Obamacare opponents in Ohio collect enough signatures to get constitutional amendment on fall ballot

(NaturalNews) After months of collecting signatures to get a constitutional amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , also known as Obamacare, on the November 8 ballot, Ohio residents opposed to the health care overhaul have finally achieved success. Reports indicate that the group Ohioans for Healthcare Freedom (OHF) helped spearhead a campaign that successfully collected the 358,000 signatures needed to allow Ohioans to vote on an amendment that would prohibit the Buckeye State from complying with Obamacare’s provisions. According to an Associated Press release, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has confirmed that supporters of the amendment successfully collected and submitted 427,000 valid signatures, which is nearly 70,000 more than the 358,000 minimum that was needed. And with the help of OHF’s 35,000 volunteers across the state, this groundswell of opposition to Obamacare in Ohio builds momentum for other states to follow the same course, and for the US Supreme Court to finally make a ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare. If passed, the Ohio amendment will prohibit any federal, state, or local law from forcing Ohio residents, employers, or health care providers to comply with any sort of official healthcare system. It will also prohibit the passage or enforcement of any law that tries to set a minimum mandatory threshold for individual healthcare coverage. “This issue would not be on the ballot without the blood, sweat, and tears of thousands and thousands and thousands of volunteers,” said Jeff Longstreth, campaign manager for OHF. “The message is clear: keep health care between doctors and patients, and keep bureaucrats out of it.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich has expressed his support for the amendment, as have numerous “tea party” and religious groups. Opponents of the amendment, however, have until August 5 to file a challenge. And if a challenge is granted, supporters of the amendment will be given ten additional days to gather more signatures. Sources for this story include: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ohio-health-care-question-apf-2905833599.html?x=0&.v=2

Supreme Court Justice Kagan lied about ties to Obamacare

(NaturalNews) President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, dubbed “Obamacare,” has been in litigation since it was passed last year. A number of federal courts have already issued rulings on whether or not the provision contained within the law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance is constitutional. Federal courts have differed on that point, with some ruling that the provision passes constitutional muster and other courts ruling it does not. For that reason, most legal experts believe that Obamacare will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. And at least one Supreme Court justice may not be the impartial arbiter of the Constitution she claims to be, at least on this particular issue. Some 49 members of Congress are pointing to what they have termed “contradictory” evidence regarding Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation testimony regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and say Kagan should excuse herself from all cases having anything to do with it. “We respectfully call upon the House Judiciary Committee to promptly investigate the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in preparing a legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during her tenure as Solicitor General,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the committee’s ranking member. “Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA,” said the letter. The letter is a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com and the Media Research Center , both of which allege that Kagan’s involvement in the case as solicitor general disqualifies her from ruling on any cases dealing with the law. “As you know,” the lawmakers wrote, “Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code establishes unambiguous conditions in which federal judges must excuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. According to the law, a justice should excuse themselves in cases where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity served as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” During her Senate confirmation hearings, Kagan was asked point-blank whether she had ever been asked her opinion regarding the underlying constitutional questions surrounding the law, or offered any views about it, to which she replied simply, “No.”

