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/

Giffords shooter shows pattern of psychiatric derangement; no clear political affiliation

(NaturalNews) Of all the senseless acts of violence we’ve seen over the years, today’s shooting at a Gabrielle Giffords public event in Tucson really strikes home. I spent time in the company of “Gabby” Giffords and met many members of her staff during her first run for Congress. I saw her as a “balanced” representative (a former Republican turned Democrat who still, for example, supported Second Amendment rights) who I thought could bring some new energy into Washington, which seems to perpetually suffer from “Good ‘Old Boys” syndrome. That she has been violently attacked by an individual who is obviously mentally deranged is shocking and extremely disturbing. Almost as disturbing is how the mainstream media has latched onto this story as a way to demonize anyone who believes in the U.S. Constitution. The shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner , is, by any sensible interpretation, mentally deranged. Yes, he mentioned the Constitution among his various ramblings, but he also listed the Communist Manifesto as being among his favorite books. In addition, he released a YouTube video containing unintelligible ramblings of repeated nonsense phrases, including references to the government taking away “grammar,” of having a colorful bird on his shoulder, brainwashing and what he called “conscience dreaming.” The utterly false and irresponsible accusation floating around certain circles on the ‘net that Loughner was some sort of extreme right winger who targeted a Democrat is extremely irresponsible and hateful. Giffords was pro Second Amendment and publicly supported the right of the People to keep and bear arms. She’s actually a gun owner who urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights. She was also a huge supporter of a stronger border with Mexico , which has traditionally been one of the key positions of Arizona conservatives. Giffords can’t be pigeonholed into a label, you see. Her views are far more complex than “Democrat” vs “Republican.” She is certainly no “left-wing liberal,” and the attack on her doesn’t appear to be politically motivated at all (see below). A pattern of psychiatric intervention? What’s clear from the shooting is that Loughner was gunning for EVERYBODY , not just Giffords. He unloaded multiple rounds (15 – 20 rounds, according to press reports) on anybody and everybody standing nearby: Children, adults, etc. Does this ring a bell for anyone? A young white male, disillusioned, confused, mentally deranged… and opening fire on innocent people? That’s the pattern we saw in the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, and it turned out that the shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were on psychiatric medications . (http://www.naturalnews.com/025826_Antidepressants_school_shootings.html) In fact, numerous public shootings have been carried out by those who are either on psychiatric medications or who have recently stopped taking them (which can be just as dangerous in the short term). Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold talked about how their world had become like a dream, where they couldn’t tell the difference between the dream world and the waking world. Those are now virtually the same words as Jared Lee Loughner who, in his various ramblings, talked about “sleepwalking” during the day and “conscience dreaming [sic]” at other times. While we have no proof yet that psychiatric drugs are involved here, we do see a very suspicious pattern of mental instability that suggests a likely connection. The sleepwalking behaviors Loughner describes are, in fact, common side effects of psychotropic drugs such as Ambien , which is famous for causing people to actually “sleep drive” into town and suddenly awake in the middle of the road, driving their car in their pajamas, with no knowledge of how they got there (http://www.naturalnews.com/019413.html). I must stress that we don’t yet know whether Loughner was on sleeping medications or psychiatric drugs, but his behavior fits the pattern of someone who was: The lack of touch with reality, the violent and indiscriminate shooting, and the interweaving of the dream world with the real world. These are red flags of someone who is either suffering from a severe nutritional deficiency that affects brain function (vitamin D, for example, is important for preventing schizophrenia) or someone whose brain has been chemically altered through pharmacological intervention. The phrase “young white male” should scream out the obvious statistical link to ADHD drugs, by the way. NaturalNews is attempting to determine whether Loughner was previously on psychiatric medications. What is VERY clear at this point is that Loughner was not of the presence of mind to be rationally affiliated with ANY political party: Not on the left, nor the right. His apparent psychosis takes him way out of the realm of rational participation in any particular philosophy. Even his favorite books listed on his Myspace page adhere to no particularly consistent overriding philosophy. He was, however, fascinated with the question of what is real versus what’s just an imaginary dream. He was a fan of Alice in Wonderland , for example, as well as George Orwell’s Animal Farm . Don’t be fooled by the MSM coverage of this story Although there is still much more to emerge from this tragic event, it is clear that this is not some simple story about a disgruntled patriot who wanted to kill a Democrat. In fact, Loughner was no patriot at all: He openly talked about burning the American flag . Rather, this is really a story about mental illness in America , and the roots of this mental illness are undoubtedly partly found in these elements: • The chemical contamination of our food and water (fluoride, food additives, etc.) • Widespread nutritional deficiencies that promote mental illness • The scourge of the psychiatric drug industry and the widespread drugging of teens and children … and also, quite possibly: • The “programming” of young males with extremely violent video games which are now also used in the military to desensitize young adults to the violence of killing. Loughner, by the way, was reportedly a military recruit. As more facts emerge from this story, we will do our best to cover them here on NaturalNews. I am personally angered by these events as well as the mainstream media’s outrageously dishonest attempts to twist this story into some sort of “gun nut” angle, which it most definitely is not. I am also extremely saddened at the loss of life that occurred today, right in Tucson, virtually right next door to where I used to shop for organic produce at the Whole Foods on Oracle (used to be Wild Oats). That was not a “bad” part of town. That whole section of Tucson is actually the safer part of the town. In many ways, it is the “yuppie” part of town where the wealthier folks lived, with their high-end schools. Loughner attended one of those high schools on the northwest side of Tucson, I’ve been told. He was not part of the far rougher schools on the South side of that city. My heart goes out to Giffords, her family, and the other victims of this senseless crime. Most especially to the young child who was reportedly shot, and the federal judge who was reportedly killed. Several Giffords staff members were also harmed or killed (we don’t have solid details yet). I can tell you that, from my personal experience, the Giffords staff members are very dedicated, hard-working honest people and none of them deserve this kind of treatment. I may not agree with all the political decisions of Giffords (she voted for Obamacare, for example), but neither do I condone any use of violence to settle such disagreements. But remember, this was not an act of political activism . This was an act of madness carried out by a mentally deranged individual. I do not believe Giffords’ political positions had anything to do with it at all. After all, Loughner shot at all the other people in the crowd, too, and he had no way to know their political views either. Tucson cops, concealed carry firearms and more There is a report that one individual in the crowd was carrying a concealed firearm and managed to bring it to bear in an effort to stop Loughner from committing further violence. This may have been a lifesaving action. Many people in Arizona carry concealed firearms legally, acting as a sort of “citizens response team” to prevent such violence from taking place. In fact, the Tucson police department, for which I helped raise thousands of dollars as part of my non-profit volunteerism there, is desperately short on cash and actually recruits citizens to help law enforcement do their jobs more effectively there. I will write more about the dynamics of this, and the Tucson police force, in follow-up articles right here on NaturalNews. As someone who used to attend law enforcement meetings in Tucson, I know many of the high-ranking police officials on a personal basis, and I know them to be some of the most dedicated local law enforcement professionals I’ve ever met. Watch NaturalNews for more follow-up reports as we attempt to dig into this story and find out what could have possibly led to such an act of senseless violence. We will also take part in any fundraising efforts that get organized to help the victims of this shooting. But the most important thing we can do right now is try to get to the bottom of what’s behind this shooting and then take action to prevent such a terrible act of violence from occurring again.

