider the private prison system – almost the only “growth” area of American cheap-labor industrial production. But that is an issue for another time. Here, we focus on health, free speech and trade.

Our Freedom of Speech is under a world wide web of attack. While various authoritarian states make no effort to hide direct censorship of speech, the “advanced democracies” are more subtle. Germany, with no absolute constitutional protection for Free Speech, is contemplating empowering Internet Service Providers to refuse service to “hate groups.” At the same time the large international corporate controllers of the Internet, such as Facebook and Google, are already escalating content controls to enforce “political correctness” – if you don’t follow the Party Line, you cannot be heard.

These supposed private actors are actually exercising government authority. They are the privatized agents of control. They exercise this control on several levels. Each of these mega-corporations is, in fact and in law, “a creature of the state.” It is created by registration with government that gives it authorities (such as limited liability to third parties) which it could not exercise as a truly private association.

If the same Rule of Law that applies to truly private actors applied to government and its crony corporations, “content control” efforts would be understood to be exactly what they are: censorship. Real free market competition and technological progress would rapidly make the near-monopoly power of Google and Facebook irrelevant.

Yet another example of privatizing tyranny is Operation Chokepoint, the illegal US government program empowering financial institutions to deny service to otherwise lawful activities (including activities by private persons, nongovernmental organizations and businesses) where the government has not banned the activity but merely disfavors it.[5]

The sale of CBDs, cannabidiols, comes to mind. This neurotransmitter is made by human bodies and has a powerful role in maintaining homeostasis, neurological balance and immune system function [Rima E. Laibow MD calls it “The Holy Grail of Natural Health.”][6]

While the body makes CBDs, the most abundant source of CBDs from food is found in Hemp. CBDs do not get you high (that’s what the THC in Hemp does). Nonetheless, without explicit Congressional authority, the DEA, FDA and FTC are treating CBD as though it were contraband, as though government could have power to ban a normal part of our bodies.

(King Kanute commanding the tide to reverse itself comes to mind here).

Financial institutions licensed and regulated by the government are refusing to provide banking and merchant account services to companies that seek to satisfy consumer demand, although the US Supreme Court has held, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357, 2002:

"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."

Thus we see how government, ever seeking to extend its control over our lives, uses its crony corporate partners to impose detailed controls that would be politically impossible to impose directly. 

Internet Censorship, forced medical treatment, banning commerce... all privatized tyranny.

Exercise your expressive association communication rights here:

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson[7]

Ralph Fucetola JD
President, Institute for Health Research

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Libertarian Internationalism

Libertarian Internationalism
The Prolegomena to a Libertarian Foreign Policy*
Divesting Governments of Authority
To Micro-Manage Our Lives
Is the Only Path to World Peace
This Essay
In Memory of a Peace Warrior,

Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine
06 Feb 1930 - 06 Feb 2017

Video Version

We live in a world where the promise of peace and prosperity has become a lie used to empower a globalist elite with its genomicidal agenda, where relations among nations resemble the brutal behavior of thugs - a Hobbesian international order.

As the lack of intellectual viability of statism in its various racial, religious, national, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed, the need to articulate an alternative libertarian approach to relations among people of different cultures and "nations" becomes critical. As the nation state and its institutions (including internationals, such as the UN) become increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, post-singularity world, a market-oriented internationalism is urgently needed.

The juridical subjects of International Law, "International Actors," include nation states (even micro-states like the Vatican), certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN and its associated institutions (like certain privileged NGOs and "specialized agencies"). What is not included in this list are actual private persons, such as you and me, and even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.

The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from international relations.

We individuals don't exist in the currently dominant statist view of international law.

In the eyes of International Actors, we real people and our associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to libertarians. Libertarians understand, taught by Mises' brilliant philosophical exposition in his master work Human Action, that there is only one set of actual actors in human affairs: individual humans.

To paraphrase Mises: only individuals think, plan and act. 

The belief that collective nouns such as "state" or "corporation" or "class" and the like engage in human action is a superstitious delusion that has led to much human suffering.

Any truly humane international law must, going forward, take this grave error into account.

Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century's killing fields and nuclear incinerations. Consider the necessary role of statism in the imposition of what Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal "incapacities of women" and the King's trade monopolies.

Consider therefore the false "glories" of the State as a human institution. Consider it and condemn this most vile of accretions of a brutal past.
“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it also lies; and this lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." It is a lie! ... Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
As the vicious old concepts: chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, so called,  the very concept a "sovereign" government, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must be rejected.