Stealth Vaccine Laws Allow Children to Consent to Vaccines

(NaturalNews) A current California bill, AB 499, would “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.”[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents’ knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: “Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for the prevention . . . of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases…”[2] I call these laws “Stealth Vaccine Laws” because they provide for the administration of vaccines without the word “vaccine” or “immunization” appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches for vaccine bills and laws using those terms. There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine bills and laws. First, they violate parents’ fundamental Constitutional rights. In Troxel v. Granville , 430 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child.” Troxel requires a “threshold showing of harm” that is lacking in the California bill and North Carolina law. Troxel also tells us that parents are presumed to be fit and to make decisions that are in their children’s best interests. So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent. Under Troxel , parents are presumed to be fit unless there is a showing of unfitness. So, child consent laws violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, unless they include the requisite “threshold showing of harm.” As a practical matter, this means that there must be an emergency, a significant harm or risk of harm before someone may make decisions on behalf of a child without a parent’s consent. Medical and other professionals already have this authority. Neither children nor parents have to consent to a child’s receiving treatment in a medical emergency where immediate intervention is needed to save the child’s life or avert serious harm. Proponents of child consent laws argue that there are some children who need the ability to consent to medical care, children whose parents can’t or won’t take proper care of them. But there are already measures in place to help children in those situations. State workers in Child Protective Services (CPS) and Social Services may seize custody of children when necessary to protect them from severe physical and/or emotional harm. And where parents are unfit, their fitness can be challenged and their parental authority given to other persons or agencies that are capable of exercising proper care of the children when they are not. If current laws are letting some children slip through the cracks, then by all means let’s take steps to fix the problem, but enacting laws that violate the Constitutional rights of all parents is not a proper solution. It is, however, a rather convenient way for the pharmaceutical industry to bypass parents to administer vaccines and other therapies directly to children (who are not likely to say ‘no’ to a doctor). And while parents may opt out of unnecessary medical treatments for their child that they can’t afford, child consent laws ensure payment for services every time–from the state. There is a second, narrower Constitutional issue in states that offer a religious exemption to immunizations (every state but MS and WV). For legal purposes, a child’s religious beliefs are deemed to be that of the parents. So, a law that would allow a child to consent to an immunization would violate parents’ First Amendment “free exercise” of religion rights. It doesn’t matter that few parents may actually be affected or that some children may accurately report their parents’ religious objections to vaccines. The fact that the law creates a situation reasonably likely to result in a Constitutional violation is sufficient reason for a court to rule that the law is unconstitutional. (For that matter, in states that offer philosophical or medical exemptions, state exemption rights of the parents could be violated as well.) Which brings us to an important point: A law is not officially “unconstitutional” merely because someone says so, or even if they present a compelling legal argument, as there is virtually always someone with an opposing view. Only a court may officially decide if a law is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the practical consequence of this is that states can and sometimes do enact laws that turn out to be unconstitutional, and they can do that whether legislators know of that possibility in advance or not. Once a law is enacted, it is “good law”–fully enforceable–unless and until it is repealed by the legislature, or deemed unconstitutional or otherwise uneforceable by a court. This means that pro-vaccine lobbyists can support the passage of unconstitutional bills that are profitable to the pharmaceutical industry, and they may succeed–unless we remain vigilant and successfully oppose them. The same is true for any other industry, of course. Big business can roll right over the Constitution, and get away with it to the extent that the citizens and legislatures allow it. This is something that should cause every one of us great concern. Child consent laws also fail the common sense test. Children, by definition, lack capacity–the judgment and maturity–to make important decisions for themselves. For this reason, they can’t enter into binding legal contracts and don’t even truly own their possessions (technically, their parents do). So, giving children authority for medical decision-making simply doesn’t make sense. Child medical consent laws not only put decision-making authority in the hands of those not able to exercising it responsibly, they do so by taking that authority away from the mature adult parents who are much more capable of exercising it responsibly. These laws are intrusive, an example of overreaching by the state into private family lives, a violation and interference with parents’ fundamental right to raise their children. If present laws leave some children’s medical needs unaddressed, let’s fix those laws. But taking authority away from all mature adult parents and giving it to immature children is irrational–a step that could only make sense only from the narrow perspective of those who stand to profit from it. Unless each one of us becomes legislatively active, more laws providing for the administration of vaccines and other unnecessary medical treatments will be enacted, because the pharmaceutical industry (among others) supports legislation to further its own bottom line–that’s the business of business. Health rights are not stagnant. We are either acting proactively to expand them, or we are passively allowing them to disappear. There is no safe middle ground! Join the NVIC Advocacy Portal and the Pandemic Response Project to stay informed and be active in vaccine legislative issues. In the meantime, go to your state legislature’s website to see if there are any stealth vaccine bills or laws in your state. If there are, contact your state representatives with your objections, and alert others to do the same. Meanwhile, I’m available to assist with U.S. vaccine rights and legislative issues. Sources for this story include [1] California Assembly Bill No. 499, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_499_bill_20110215_introduced.pdf [2] N.C.Gen.Stat. 90-21.5. Minor’s consent sufficient for certain medical health services, http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_90/GS_90-21.5.html [3] Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html

Are you a Sheeple? Take the Sheeple Quiz and find out

(NaturalNews) Have you herd about the Sheeple Quiz? Although most NaturalNews readers will easily beat it, it’s a fun quiz to find out how smart (or gullible) your friends really are. So let ‘em take the Sheeple Quiz! And then you’ll know whether they’re independent thinkers or just zombie-minded sheeple like the rest of the flock. Here’s the quiz. Choose “A” or “B” as the answer for each question, then check your score below. The Sheeple Quiz #1) The purpose of the mainstream media is to: A) Keep you informed. B) Feed you misinformation while keeping you distracted from the real issues our world is facing. #2) Social Security is: A) A financial safety net that makes sure people have a retirement income. B) A government-run Ponzi scheme that requires more and more people to keep paying in just to stay afloat and will ultimately collapse into total bankruptcy. #3) The fluoride dripped into municipal water supplies is: A) A naturally-occurring mineral. B) An industrial chemical waste byproduct. #4) When you donate money to find the cure for cancer, that money goes: A) To fund research programs that assess actual cancer cures for the purpose of freely sharing them with the public. B) To fund mammogram campaigns that actually irradiate women’s breasts, causing the very cancers that earn huge profits for the cancer treatment industry. #5) The national debt is: A) Under control and will be paid off in a few years. B) Out of control and will spiral into a runaway debt collapse. #6) GMOs will: A) Feed the world and prevent starvation. B) Threaten the future of life on our planet through genetic contamination and widespread crop failures. #7) The FDA protects: A) The people from dangerous medicines. B) The financial interests of the drug companies. #8) The EPA’s real agenda is to: A) Protect the environment. B) Protect the financial interests of the chemical companies whose toxic products destroy the environment. #9) The Federal Reserve functions to: A) Stabilize the economy and keep America strong. B) Loot the economy and control America’s economy for the interests of the few. #10) The purpose of TSA checkpoints at airports is to: A) Keep air passengers safe and secure. B) Indoctrinate Americans into surrendering to police state invasions of their privacy. #11) The practical function of the U.S. Supreme Court is to: A) Protect the constitutional rights of the citizens. B) Legitimize federal tyranny over the People by ignoring the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. #12) Vaccines are based on: A) Gold standard science that conclusively proves their safety and effectiveness. B) Quackery and fraud combined with a persistent medical mythology that utterly lacks a factual basis. #13) Herbs and superfoods: A) Are medically useless and cannot treat, prevent or cure any disease. B) Contain powerful plant-based medicines that can help reverse and prevent disease. #14) In Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, America: A) Led a humanitarian effort to save innocent people from tyranny. B) Waged an illegal imperialist war to occupy foreign nations and control their oil. #15) The U.S. Bill of Rights A) Grants you rights and freedoms. B) Merely acknowledges the rights and freedoms you already possess. Score your Sheeple Quiz To score your Sheeple Quiz, simply add up the total number of “A” answers. If you answered “A” 10 times or more… You are a total news-watching, gullible fairytale swallowing Sheeple! Be sure to keep taking those medications and watching more network news. Don’t bother thinking for yourself because you seem to be incapable of accomplishing that. If you answered “A” fewer than 10 times… You are sadly Sheeple-minded but there is hope for your rescue. Learn more about the world around you and train yourself to think critically so you can depart from the herd mentality. If you answered “A” fewer than 5 times… You are an unusually intelligent free-minded thinker who questions the world around you and doesn’t buy into the usual propaganda. You still got suckered on a few items, so there’s more yet to learn. But you’re on the right track! If you answered “A” exactly zero times… You are the complete opposite of a Sheeple. You’re independent minded, well informed and probably a regular reader of NaturalNews.com. Stay on track and question events in the world around you. Eat more superfoods to maintain your healthy immune system and cognitive function. Avoid the toxic chemicals in foods, medicines and lawn care products. Keep reading the alternative press and voice your intelligent views to others willing to listen. (But don’t waste your time on those who aren’t.) Thank you for taking the Sheeple quiz here on NaturalNews.