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

(NaturalNews) In arguing for S.510, the “Food Safety Modernization Act,” there are all sorts of attorneys, legislators and internet commentators who keep claiming, “The government won’t try to control the food production of small farms.” They say, “Your backyard garden is safe” and that the feds won’t come knocking on your door to control your seeds or foods. As usual, these pushers of Big Government are utterly ignorant of the history in their own country. Because as you’ll learn right here, not only CAN the U.S. government control and dictate to single-family farms what they can grow in their own backyards; the government has already blatantly done so! In this article, I’ll share with you the full and true story of how Big Government has already run rampant over the rights of individuals to grow their own food — I’ll even cite the US Supreme Court decision that “legalized” this tyranny. How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens. One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government. The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government’s “infinite wisdom” of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it’s going to “solve problems” for you.) The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn’t selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn’t growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That’s not commerce. That’s just growing your own food . But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market. This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It’s now known as Wickard v. Filburn , and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government . The US Supreme Court sided with government tyranny The US Supreme Court, you see, ruled that Roscoe Filburn’s wheat could be regulated and destroyed by the federal government simply because Roscoe’s wheat production might reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade. Now stay with me on this, because this is a really, really important point to understand. The federal government claimed authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), even though the Commerce Clause was originally written primarily to prevent states from erecting tariffs, not to allow the federal government to control interstate trade. But thanks to the twisted interpretation of the government — and believe me, the government will twist every interpretation it can in an effort to assert more power over the population — the feds claimed that Filburn’s growing of his own wheat effectively reduced interstate commerce in wheat. Therefore, they reasoned, they could regulate his backyard wheat production (and order him to destroy his wheat). Because of this US Supreme Court decision in 1942, it now means the federal government can order you to halt food production in your own back yard by arguing that when you grow your own food, the amount of food you purchase from other food providers is reduced, meaning that your food production impacts interstate trade and therefore can be fully controlled by the federal government. In other words, the federal government claims the authority right now — even without the Food Safety Modernization Act — to knock on your door and order you at gunpoint to destroy all the food in your garden, your greenhouse or your farm. They can order you to destroy all seeds in your possession and all food harvested from your own garden. And they can do all this with the full protection of U.S. law by simply citing the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 as ruled by the US Supreme Court. Why the naysayers will probably starve Still think you have the right to grow your own food? I’ve heard all sorts of naysayers claiming that S.510 — the Food Safety Modernization Act — is no threat to small growers and family farms. They say the fears about S.510 are overblown and that the government can’t possibly shut down your backyard gardens or small, local vegetable farms. They say this with the kind of smug certainty you might typically hear from a doctor who thinks he knows everything about human health (but who actually knows nothing about nutrition). These naysayers tend to operate out of an assumption that Big Government will never take away their rights and freedoms and that expanding the reach of agencies such as the TSA, FDA, DEA and FTC with even more power and more armed agents is a good thing because the government always takes care of the people. We need more protection from e.coli, they argue, so let’s unleash 4,000 armed FDA agents instead to protect us from bacteria. (But who will protect us from the FDA?) What these ignorant naysayers don’t understand is that government is constantly trying to expand its power to the point of tyranny. As a current example of this, look at what just happened with Chavez in Venezuela. He has now been granted what are essentially dictatorial powers over the country (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121802933.html). Chavez is now the King of Venezuela, and whatever he says is now law. Venezuelan citizens are now slaves to his tyranny, and they must follow his orders or be executed. The United States is moving in precisely the same direction. First, power gets stripped away from the People little by little. Then it gets concentrated in the hands of a few regulatory agencies who write their own laws and who stay in power year after year because none of their officials are elected. (Think the FDA commissioner is elected by the people? Think again…) And then, over time, a few powerful individuals concentrate power from those agencies into their own hands. Before long, the