The U.S. Centers For Disease Control - A History of CorruptionThe recent controversy over the documentary "Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe," despite being attacked by so many who haven’t seen it, is bringing public attention to real life episodes of vaccine damaged children and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) whistleblower Dr. William Thompson’s attempt to reveal fraud in the CDC. But this accurate CDC episode reveals only one episode of hiding data to deal disinformation publicly that doesn’t support vaccine safety. There have been several other vaccine report cover-ups and other types of fraudulent activity in addition to the Dr. Thompson whistleblower episode. They all support the need to dismantle the bloated budgetary expanse of CDC headquarters and activities. The CDC’s financial waste was investigated in great detail by Senator Tom Coburn in 2007, unfortunately nothing substantial came of his work. The CDC keeps demanding and getting more funding. We’ll start from the most recent discovery of lies and cover-ups and work back chronologically to earlier episodes of CDC outright blatant deception and fraud that serve to protect various industries instead of the people that are harmed by pharmaceutical interventions, especially vaccines.
The U.S. Centers For Disease Control - A History of Corruption
This is very likely to get me in trouble or perhaps imprisoned or killed what with the new passage of the farce called the "21st Century Cures" act. They believe that they - the govt - can mandate vaccines and mental health treatments upon you, against your will. Here are several reasons why this is anti-constitutional and why THAT trumps all.
First - the constitution states that the federal government has ONLY 30 lawful areas in which they have authority - AND it clearly states that if the authority in question is NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION - that those rights and freedoms are retained by the states and the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the federal govt can dictate health choices to anyone. Some claim that the govt has the right to quarantine during epidemics. Fine - quarantine for the prevention of spread is sane and good, but is NOT equivalent to forcibly injectiong poisons, toxic heavy metals, random DNA structure from random sources, AND pathogenic illnesses in many cases. These are NOT EQUIVALENT - even if you interpret the constitution in this manner.
So - Obamacare, forced vaxassination, forced "mental health evaluations and treatments" are all in absolute and total violation of the constitution for the united States of America, and for the Constitution of the United States of America. (there are two - our legal system is out to screw us....)
The people who WROTE the constitution and therefore KNOW exactly what and why they meant and intended it to be applied state very clearly that the Constitution is THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND and that ALL other laws, regulations, statutory laws (lower order of legality subject to the constitution) Acts of Congress, Executive Orders (not binding beyond employees of the executive branch) etc must comply with the constitution OR THEY ARE NOT VALID LAWS!!!!
Such laws are called "imaginary" and "pretended" laws. They LOOK like a law - and people THINK they are valid laws, but according to the founding fathers - when these laws are in conflict with the Constitution - they are in essence null and void and nobody must obey such laws. Thomas Jefferson stated further, that it is your DUTY to disobey such laws.
So, the fed govt forcing mandatory medical practices upon we the people is TOTALLY UNLAWFUL and is in fact null and void from the moment of signing.
In Calif - we have SB277 to deal with. Violation of the religious clause of the 1st amendment for some and invalid in that manner. Calif state Constitution = the highest law in the state. STILL has to comply with the US Constitution, but in the state for the non - ennumerated 30 powers of the fed govt - state law takes precedence. So the Calif constitution states that ALL children get an education. Not that they all get educated IF they become our pincushions. Further - the state constitution guarantees that for ANY medical procedure - the recipient of that procedure must be provided full medical disclosure. They must be provided time to consider their choice - and it is a CHOICE because our constitution states pointedly that regardless of the benefits of ANY proposed medical procedure, the patient ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT!
So - the state violates itself. Additionally, the state of California is now - by demanding vaxassination compliance - PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE!!!! Bust them!!! Sue them!!!
So we have our rights recognized by multiple national, state - and international organizations, and among all of these rights we find that ALL humans have the right to defend theirself. This is a basic, inviolable, human right. So when a person states that i must have X medical procedure performed upon me and i refuse - i have the right to prevent that procedure's imposition upon my unique, personal, individual biochemical system - my body.
Their (hopefully) first tendency will be to force or imprison me until compliant. Force me and i am going to have to break out from the facility forcing this practice upon me, or break the body parts my assailant must use to force that procedure on my body.
Now another nice thing about the constitution is that in order for the government to take away your freedom or your possession - YOU GET A JURY TRIAL OF YOUR PEERS. You can CHOOSE to have a judicial hearing without a jury - but by law - you get a jury trial by your peers - who have the right to set you free regardless of any law whatsoever. That is the constitutional right granted a juror - called jury nullification. The state can prove you refused a vaccine, you broke the hand of the MD trying to "give" it to you, perhaps a security officer as you left, etc - and the jury can say - "yes he did every one of those things, but your law is wrong, he had the right to defend himself, and so he is innocent of all charges."
It is not looking good out there, is it?