Supreme Court denies request to fast-track VA lawsuit against Obamacare

(NaturalNews) A petition made by officials in Virginia to expedite a lawsuit against the Obama health care overhaul has been ordered to run its normal course through the courts, according to recent reports. USA Today explains that rather than be heard now by the judges, the case will instead be handed off to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which is its next stop on the way to the Supreme Court. Filed just after Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” was signed into law on March 23, the Virginia lawsuit has received mixed opinions from the lower courts. Some US district court judges have ruled against the insurance mandate tenet of the health care bill, stating that Congress is in clear violation of the Constitution. Others have said the requirement technically falls under “interstate commerce,” and is thus enforceable under the law. Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has long stood against Obamacare, expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on the case as quickly as possible, but also admitted that it would have been highly unusual for the Supreme Court to make an expedited ruling on a case such as this prior to it having been heard by at least one lower appeals court. Though Virginia’s challenge of Obamacare encompasses only the provision involving mandatory insurance coverage, the entire bill has the potential to become void, that is if the Supreme Court eventually rules in favor of the plaintiffs. This is due to the “no severability clause” of the health care bill, which states that if one part of the bill goes, the entire thing goes. Earlier this month, Congress repealed the burdensome 1099 requirement of Obamacare, which would have tacked loads of new taxes and paperwork on small businesses. This repeal received bipartisan support, and many say the decision marks the eventual repeal of the entire health care bill (http://www.naturalnews.com/031990_1099_Obamacare.html). Sources for this story include: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-25-supreme-court-health-care.htm http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-02/virginia-health-care-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-says.html