country is run by a handful of power-crazed tyrants who disregard all freedoms and rights of the People. This is precisely what the FDA is doing with the Food Safety Modernization Act. Backed by yet more funding and a new army of agents, plus the Supreme Court ruling that says the federal government can order you to destroy the food you’re growing in your own back yard, the FDA can now pillage the countryside , going from farm to farm and house to house, burning fields and ordering the citizenry to destroy their plants, seeds and crops. This is exactly what they’ve been doing to raw milk producers and food coops, by the way (http://www.naturalnews.com/030136_Rawesome_foods_raid.html). That is no exaggeration. It is a documented “legal” precedent established in Wickard vs Filburn, and it can be used at any moment to destroy the ability of people to grow their own food, thereby making these people totally dependent on dead processed food (which is always FDA approved if it’s dead, of course) made in food factories that churn out nutritional deficiencies and death. What will you eat when the government destroys your local food supply? You see, under the argument that your backyard garden “impacts interstate commerce,” the federal government can order you to simply spray Roundup on your entire garden in order to kill it. What will you eat then? When the GMO crops suffer a mass catastrophic failure, and the monocultured wheat dies from a global viral infection called ug99 “rust” (http://theemergencyfoodsupply.com/archives/ug99-will-wheat-rust-cause-a-catastrophic-global-famine), what will you eat? If the government has its way, you won’t eat at all. You’ll starve to death under the “protection” of the food safety thugs at the FDA who don’t believe any “live” food is safe in the first place (hence their war against raw milk). Those people who have the foresight to grow their own gardens and protect their food sources from the tyranny of the federal government may actually have a chance at surviving. The rest will simply starve while waiting in government food lines where the feds hand out nutritionally worthless cheese and other depleted processed foods that Sesame Street absurdly thinks are “superfoods” (http://www.naturalnews.com/030626_muppets_Sesame_Street.html). Big Government declares war on the local food movement Make no mistake, folks: the government is attempting to destroy the local food movement . They are trying to wipe out small, organic farms that compete with corporate agribiz in the same way the FDA has long plotted to destroy natural health supplement companies who compete with Big Pharma. It’s all about wiping out the little guys and protecting the monopoly markets of the largest and most influential corporations that are poisoning the earth and destroying your health. As Wickard vs Filburn clearly demonstrated, the government does not believe you have any natural right or Constitutional right to grow your own food . In fact, the government believes it has the right to order you to destroy your food at the time of its choosing. Don’t think this could happen to you? Filburn didn’t either. The idea that his own government would show up at his door and order him to burn his field of wheat was simply unimaginable. Similarly, the idea that the FDA would tear across the countryside wiping out small family farms is unimaginable to many Americans today. But that’s only because they don’t know their own history and they put far too much faith in the flimsy idea that the government somehow, in some way, respects the rights and freedoms of the People. The obvious falsehood of that idea is evident in the way we are all being treated by the TSA. Who would have thought, just two years ago, that we’d be subjected to government-enforced molestation at the hands of airport security screeners? That idea seems unthinkable at the time, much like the idea that the FDA could seize your garden seeds or order you to destroy your greenhouse crops. Yet such actions are already within the claimed power of the federal government… merely waiting to be invoked at the time of their choosing. Traitors to freedom All those who voted for S.510 — which includes the entire U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike — are traitors to the freedoms upon which America was founded. They have thrust our food supply into the hands of tyrants who are just waiting to exercise their control and “authority” over as many people as possible. Five years ago, I joked that people might one day be arrested for smuggling broccoli across state lines. Today, that joke has become a sad reality. The mere act of growing food and selling it to your neighbor without government permission is about to become a criminal act. And no, small farms are not “exempt” from S.510. They must provide financial information and apply to the FDA to be granted exemption status. That sounds a lot like slaves begging for mercy from the king, doesn’t it? Keep the big picture in mind as you consider all this: When teens are poisoned by the aspartame in diet soda, the FDA does nothing. When children are given cancer by the sodium nitrite in hot dogs, the FDA does nothing. When countless thousands of Americans suffer heart attacks and cardiovascular disease each year from the partially-hydrogenated oils used throughout the food supply, the FDA does nothing. But when you grow fresh produce in your own back yard and carry it to your local farmer’s market to sell it without government permission, you will be arrested by the FDA as a criminal . Shame on all those who supported this bill. May history have mercy on their souls for the suffering and injustices they have unleashed upon us all .

