Is there anything you can or should do if you are facing a vaccine mandate as a condition of attending school or keeping a job? Yes. Absolutely, there is.
Robert Barnes, celebrated attorney in landmark cases representing clients as diverse as Wesley Snipes, Alex Jones and the Covington Catholic students who successfully sued several MSM outlets for public defamation, sits down with Chris to discuss today’s legal battle royale: vaccine mandates.
Barnes addresses the legally shaky ground the mandates are on, as well as the outright unconstitutionality of the argument for enforced compliance. He gives practical advice for you to follow if you are continuing to face mandates for both the initial vaccines and future booster programs.
In our current censorship heavy media environment, this critical discussion about these egregious attacks on our civil rights cannot be ignored and should be shared WIDELY.
There’s a lot here, and I’ve just barely glanced at it so far. Two portions did catch my eye:
Chris Martenson: ... However, when I turn then and I hear about people from the military or from people I know who had bad first reactions, bad myocarditis in bed for a week, really horrible reactions. They have been unable, almost without exception, to get any exemption from that. What do we make of that? ...
Ugh. I make of it that people are taking things too far. You all know my opinions on the vaccines, but this is too much. People with such solid, demonstrated concerns should be granted exemptions, IMO.
Robert Barnes: ... It's one of the reasons for the game playing that's occurring in terms of we have an FDA approved vaccine, but it's not the one that's available and being administered to people and the the contention of many people, including Jordan Schachter with the dossier on Substack and others. And it was our contention from the great from the get go with Bobby Kennedy and Merrill Ness and others that children's health defense is that if you dug into it, the reason they're doing it is that they have complete Prep Act immunity as long as what's being administered is under the emergency use authorization label. ...
This is commonly claimed, but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding. According to this article, the PREP Act immunity guarantees would apply to Comirnaty as well; FDA approval doesn't affect them.
https://integrallife.com/polarity-matters-are-you-thinking-in-pairs/ How do polarities help us see ourselves and our world more clearly and completely?
Watch as Beena Sharma answers your questions about her Integrating Polarities training, while offering a simple introduction to the practice you can follow along with at home.
Integrating Polarities is designed to teach you the higher-order thinking common to individuals at the integral stage of development. By learning and practicing the cognitive processes that come naturally to integral thinkers, this training can accelerate your own development toward integral stages of being and doing.
This is part of a promotion and I am not endorsing or promoting, however, I believe Ken Wilber’s Integral Life concepts are useful for this community. I suspect the upcoming seminar might cross into some of this material too?
You need a short show or video to train people who are planning to protest, how to avoid bad actors. Signs to watch for, dos and don’ts. I have visions of good innocent ppl being drawn into the actions of bad actors without realizing the psychology of crowds and the ability to control the actions of a group. Hope it’s not sabotaged. Hope this goes well! Very good podcast. We have to make our stand or lose a whole bunch of freedoms.
Joshua,
I have to disagree.
The Prep Act gives immunity to “Covered Countermeasures.” See 42 USC 247 D - 6D
and 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d (a)(3).
Covered Countermeasures include “biological products.” The term “Biological Product” includes vaccines. See 42 USC 262 (i)(1).
But vaccines only fall within the definition of a protected “Covered Countermeasure” if they are distributed pursuant to an emergency use authorization. The statute says that explicitly. It states:
(1) Covered countermeasure The term “covered countermeasure” means—
(A)... (omitted)
(B)... (omitted)
(C) a drug (as such term is defined in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) ), biological product (as such term is defined by section 262(i) of this title ) or device ... that is authorized for emergency use in accordance with section 564, 564A, or 564B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [ 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3 , 360bbb–3a, 360bbb–3b];
To the extent that Wikipedia or the Washington Post make claims to the contrary, they are incorrect.
For instance, the Washington Post article relies upon two grounds to support its assertion. One, they rely upon a statement from Pfizer. Two, they rely upon a statement from the HHS.
However, the literal terms of the statute do not support either of those statements.