Japan halts vaccines from Pfizer, Sanofi after death of four children

(NaturalNews) The deaths just keep mounting all across the world: Children are collapsing into comas and then dying, just minutes after receiving combination vaccines that have been deceptively marketed as “completely safe.” Last year, Australia temporarily banned flu vaccines in children after they were found to have caused vomiting, fevers and seizures (http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_Australia_vaccines.html). Today the damage from vaccines is emerging in Japan, where the health ministry has suspended the use of vaccines from Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis following the deaths of four children there who died within minutes after receiving these vaccine shots. All four children received combination vaccines, where multiple shots are combined into one high-potency injection. MMR is another example of a combination vaccine shot that combines vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. There is very strong evidence that vaccines are far more dangerous when given in combination than when given one at a time (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186). (http://www.naturalnews.com/030678_MMR_vaccine_brain_damage.html) The great vaccine damage cover-up What will now happen in Japan is that a group of vaccine safety experts will meet to discuss the vaccines, and no doubt most of the members of that group will be paid off by Big Pharma. Within a day or two, a statement will be issued that states there is “no causal relationship exists between vaccines and child deaths” and the vaccine program will continue as usual. The ongoing deaths of children will be ignored or explained away as “mere coincidence.” How many coincidences does it take to make a pattern? If you’re one of the brainwashed vaccine zealots, there is never a pattern . ALL deaths are automatically considered “coincidence,” no matter how many occur or how frequently they appear. A true scientist, of course, would observe the pattern and realize there is a cause-and-effect phenomenon taking place. But then again, vaccine zealots are nothing like real scientists. They are propagandists. This is how the vaccine industry operates every day: Lie to the public that the vaccines are 100% safe and effective, then deny any hint of vaccines causing damage to anyone. It’s a double-layer deception. First, there’s the deception that vaccines are safe (they aren’t, and the vaccine industry refuses to subject them to scientific clinical trials versus non-vaccinated children in order to prevent this truth from coming out), and secondly that vaccines don’t damage anyone. That’s yet another lie: Vaccines cause untold damage to the neurology of children and adults alike. Children are routinely killed by vaccines, and vaccines are being pushed in the false context that presumes vaccines are the only way to protect children from infectious disease in the first place. Nutrition actually works better, and it doesn’t kill children. But that’s not the choice presented to parents. The choice is either vaccination or non-vaccination. The choice is never presented as vaccination or vitamin D supplementation, is it? The real cost in human suffering If vaccines are so safe, then why do so many healthy young children suddenly collapse into autism in the hours or days following vaccination? Why is this neurological damage a global phenomenon that almost always occurs in children who are vaccinated? Why are non-vaccinated children so much healthier, more vibrant, more intelligent and more immune to infectious disease? The vaccine industry doesn’t want you to ask these questions. You’re supposed to just accept their propaganda, take your shot, and keep coming back for more, year after year. If your child gets autism, it your fault , not theirs (according to them). If your child collapses into a coma and dies, you have no legal recourse because the U.S. Supreme Court has made it illegal to sue for damages from vaccine companies (http://www.naturalnews.com/031453_Supreme_Court_vaccinations.html). The entire medical system has been configured to suppress vaccine lawsuits and deny the evidence of vaccine damage and death . The court system denies justice to anyone whose children are damaged or killed by vaccines. And parents who question the safety of vaccines are ridiculed by doctors and even called “baby killers” by Bill Gates, who has funneled tens of billions of dollars into mass vaccination campaigns despite the fact that vaccines are killing children . Of course, the vaccine industry claims its vaccines are saving far more children than they are killing (they claim their vaccines kill exactly zero children, by the way — a number that is an obvious lie). But even this argument falls flat when you consider that using nutrition to enhance immune function is far more effective than using vaccines. Even the Nobel prize winning Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, says you can cure AIDS with a strong, healthy immune system (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAFF5F717402273DE60822231FDE9D45). Much the same is true with nearly every other common infectious disease: Strong immune function resists infection far better than any vaccine. Vitamin D, for example, also works to prevent tuberculosis. The CDC has never admitted it publicly, of course, because the CDC is a political organization that protects the profits of the vaccine makers. When it comes to what’s real versus what’s just corporate propaganda, one thing is certain: Scientific facts have never stood in the way of vaccine profits . The vaccine industry has become an unstoppable death machine based on non-existent science and arrogant quackery. It has become a huge profit center for the medical industry, of course, because much of the damage caused by vaccines results in future medical care profits that feed the drug companies (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F6323813CFAFB8338173FB11D429). What’s clear from all this is that vaccines are great at one thing: Population control . “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” – Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html) As of this week, the population of children in Japan has been reduced by four. And more vaccine-induced deaths are no doubt happening all across the world that go unreported or are intentionally censored out the medical records. Sources for this story include: Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/japan-stops-use-of-pfizer-sanofi-vaccines-on-four-deaths-1-.html

Japan halts vaccines from Pfizer, Sanofi after death of four children

(NaturalNews) The deaths just keep mounting all across the world: Children are collapsing into comas and then dying, just minutes after receiving combination vaccines that have been deceptively marketed as “completely safe.” Last year, Australia temporarily banned flu vaccines in children after they were found to have caused vomiting, fevers and seizures (http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_Australia_vaccines.html). Today the damage from vaccines is emerging in Japan, where the health ministry has suspended the use of vaccines from Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis following the deaths of four children there who died within minutes after receiving these vaccine shots. All four children received combination vaccines, where multiple shots are combined into one high-potency injection. MMR is another example of a combination vaccine shot that combines vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. There is very strong evidence that vaccines are far more dangerous when given in combination than when given one at a time (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186). (http://www.naturalnews.com/030678_MMR_vaccine_brain_damage.html) The great vaccine damage cover-up What will now happen in Japan is that a group of vaccine safety experts will meet to discuss the vaccines, and no doubt most of the members of that group will be paid off by Big Pharma. Within a day or two, a statement will be issued that states there is “no causal relationship exists between vaccines and child deaths” and the vaccine program will continue as usual. The ongoing deaths of children will be ignored or explained away as “mere coincidence.” How many coincidences does it take to make a pattern? If you’re one of the brainwashed vaccine zealots, there is never a pattern . ALL deaths are automatically considered “coincidence,” no matter how many occur or how frequently they appear. A true scientist, of course, would observe the pattern and realize there is a cause-and-effect phenomenon taking place. But then again, vaccine zealots are nothing like real scientists. They are propagandists. This is how the vaccine industry operates every day: Lie to the public that the vaccines are 100% safe and effective, then deny any hint of vaccines causing damage to anyone. It’s a double-layer deception. First, there’s the deception that vaccines are safe (they aren’t, and the vaccine industry refuses to subject them to scientific clinical trials versus non-vaccinated children in order to prevent this truth from coming out), and secondly that vaccines don’t damage anyone. That’s yet another lie: Vaccines cause untold damage to the neurology of children and adults alike. Children are routinely killed by vaccines, and vaccines are being pushed in the false context that presumes vaccines are the only way to protect children from infectious disease in the first place. Nutrition actually works better, and it doesn’t kill children. But that’s not the choice presented to parents. The choice is either vaccination or non-vaccination. The choice is never presented as vaccination or vitamin D supplementation, is it? The real cost in human suffering If vaccines are so safe, then why do so many healthy young children suddenly collapse into autism in the hours or days following vaccination? Why is this neurological damage a global phenomenon that almost always occurs in children who are vaccinated? Why are non-vaccinated children so much healthier, more vibrant, more intelligent and more immune to infectious disease? The vaccine industry doesn’t want you to ask these questions. You’re supposed to just accept their propaganda, take your shot, and keep coming back for more, year after year. If your child gets autism, it your fault , not theirs (according to them). If your child collapses into a coma and dies, you have no legal recourse because the U.S. Supreme Court has made it illegal to sue for damages from vaccine companies (http://www.naturalnews.com/031453_Supreme_Court_vaccinations.html). The entire medical system has been configured to suppress vaccine lawsuits and deny the evidence of vaccine damage and death . The court system denies justice to anyone whose children are damaged or killed by vaccines. And parents who question the safety of vaccines are ridiculed by doctors and even called “baby killers” by Bill Gates, who has funneled tens of billions of dollars into mass vaccination campaigns despite the fact that vaccines are killing children . Of course, the vaccine industry claims its vaccines are saving far more children than they are killing (they claim their vaccines kill exactly zero children, by the way — a number that is an obvious lie). But even this argument falls flat when you consider that using nutrition to enhance immune function is far more effective than using vaccines. Even the Nobel prize winning Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, says you can cure AIDS with a strong, healthy immune system (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAFF5F717402273DE60822231FDE9D45). Much the same is true with nearly every other common infectious disease: Strong immune function resists infection far better than any vaccine. Vitamin D, for example, also works to prevent tuberculosis. The CDC has never admitted it publicly, of course, because the CDC is a political organization that protects the profits of the vaccine makers. When it comes to what’s real versus what’s just corporate propaganda, one thing is certain: Scientific facts have never stood in the way of vaccine profits . The vaccine industry has become an unstoppable death machine based on non-existent science and arrogant quackery. It has become a huge profit center for the medical industry, of course, because much of the damage caused by vaccines results in future medical care profits that feed the drug companies (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F6323813CFAFB8338173FB11D429). What’s clear from all this is that vaccines are great at one thing: Population control . “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” – Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html) As of this week, the population of children in Japan has been reduced by four. And more vaccine-induced deaths are no doubt happening all across the world that go unreported or are intentionally censored out the medical records. Sources for this story include: Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/japan-stops-use-of-pfizer-sanofi-vaccines-on-four-deaths-1-.html