Health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord speaks out about Obama health care, the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court

(NaturalNews) Following the recent court decision of U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who ruled that a key provision of Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional, I spoke with health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord about the implications of this important ruling. Jonathan Emord is currently representing clients in a related court case in Ohio where he is also arguing to protect the rights of private citizens against overreaching government requirements that interfere with individual choice. “This is a very important decision because the district court Judge here carefully analyzed the law and identified its two principal weaknesses,” Emord told NaturalNews. “The law includes this individual mandate which requires millions of Americans to purchase health insurance even against their will. And if they do not purchase health insurance in 2014, they would be subject to a tax penalty.” You can listen to the full interview on NaturalNews.TV: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5001210B1D257403E6F8220280D03CD6 Emord goes on to state, “Never before in American history has the government of the United States compelled a private party to purchase a commercially available good.” U.S. Supreme Court likely to hear the case As you’ll hear in this interview, Emord anticipates this case eventually escalating to the U.S. Supreme Court. If this law stands and is ruled constitutional, it would open the doors for the U.S. government to mandate citizens to purchase all sorts of products or services that the government wishes to favor or protect, warns Emord. For example, the U.S. government could theoretically require all citizens to purchase an American-made electric car in order to indirectly bail out a Detroit car manufacturer. Anyone who does not wish to purchase an electric car would be fined by the IRS, potentially to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. This is a very important interview on the crucial subject of health freedom. To listen to the full interview, visit NaturalNews.TV at: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5001210B1D257403E6F8220280D03CD6 Following the interview, I offer several minutes of commentary and analysis about health freedom, the limits of the federal government, and why forcing Americans to purchase a product against their will is bad government.