I agree it’s unlikely but I explain events like this through reporting/selection bias, basically the “Chinese robber fallacy”. I’ve been meaning to do some more rigorous math and get some better data on this, but the general idea is this: Let’s say we might have maybe 10,000 “local celebrities” under 65 who are vocally protesting the vax among the 350M people in the US. Of those, 40% (4000) get symptomatic COVID and there is a CFR of ~0.3% for them, so we’ll expect 12 deaths in that group. And there is a 100% chance that the corporate media will make a big deal about each and every one of them. What people reading the news see is that every month, there’s a new dumb anti-vaxxer that’s dead to COVID. Any discussion about the denominator and the 3900 (or whatever) who survived COVID, plus the 6k who never got it or were asymptomatic, is conveniently ignored.
My priors are that it’s more likely she had undiagnosed hypertension or some other unknown vulnerability and just wasn’t as safe as she thought she was, rather than she actually got bumped off by the COVID regime.
The worst offender - Justice Sotamayor - who not only claimed that there are "100,000 children in serious condition," with many on ventilators (there are 3,342 per HHS with many or most being incidental covid positives alongside other conditions), but that Omicron is as deadly as Delta.
Justice Roberts seems to be open to both sides. Justice Gorsuch seems to understand the significance of what the mandates are doing to the rights of citizens.
There are issues which may be dispositive of the case which have nothing to do with the accuracy of the narrative.
But the narratives do indeed influence what Courts decide. That is not the law, but that is just a fact.
The thing that scares me listening to these arguments is that the false narratives that have been promoted throughout the pandemic may very well sway the Court. The Court may come to a decision that the Court would not have come to, had the narrative been accurate. Again, that has nothing do with the law, it is just a fact of life.
If true justice ever prevails and there are Nurnberg like trials, the media must pay a price for their deception. That happened after World War II. The current crimes are no different.
I reject the premise that the ''decision" rests with any court. The courts have failed, there is no law. This is simply a show to provide tyrants with the illusion of legal authority. Just like the media isnt really the media, its a tool to manipulate minds, create illusions, and spread useful lies.
At the end of the day, this is a power struggle. Right and wrong, constitutionality, logic, facts, and arguments will have absolutely nothing to do with the decision. It is only about WHO is behind which side and how much power they have. This has been demonstrated over and over; Covington, ‘peaceful protests’, lockdowns, Russiagate, impeachment-gate, election-gate etc, etc.
Not only do the facts and laws not matter, it doesnt matter how many people KNOW that they dont matter. Its the old saying from Solzhenitsyn; “They lie. We know they lie. They know they lie. We know that they know they lie. They know that we know they lie. Yet they still lie”.
In fact I think they WANT you to know that the law and the facts dont matter just to belittle and crush your spirit. So I reject the entire theatrical presentation of a supreme court decision [ sponsored by the WEF ]. Its designed to frustrate and demoralize us.
The bottom line is this; there is only one authority that will ultimately decide my vaccination status, and that is ME. It doesnt matter what the supreme court says, it doesnt matter what the news says, it doesnt matter what Biden says, it doesnt matter what the state, county, or town says. None of them have ANY authority over my body. So why should I care about their “decisions”?
There is only one of two possible scenarios that can happen…I will either live free or die.
Because their decisions may take away any remaining rights and freedoms I may have, and destroy me financially and throw me out on to the street.
If they can take those things away from you, then they werent yours anyway. The question is; will you give them what IS yours, in order to keep what they let you have?
What ever answer you give when the time comes, will dictate the terms of your life forever. IMO, if you give in, whatever they let you keep from that point onward will get smaller and smaller.
I agree, it is not likely. They she either was killed and then made to look like covid death. or she was killed and made to look like covid death. They will take anyone who is opposition and run with it for their narrative.
Here individual chance of dying of covid is 1:10,000 and then you apply that to that fact that ones dies who is very out spoken opposition in the public eye, and you you get some funny impossible number. Her chance of death from covid while healthy and young, is something just less than being struct by lightning. Those are the facts. I actually think the 1:10000 risk for her age group is including all people. When you remove all the people with co-morbidities, it would be more like 1:100000.
So, the media will gobble this up. Meanwhile Betty White, who said she was healthy and felt good, and was looking to her 100th blowout, suddenly died 2 days after her 3rd boosting jab. and nothing just crickets.
Dave, I have not totally given up hope.
But honestly, I would feel more optimistic had the narrative been accurate (availability of treatments, low mortality except in certain limited segments of the population, vaccine injuries, ineffectiveness of the vaccines, vaccines not stopping transmission, etc.)
Again, it does not matter legally if the narrative was accurate but as a practical matter it makes a huge difference.