Proposed new limits on vaccine exemptions: Are they constitutional?

(NaturalNews) Health authorities around the country are set on further restricting vaccine exemption rights, probably due to the growing awareness of vaccine problems and increase in exemptions around the country. Currently, proposed laws in Washington State and New Jersey would limit the ability of residents in those states to refuse vaccines. If not stopped, those new restrictions will soon become law and pave the way for further restrictions across the country. Predictably, anti-vaccine activists are opposing these bills, but with state health departments and well-financed pharmaceutical lobbyists on the other side, is a grass roots effort likely to succeed? Hopefully so, but if the proposed laws are shown to raise significant Constitutional issues, anti-vaccine activists may find that they have a “David” advantage against the “Goliath” opposition. The importance of this critical strategic point cannot be overstated. A bill can die a quick death if it is unconstitutional, regardless of how many constituents or special interest groups support it. It may take thousands of activists to successfully oppose legislation supported by state health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry, but it may take only one activist revealing serious Constitutional flaws to stop the bill dead in its tracks . So, let’s take a look at some of the arguments, as these may apply to future attempts to restrict vaccine exemptions in other states in the future, as well as to these two states now. In Washington State, SB 5005 would require that forms for all exemptions, whether religious, medical or philosophical, to “include a statement signed by a health care practitioner, that the parent or guardian has been informed of the benefits and risks of the immunization.” 1 Aside from failing the common sense test – health care practitioners should not be the gatekeepers of non-medical exemptions – this bill may also be unconstitutional with regard to religious exemptions. The U.S. Constitution does not require states to offer religious exemptions, but when they do, those laws must conform to the boundaries of the First Amendment’s ‘free exercise’ and ‘establishment’ clauses. But since the Constitution doesn’t mention vaccines or exemptions, how do we know what these clauses really mean with regard to vaccine exemptions? When the application of law to a specific set of facts is unclear, we must look to legal precedent from the courts for guidance. Federal courts have held that the only two requirements needed to invoke First Amendment protection for religious exemptions is that the beliefs be religious in nature and that they be sincerely held. 2 The boundaries of those two requirements are defined by legal precedent as well, but for SB 5005 purposes, the point is that this bill would add an additional requirement, above and beyond what the First Amendment requires. Since federal law is a higher authority than state law, a state law arguably can’t add requirements over and above what is required by the federal, First Amendment, as set forth in federal legal precedent. 3 So, Washington State’s SB 5005 may violate the First Amendment, and if passed, it would be vulnerable to attack and subject to being stricken accordingly. The proposed NJ bill, ACR157, 4 raises other Constitutional concerns. It would require parents to provide a “written statement . . . explaining how the administration of the vaccine conflicts with the bona fide religious tenets or practice,” whereas currently, New Jersey parents need only provide a signed, written statement that the vaccines interfere with the free exercise of the pupil’s religious rights. The new wording raises Constitutional concerns in that the words ‘tenets’ and ‘practices’ could reasonably be interpreted to require membership in an organized religion, and in any event exclude someone whose religious beliefs, but not a tenet or practice, were violated by the vaccine requirements. However, federal legal precedent tells us that the First Amendment rights may apply whether or not applicants are members of an organized religion, and regardless of which church they belong to if they are; 5 and that one need only have the above-cited sincerely held, religious belief – not a violated tenet or practice. So, if the New Jersey bill becomes law, it would arguably violate the First Amendment, and the new law would be subject to attack and to being stricken accordingly. This risk is a strong deterrent to legislative support! To be perfectly fair, the bill might pass Constitutional scrutiny if it was simply amended to add the word ‘beliefs’ to the phrase “tenets and practices,” since, unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit a state from scrutinizing religious exemption claims. But this bill raises other Constitutional concerns. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lemon case, 6 a law violates the First Amendment establishment clause if it fails any one or more of these tests: 1) The government action must have a secular purpose, 2) it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) it must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. While minimizing exemptions may be deemed a secular purpose, and the primary effect may not be that of advancing or inhibiting religion (vs. presumably protecting the public health), it is inevitable that at least some local authorities will become involved in excessive entanglement with religion when they are tasked with deciding which religious beliefs qualify and which don’t. For one thing, what is a sincerely held religious belief to one person may not always look like that to someone else; for another, some who fear unvaccinated persons may reject those with sincerely held religious beliefs improperly. This is likely why many states’ religious exemption laws are worded in such a way as to prohibit the state from scrutinizing religious exemption claims (and that fact, too, supports those who oppose this New Jersey bill). A third Constitutional issue with this New Jersey bill concerns giving local authorities the responsibility for assessing religious beliefs. This would inevitably result in an inconsistent application of the standards that exemption applicants must meet. Some of the people scrutinizing religious exemption applications will want to exclude all the applicants they can because they fear that exempt children put others at risk (but if vaccines work, how could that be?), or will wrongfully include or exclude some applicants because they fail to understand the legal boundaries of what qualifies for the exemption despite having good intentions. The bottom line is, if there is not a clear standard that is applied consistently throughout the state, that may result in ‘equal protection’ violations under the 14th Amendment. So, there are serious implementation problems with this bill. For all of these reasons, the New Jersey bill should not be passed. One final argument against bills aimed at restricting access to vaccine exemptions in general is the lack of the need to do so, even under mainstream views of vaccines and infectious disease. All states have authority to require vaccines or to quarantine the unvaccinated during outbreaks and emergencies. So, there is no need to rush through legislation to close the exemption gap; state health authorities already have the authority they need to deal with any genuine infectious disease problems. Indeed, to the contrary, there is a moral and ethical imperative to expand exemption rights, as noted in the recent article, “Vaccine philosophical exemptions: A moral and ethical imperative” at http://www.naturalnews.com/Author_Alan_Phillips.html#ixzz1EMUVJwDfhttp://www.naturalnews.com/031389_vaccines_philosophical_exemptions.html, and powerful evidence that states already have excessive, overreaching authority in emergencies, as explained in the “Swine Flu Review” at http://www.pandemicresponseproject.com/swineflureview.html. The above is only an introduction to the issues discussed. To better understand your vaccine exemption and waiver rights and for documents providing legislative support to pro-vaccine-choice activists around the country, see the Vaccine Rights website at www.vaccinerights.com, or contact the author. _______________________ [1] Senate Bill Report SG 5005, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011- 12/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5005%20SBA%20HEA%2011.pdf. [2] See, e.g., Sherr and Levy vs. Northport East-Northport Union Free School Dist. , 672 F. Supp. 81 (E.D.N.Y., 1987), and Mason v. General Brown Cent. School Dist. , 851 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir. 1988). [3] The explanation is simplified here for purposes of this article. For the more precise explanation of how legal precedent applies, see The Authoritative Guide to Vaccine Legal Exemptions at http://www.vaccinerights.com/e-book.html. [4] NJ ACR157, http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/ACR/157_l1.PDF. [5] See, e.g., Farina v. The Board of Education , 116 F. Supp.2d 503, 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). [6] Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