Then we will see the great sweep of human history as the (not always steady) advance in knowledge and enterprise. We will see the inventors, creators, entrepreneurs, as the proper subjects of human admiration, leaving behind childish fascination with bright war medals, glittering crowns and presidential pomp.

Jefferson understood the essence of libertarian foreign policy: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none” .

The natural implementation of that view is the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founders of the American Republic.  That glorious era of non-interventionism lasted for over a hundred years (with notable lapses regarding Mexico, Mormons, native peoples, and two failed invasions of Canada). TR's reckless charge up San Juan Hill ended the policy of libertarian non-interventionism.

Libertarians always stand against war. Whether Thoreau asking Emerson why his friend was not in the jail cell with him for refusing to pay the Mexico War Tax, or Murray Rothbard telling my Viet Nam bound contemporaries exactly how "the coldest of all cold monsters" used selective servitude to centrally plan the welfare/warfare state.

Whether Warren, Tucker and Spooner decrying the uncivil war to make America safe for bureaucracy or Mencken poking at the hubris of the world war warriors, libertarian-Americans stood against every war since the Rebellion of 1776. And stood with every resistance since the Whiskey Tax Rebellion of 1791.

[1] So the very first principle of a libertarian approach to foreign affairs is Peace -- Anti-War.

Standing for peace, we stand with the victims of war, including those murdered "in our names" and those forced to pay for the carnage, "Trillions and trillions wasted..." Ron Paul

Libertarians understand that the main result of an interventionist foreign policy is death; millions of deaths... and the resulting "blow back" that brings the war back home. Do Americans really think we can escape the results of violating other people? For most of the years since the adoption of the Constitution of 1787 the Republic as been at war.

"War no more; war never again." Pope Paul VI.

Does that mean I oppose people overthrowing tyrannies by force? No. I applaud self-determination. Americans, however, have a special obligation to keep our "coldest of cold monsters" within its assigned borders. That means bringing all the troops home. The Founders understood that a standing army spread across the globe would be an invitation to disaster. We need to stop it. That's the best we could do for peace and freedom.

[2] The second principle must be Individualism. 

There is no "collective action" and no collective guilt. There is only individual Human Action. This must be the bedrock ground of any sane approach to international relations. The universal rights of real humans must be respected in international law and individuals must have standing to act internationally.

Chief among these rights is the Right of Informed Consent in all things pertaining to our bodies: As General Bert taught us, the individual's right to "Informed consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century."

[3] And the third, Free Trade. 

Despite the mercantilist errors being spouted by Trumpists and their (G)OP [reluctant] allies, protectionism is simply taxation -- and we are Taxed Enough Already. Whether penalizing companies for following market forces or imposing new tariffs, it is just tax policy and the incidence of the tax will fall where all taxes fall: on production of real goods and services, paid for by the consumers. Who benefits? The Bureaucracy.

In economic science the issue was settled literally centuries ago.

First, the market price is the just price. Therefore, any government imposition that restricts the market price must be unjust.

Second, as early as the Corn Law Debates in England in the 1830s it has been conceded by all thinking economists that free trade benefits those countries that adopt it, even if other countries continue irrationally to impose protectionist policies. If you read the economic literature and do the math, you will realize that protectionism is a con.

Peace -- Individualism -- Free Trade: lead to a libertarian world. 

As a practical matter, urgent steps in that direction require a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from political systems that is used to micro-manage Human Action. Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The direct political program therefore must be "abolish two old regulations for each new one proposed." And the same as to taxes and bureaus.

Just as the market price is the only just price we can know ( humans free to act with their own property (including their bodies) as they choose will make, on the whole, on average, the best choices. Far better than those being made for us by a self-appointed globalist elite that will do anything to maintain power and privilege, shrinking not even from genocidal weaponized pandemics.

The existence of international libertarian organizations, such as Libertarian Parties, Mises Circles and the like is very encouraging. Here is what the libertarian protesters in Brazil are saying:

L. von Mises understood it clearly. He warned us, from his vantage point of the 20th Century, the Century of Genocide, the consequences of statist interventionism:
"Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law. 
The elucidation and the categorial and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race." -- L. von Mises, Human Action
Libertarians need to apply Mises' profound understanding to our advocacy for a peaceful world.

Only then can we achieve human freedom, peace and prosperity.

* My Prolegomena to Any Future Political Philosophy is here: