XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.censorship   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.poli   
   ics.socialism.mao   
   XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.apocolypse, alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.infowars, alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intellige   
   t-life.down-here, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: sci.med.diseases   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 9/9/21 4:46 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > In 1901 a deadly smallpox epidemic tore through the Northeast,   
   > prompting the Boston and Cambridge boards of health to order the   
   > vaccination of all residents. But some refused to get the shot,   
   > claiming the vaccine order violated their personal liberties under the   
   > Constitution.   
   >   
   > One of those holdouts, a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson,   
   > took his anti-vaccine crusade all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.   
   > The nation's top justices issued a landmark 1905 ruling that   
   > legitimized the government’s authority to “reasonably” infringe upon   
   > personal freedoms during a public health crisis by issuing a fine to   
   > those who refused vaccination.   
      
   And yet they can't prove in court that getting the Chinese Virus mRNA   
   shot will give you virus immunity....   
      
   And the whole point of a "VACCINE" is to create immunity, and for that   
   immunity to help protect the larger herd by creating herd immunity.   
      
   Someone in BOSTON isn't going to spread the disease to other places if   
   the local area were to quarantine the people in contact like they are   
   *quarantining the Afghani's who have the measles* and Biden loaded them   
   onto planes and flew them into the United States.  If we are forced to   
   get a vaccine shouldn't those people have been forced to get a measles   
   vaccine prior to arriving in the United States? Just to make sure the   
   Constitution's "equal protection of the laws" is being adhered with.   
      
      
   We know that this mRNA shot isn't a vaccine and it doesn't create   
   immunity and if they did mandate 100% of the people be vaccinated it   
   still doesn't create herd immunity with it's known failure rate being   
   higher than 20%.   
      
   Which means that the SUPREME COURT CASE that was cited as a PRECEDENCE   
   doesn't even apply to this mRNA shot that fails at creating immunity in   
   numbers that would have "legitimized the government’s authority to   
   *reasonably* infringe upon personal freedoms during a public health   
   crisis" doesn't apply here.   
      
   *We aren't in a NATIONAL public health* crisis....  which means that the   
   federal government has no power to mandate injections of an experimental   
   "vaccine" that isn't even a vaccine.   
      
   "The basis for vaccination began in 1796 when the English doctor Edward   
   Jenner noticed that milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were protected from   
   smallpox. Jenner also knew about variolation and guessed that exposure   
   to cowpox could be used to protect against smallpox. To test his theory,   
   Dr. Jenner took material from a cowpox sore on milkmaid Sarah Nelmes’   
   hand and inoculated it into the arm of James Phipps, the 9-year-old son   
   of Jenner’s gardener. Months later, Jenner exposed Phipps several times   
   to variola virus, but Phipps never developed smallpox. More experiments   
   followed, and, in 1801, Jenner published his treatise “On the Origin of   
   the Vaccine Inoculation.” In this work, he summarized his discoveries   
   and expressed hope that “the annihilation of the smallpox, the most   
   dreadful scourge of the human species, must be the final result of this   
   practice.”"   
      
      
   In short, Smallpox vaccine wasn't new and it wasn't an experimental   
   vaccine... based on mRNA that has never been called a "vaccine". There   
   is NO parallel in the two situations.  The Precedence is erroneous.   
      
      
   There is no SUICIDE PACT written into the Constitution that requires me   
   to DRINK THE GRAPE KOOL-ADE that JOE BIDEN mandates.   
      
   If you or the SUPREME COURT SEES ONE... THEN THEY WILL HAVE TO FIND   
   THOSE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT INTERPRET THEM FROM WHITE SPACE   
   IN THE CONSTITUTION.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   That's Karma   
      
   *The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is we talk about it*   
   We hate censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you.   
   Make them prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you   
   didn't find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you   
   then you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber Doctrine* is the   
   Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have   
   a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI   
      
      
      
   *The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is*   
   59B - Since the Courts demanded scientific proof that GOD exists in the   
   "Scopes Monkey Trial", and proof that a human life in a uterus is a   
   person in Roe v Wade, why don't those same Justices follow their own   
   precedence and demand scientific proof that gays are NOT really   
   heterosexuals with a mental illness?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)