Supreme Court and Pharmaceutical Terrorism

The Supreme Court showed the world today that there is nothing supreme or noble about it and that it is as corrupt and cruel as most other governmental institutions. In a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled for Wyeth, saying they could not be sued for vaccine damages. Wyeth is now owned by Pfizer Inc. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits in state courts seeking damages for a child’s injuries or death from a vaccine’s side effects. The trial case was a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered seizures as an infant after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine in 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday the 22nd of February 2011 sustaining the federal law that shielded vaccine manufacturers from desperate parents who seek damages for serious health problems suffered by their children. Today’s children are hit with more shots in a day then most of us were hit with in our entire childhood. No doubt certain pharmaceutical madmen fantasize having a permanent tubular hookup with every child receiving constant (24/7) chemical injection and the Supreme Court would obviously go along with that. Pharmaceutical terrorism and medical madness is alive and well in this world of ours and is part of the backbone of our modern civilization and the legal system has totally bought into it even though they understand nothing about medicine and the consequence of supporting the madness of pharmaceutical companies. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is a law that was adopted by Congress that created a special program to handle disputes in an effort to ensure a stable vaccine supply — by shielding companies from most lawsuits. The federal program, involving what is known as the vaccine court, has awarded more than $1.8 billion for vaccine injury claims in nearly 2,500 cases since 1989. It is funded by a tax on vaccines. The 1.8 billion dollars awarded is proof positive that vaccines are not safe. And everyone knows that the government employs an army of lawyers to make it as difficult as possible for parents and their lawyers to win their cases. A careful study of pharmaceutical terrorism entails taking a trip into the darkest places that exist in humanity and it is no accident that when we make the journey we find ourselves in places where doctors and scientists work together as they did in Nazi Germany. This subject takes us to the bottom cellars of hell, into the deepest and darkest dungeon, into a place and into a type of person that defiles the very nature of beauty and love, a place where all human heart is lost. The Nazi doctors offer us a view of monsters that have remained invisible, dressed as they are eternally in three-piece suits or white lab coats. And now we have the Supreme Court of the United States in on the terror supporting laws that support and protect vaccine companies. Let’s face it, our children’s lives have been ruined. Have you ever lived with a family that has a child with thimerosal-induced autism? It’s not pretty. Not only do many of these children have no lives but they also live in a daily hell that many cannot even begin to imagine. They can’t sleep. They can’t communicate. They bang their heads and roll up in pain. Many have eating disorders or cannot tolerate most foods. And many are easy targets of sexual predators. – Lori McIlwain There is a direct line of continuity that can be traced between a group of men and companies that arose to the heights of industrial power years before Hitler, men and companies who existed and supported the rise of Nazi Germany and who continued on to the present day in comfortable corporate luxury and power. (The personnel, infrastructure and technology of companies like Bayer, for example, have flowed on continuously through three incarnations of corporate name and structure.) Bayer experimental drugs were tested on Auschwitz prisoners. One of the SS doctors at Auschwitz, Dr. Helmut Vetter, a longtime Bayer employee, was involved in the testing of Bayer experimental vaccines and medicines on inmates. He was later executed for giving inmates fatal injections. “I have thrown myself into my work wholeheartedly,” he wrote to his bosses at Bayer headquarters, “especially as I have the opportunity to test our new preparations. I feel like I am in paradise.” When John D. Rockefeller interlocked his American-based international empire with that of I.G. Farben in 1928 “there was created the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known.” Not only has that cartel survived through the years, it has grown and prospered. Eustace Mullins described very well the roots of this nightmare and how John D. Rockefeller, with the help of the American Medical Association and government officials, gained control of America’s “health” care industry in the early part of this century. “Educating” medical students was instrumental in their plan. Mullins writes: “Rockefeller’s Education Board has spent more than $100 million to gain control of the nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs.” Heroin, originally created by I.G. Farben, is outlawed in 1924 as a prescription drug in the United States. On the day of our birth doctors and nurses, with the willing acceptance and surrender of our parents, plunge cold steel into our flesh and inject a foreign fluid laced with poison and other modified genetic materials that assaults our immune and other critical systems of our bodies. Babies cry when their basic needs are frustrated, they cry when they are in need and when they are attacked and hurt. According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S.A. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent before the implementation of mass vaccine programs. – Harold Buttram MD The Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 I.G. Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. Amazingly however, by 1951 all of them had already been released, continuing to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved the I.G. Farben into Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. Today each of the three daughters of the I.G. Farben is 20 times as big as the I.G. Farben mother was at its height in 1944, the last year of the Second World War. More importantly, for almost three decades after the Second World War, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (now Aventis) each filled its highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. In 1998, the pharmaceutical giant, Bayer, conducted pesticide experiments on humans in what was called the Inveresk trials. Three years later the company behind the tests stands accused of breaking the Nuremberg Code. The Sunday Herald in England reported that subjects were given a single dose of a substance called azinphos-methyl (AM) and then observed for seven days. Mandatory vaccine programs are “A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they force individuals to have medical treatment against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.” – Jane Orient, M.D.

