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.