In pushing Obama health care, Nancy Pelosi dismisses authority of US Constitution

(NaturalNews) Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that a key provision in Obama’s health care plan violates the US Constitution. The “minimum essential coverage provision,” Judge Hudson ruled, would force American consumers to buy a government-mandated insurance product whether they wish to buy it or not. There is no provision in the US Constitution that grants Congress the power to force consumers to buy into such a monopoly — the very idea seems ludicrous. But not to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She believes that her power to force Americans to purchase whatever products and services the government wants them to buy is somehow granted by the Constitution. In what is now seen as a curiously instructive question-and-answer exchange, one year ago Nancy Pelosi engaged in the following dialog with CNS News: CNSNews.com : “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate? Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNSNews.com : “Yes, yes I am.” CNS News goes on to report: (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution) Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.” “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.” Absolute power need not explain itself What’s clear from this exchange is that Nancy Pelosi believes Congress has absolute power over the people to simply invent whatever mandates, requirements or restrictions it wants, regardless of what powers were actually granted to the Congress under the US Constitution. It is the Constitution, after all, to which Congress owes its existence in the first place. Certain, specific powers are granted to the Congress under the Constitution, with the remainder of powers being reserved to the People or the States. Nowhere in the Constitution do the founding fathers of our nation grant Congress the power to force the American people to spend their money on government-favored monopoly service providers — and that’s precisely what Obamacare mandates. The question of where Congress gets its authority to enact such mandates is an intelligent and reasonable question that any lawmaker should be willing to answer. But instead of answering this question, Nancy Pelosi simply dismisses it as ridiculous. Her aide says, “That is not a serious question.” But I disagree. I believe it is the most serious question of all . Because if the US Congress is now acting outside its limited powers and simply rewriting the Constitution to match whatever political whims it fancies at the moment, then the freedom of our Republic is lost and we already live under tyrannical rule. Tyrants do not answer pesky questions from the little people Time and time again, we now see modern bureaucrats dismissing the very notion that even asking about the source of their authority is a legitimate question. To question the authority of Congress now seems to be regarded as something of an act of terrorism . How dare you question your King? Remember, it is the duty of all free citizens to slap the hands of government when it threatens to overreach its limited authority. With yesterday’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson slapped the hands of both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, sending them a clear message that you cannot simply steamroll over the Constitution and mandate whatever laws and rules you’d like to see realized in your own megalomaniacal fantasies. There are protections in the Constitution that were put there precisely to protect the People from tyrants. That is, in fact, the primary purpose of the Bill of Rights — to protect the People from the inevitably expansion of power by bureaucrats who always seek to control more, regulate more, and accumulate more power in taking over more and more areas of everyday life that should be left up to free people. Your decision of what kind of doctor you wish to choose — conventional versus naturopathic or complementary, for example — is your decision , not the government’s decision. For Big Government to mandate that all people must spend thousands of dollars a year to support a failed, disastrously harmful conventional medical system that actually kills over half a million Americans a year is extremely unethical if not downright illegal. And yet that’s exactly what Obama’s health care law attempts to do. It seeks to force you to participate in a government-protected sick-care monopoly . And if you choose not to participate, you’ll get a little visit from IRS agents who will simply extract the required money from your bank account… by force if necessary. That such a scheme could be advocated by Nancy Pelosi and other bureaucrats in Washington tells you just how far they’ve already marched down the seductive path of government tyranny. It is up to people like you and me to resist this tyranny and stand up for our Constitutional protections so that we may live as free citizens, with our free choice intact, and without the government forcing us to participate in a failed health care system that, statistically speaking, harms far more people than it helps. Let us hope that the US Supreme Court will also have the wisdom to recognize the constitutional violations in this health care legislation and strike it down. We’ll keep you updated on this story here at NaturalNews.com, where the US Constitution remains alive and well in our minds, hearts and souls. We will defend liberty here on NaturalNews, even if we’re the last ones left standing who dare to question the King. Sources for this story include: http://www.naturalnews.com/030716_Obamacare_unconstitutional.html http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution

Obama’s health care scheme ruled unconstitutional

(NaturalNews) U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson dealt a severe blow to Obamacare today, ruling that the government’s attempt to force citizens to buy health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision puts the enforceability of Obama’s health care system in doubt. Obama’s health plan was designed around a “minimum essential coverage provision” that seeks to force every American to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. This is essentially a Big Brother commerce requirement where the government dictates that private citizens must purchase a product or service even if they don’t wish to. It also forces followers of natural medicine to buy into a system of drugs-and-surgery conventional medicine even if they have no intention of ever using it. The Constitution limits the power of federal government The United States Constitution, which is the document that grants the federal government powers, did not grant the federal government any right to force citizens to purchase certain products or services. Obama’s health care insurance mandate, therefore, was an overreaching effort on the part of the federal government to dictate the purchasing decisions of private citizens in order to achieve a political goal. Citizens who refused to comply with this requirement to purchase health insurance were to be punished by none other than the IRS. Fines would be issued to citizens beginning in 2014 if they failed to prove to the IRS that they had purchased health insurance. Thus, Obama’s health care system put the IRS in charge of enforcing an unconstitutional mandate that private citizens buy something they did not want nor need . This is what Judge Henry Hudson found to be unconstitutional. He found that the essential coverage provision “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” Tenth Amendment protections He’s right, of course. There is no such power granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, if a specific power was never granted to the federal government, then that power remains with the States or the people. Since the Constitution never granted the federal government the power to dictate that private citizens purchase health insurance — and in fact Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and other founding fathers would have been horrified by such a power grab — that power remains solely with the States and the people. What will the US Supreme Court rule? With this ruling in place, the constitutionality of Obamacare will now likely move to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, is the body that interprets the Constitution and decides whether modern-day laws are allowed under its provisions. If the justices of the Supreme Court actually abide by the Constitution, they must agree with Judge Henry Hudson and strike down the minimum essential coverage provision of Obama’s health care law. But if they choose to betray the Constitution and the People, they may decide in favor of Obamacare and thereby ratchet up the power of Big Government to control the private lives and purchasing decisions of American citizens. The Supreme Court has not always respected the language of the Constitution, of course, so it’s not yet certain how the court will rule on this subject. Most likely, the more conservative members of the Court will rule it unconstitutional. Conventional health care is so bad that you have to threaten people if they don’t buy it It is especially enlightening that the U.S. health care system is such an utter failure that the government must force citizens to buy into it under the threat of IRS penalties. If health care based on conventional drugs and surgery actually worked, you wouldn’t have to threaten the citizens with punishment if they chose not to use it. The only reason IRS agents have to be used to bully people into buying health insurance is because our modern sick-care system doesn’t work. Obama’s dictatorial approach to health care mirrors the health care system itself, in fact: Oppressive, punitive, widely hated and ridiculously ineffective. Instead of forcing people to buy into a system that’s already broken, Obama would serve the interests of the American people far better by ending the medical racket monopoly currently being operated by Big Pharma, the FDA, the quack medical journals and corrupt doctors, and instead legalizing healing by embracing health freedom and the world of natural medicine. It is quite fascinating that even in a system where natural medicine isn’t covered by insurance, and where natural therapies are widely discredited by the FDA, the AMA and most conventional doctors, record numbers of people seek out natural therapies anyway because they are more affordable, more effective, safer and more readily compatible with human biology. The FDA and Big Government don’t want people to have a choice in the matter, you see. They want to force everyone to buy into the failed pharmaceutical system that enriches the drug companies, even while keeping the U.S. population suffering from record rates of degenerative disease. That’s why we call it a “sick care” system. It’s not about health. It’s about making money off a diseased population while denying them access to natural treatments and cures that could save this nation from medical bankruptcy. Sadly, the US Supreme Court won’t be ruling on all that. They’re only concerned with whether Obama’s attempt to force people to buy a product they don’t want and don’t need is allowed under the US Constitution. And the answer should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the Constitution: No such powers were ever granted to the federal government. To force the American people to buy into this broken, corrupt system of quackery and fraud is not merely unconstitutional; it is immoral and an affront to freedom. Obamacare is, at its core, un-American; and it demonstrates a deep-rooted hatred for freedom. Sources for this story include: Court case: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) Bloomberg.com: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

« Previous Page — Next Page »