With Obamacare ruled unconstitutional; states embrace limits on federal power

(NaturalNews) Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled this week that the “individual mandate” portion of Obama’s health care reform was unconstitutional, dealing a significant blow to the Obama administration’s desire to force government-run health insurance on the entire U.S. population. Department of Justice spokespeople reacted with a sense of twisted desperation, calling Judge Vinson’s decision “judicial activism” as if he were inventing new law. In reality, of course, Judge Vinson merely ruled to protect existing law as written in the United States Constitution. Three years ago, even President Obama would have agreed with Judge Vinson’s decision. In arguing against the idea of an individual mandate in government-run health insurance, President Obama said in 2008, “If a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” Obama’s quote demonstrates the ludicrousness of the federal government requiring people to buy certain products or services in order to solve what the government perceives as a problem. If the government is allowed to dictate commercial behavior by forcing citizens to purchase things they don’t want to purchase, then it won’t be long before Washington starts forcing everybody to buy a U.S.-made automobile each year to support the auto industry… or pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and other products and services the government wants to push onto the people. Judge Vinson cited this same argument in his 78-page ruling, in fact, writing: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” In a demonstration of the ridiculousness of governments forcing citizens to buy things, five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require all residents of that state to buy a firearm to provide for their own self defense. (http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun) The bill is, of course, being put forth solely to make a point: That governments have no business forcing citizens to buy things they don’t personally want or even believe in. But if Obama can force you to buy health insurance, there’s no reason why someone else in Washington couldn’t force everybody to buy a firearm, or a pound of broccoli each week, or a water filter, or anything else the government says is “for your own good.” The federal government has no power to force Americans to buy stuff In light of the potential for runaway federal abuse of the Commerce Clause, Judge Roger Vinson correctly ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to engage in “market dictatorship” activities such as requiring people to buy health insurance. Such power was never granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution (no, not even in the Commerce Clause, which was written to prevent states from enacting tariffs, not to grant the federal government power over all commerce), and therefore the federal government has no legal basis from which to enforce such mandates. Congress, of course, rarely abides by the limitations on federal power as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. That’s why Congress passed Obamacare in the first place, even though the law blatantly violated the Constitution in requiring people to purchase a product many of them were ethically opposed to purchasing. (How many of us really want to be forced by Washington to send money to Big Pharma and the conventional medical industry?) Congress, it seems, wants the federal government to essentially be able to have absolute power over the American people; to tell them what to buy, how they’re supposed to react to tragedy (Giffords shooting), and even what they’re not allowed to read (health claims on nutritional products). And yet, the primary purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to place limits on federal power , and it is the proper role of federal judges to strike down laws when such laws clearly attempt to undermine the Constitution by engaging in unjustified expansions of federal power. On to the Supreme Court The ultimate legality of Obama’s health care law will, of course, be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s anyone’s guess how the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate (or the law in its entirety). Through American history, the U.S. Supreme Court has made some rather wild and seemingly-irrational decisions that supported federal government’s power grabs, such as the case of Wickard vs Filburn as we reported here on NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html At other times, the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the power of the federal government in the context of the Commerce Clause. It seems that the high court’s decisions in these matters rest on whether it believes the federal government has “a compelling interest” in the matter which would, in the opinion of the Court, justify what is obviously the federal government’s attempt to establish vast overreaching powers that would intrude upon individual liberties. This case may not even be heard until 2012, and until that time, Obamacare rolls forward, causing steady increases in health insurance premiums and an ongoing loss of jobs as U.S. corporations move their operations to other countries where health care mandates don’t bankrupt them. In order to protect its favorite corporations and unions, of course, the Obama Administration has now granted over 700 waivers to various business organizations (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118570197329858.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Recipients of the waivers include PepsiCo and various unions. This brings up the obvious question: Obamacare is so good that Americans have to be forced to buy it while PepsiCo — a company whose products actually contribute to health care costs in America through obesity and diabetes — is exempted from participating? How is it that powerful corporations are getting waivers from such a “great” health care system, but individuals get a knock on the door from the IRS if they try to opt out? This is how tyrannical governments work: They pass oppressive, overreaching mandates and then exempt their own buddies and corporate supporters from any such requirements. Everyday working people, meanwhile, are locked in and actually penalized by tax authorities if they try to avoid buying a health insurance product they never even wanted in the first place! Efforts under way to repeal Obamacare in the Senate So far, 26 states have filed suit against the federal government to halt Obamacare. They’re doing this because Obamacare threatens to bankrupt the states . These states are, in essence, fighting for their financial survival. Anticipating the devastating financial consequences on states if Obamacare remains law, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he plans to attach an Obamacare repeal effort to an upcoming funding bill that’s pending in the Senate. This effort reportedly has the support of all 47 Republican senators. Any such attempt to repeal Obamacare, of course, is almost certain to be vetoed by President Obama. The federal government is fighting hard to force the American people — and the states — to accept this Washington power grab that actually feeds right into the monopolistic (and health-harming) business practices of the conventional medical industry, Big Pharma, the vaccine industry and even the cancer industry. Obamacare care is, in effect, the law that guarantees a Big Pharma medical monopoly by forcing people to financially support it even if they would rather support natural medicine or the healing arts. Yet another reason for the states to distance themselves from Washington In the end, I believe this issue will provide yet more justification for states to consider distancing themselves from Washington’s runaway power grab efforts. When the federal government attempts to enact measures that will financially ruin the states, those states have little choice but to reject and nullify such federal mandates. That’s exactly what we’re seeing right now with the rapid growth of the Tenth Amendment Center (www.TenthAmendmentCenter.com) and its efforts to encourage states to protect themselves from the financially and ethically bankrupt policies of Washington. States have the power to simply say NO to Washington and refuse to implement unconstitutional laws, especially when those laws would cause financial devastation. In fact, it is not merely a state’s right to resist such tyrannical laws, but a state’s duty to resist. This is why the Tenth Amendment clearly spells out, in plain language, that those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the People. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government given the power to force the American people to buy health insurance, or automobiles, or vaccines, or pharmaceuticals for that matter. Washington’s attempt to force the American people to make purchases they do not wish to make is un-American at its core , and almost certainly illegal as well. Might does not make right. Even while Washington attempts to bully states into accepting this ill-considered law, those states are increasingly resisting it out of a sense of financial sanity if nothing else. Those states that wish to go along with every loony idea that comes out of Washington will, in due time, suffer the same fate as the federal government itself: Outright bankruptcy followed by serious political destabilization. Remember: You cannot force people to buy health insurance they don’t want and often don’t need. And you can’t stick a high-dollar IRS fine in someone’s face and tell them they’re free if they don’t “voluntarily” buy into the government’s health insurance scheme. Freedom means we have a choice, and the Obama administration doesn’t want Americans to have a choice on this matter. They want Americans to basically sit down, shut up, and do what they’re told. As even Egyptian dictator Mubarak is learning all of a sudden, ruling over a country is a whole lot easier when people don’t fight back. Sources for this story include: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/01/republicans-look-build-steam-repeal-judges-health-law-ruling/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Next Page »