
-
Special Editions
- Global
- Due Diligence
- Love Bus Liberty Tour
- Vaccine Education Summit
- Bitcoin Summit
- US-Arizona
- US-Tennessee
- Ernie's Favorites
- THE R3VOLUTION CONTINUES
- "It's Not My Debt"
- Fascist Nation's Favorites
- Surviving the Greatest Depression
- The Only Solution - Direct Action Revolution
- Western Libertarian
- S.A.F.E. - Second Amendment is For Everyone
- Freedom Summit
- Declare Your Independence
- FreedomsPhoenix Speakers Bureau
- Wallet Voting
- Harhea Phoenix
- Black Market Friday

Current News | Contents By Subject
Additional Related items you might find interesting:Related items:

News Link •
Vaccines and Vaccinations
Cancers Appearing In Ways Never Before Seen After COVID Vaccinations: Dr. Harvey Risch

News Link •
Activism
The anti-vaccine movement is on the rise. The White House is at a loss over what to do about it.

News Link •
Vaccines and Vaccinations
Dr. Judy Mikovits | Was President Trump Lied To About Operation Warp Speed?

News Link •
CDC-Center for Disease Control
GREAT NEWS! The New COVID Booster Is Here! Hello? HELLO????

Feature Article •
Healthcare Industry
CCP virus: Dr. McCullough breaks down how the Covid Va##ines injure and kill

News Link •
Food And Drug Administration / F.D.A
FDA Has 'Gone Rogue' In Its Approval Of New COVID-19 Boosters: Dr. Robert Malone

News Link •
Death
9 in every 10 COVID Deaths over the last year have been among the Fully/Triple Vaccinated

News Link •
Vaccines and Vaccinations
2 Comments in Response to Vaccination rights attorney Patricia Finn threatened with criminal charges
It's called Judaical murder
It's never too late to flog a deceased equine.
That being said, the recipriocal demonizations occuring in this situation distract from core rights issues.
In FP 78, Hamilton asserted that Congress was supposed to pass legislation which reflected the will of (We) the people. If Congress substituted its will for that of the people, the courts were supposed to intervene in favor of the people.
Of course, Hamiltion said this at a time when he needed votes for ratification. Once ratification was obtained, of Hamilton, it is said, every time he was offered a chance to vote on a measure that increased the power of the federal government, he voted FOR it.
Doubtless, Hamilton reveled in the supremacy clause. Also doubtless, he probably did NOT revel in the 10th amendment.
The 10th amendment affirms the people's concurrence with Hamilton's (empty) promise made by him in FP 78.
Those who argue in favor of States' rights overlook the last phrase in the 10th amendment, namely
. . . reserved . . . to the people.
Vaccination choices should be reserved to the people.
It being that such choices would not likely lead to riot or invasion, the federal government would have been hands off in 1789, and even moreso in 1791.
But according to the article above, this controversy originates in a state court.
(Maybe the anti-statists are right!)
I think I'll give the decease equine a rest at this point.
DC Treybil