We have a nearly identical pledge that citizens then ask ALL candidates for elected office to sign, or we note that they refused, and put the signatures on a website, similar to what was done with the Great Barrington declaration.
The concept is to get millions of signatures against all the emergency rules and mandated vaccines that have destroyed economies, jobs, kept people from home and work, mandated useless masks and 6 foot distancing, initiated vaccine passports and numerous other restrictions, and have maintained the emergency way beyond any rational need.
If enough people sign, the candidates will be forced to sign or be publicly exposed as in favor of the emergency regulations and mandatory shots, possibly forever…basically in favor of the Great Reset.
Here is an early version of the sort of pledge I envision:
A Pledge to Regain our Democratic Traditions
1. REVOKE COVID EMERGENCY LAWS and INTRODUCE LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF EMERGENCIES
I support limits on government powers conferred by an emergency declaration. All government emergency laws, rules, regulations, orders, and any other directives must have strict time limits, not to exceed 2 weeks. Legislative and/or administrative government actions must recommence immediately at the end of two weeks. Emergency declarations may not be renewed by the executive or legislature without legislative hearings on the rationale for the emergency measures and their alternatives.
2. PROHIBIT MEDICAL MANDATES
I support revocation of all medical mandates enacted by federal, state, county, city, and private actors as of March 2020, including compulsory mandates for vaccines, vaccine passports, testing and masking.
3. PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA, CENSORSHIP and RESTRICTED COMMUNICATIONS
I support termination of any federal or state a) funding and b) any other efforts to propagandize or censor the American public, or to restrict communication between people. Government efforts to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion or freedom of the press violate the first amendment to the Constitution.
There might also be binding referenda in jurisdictions that allow them.
I need help from legal minds about how to make this bulletproof.
Community meetings all across the land, with one, two or three experts such as yourself, attending, would create awareness and potential action.
ReplyDeleteAn MD, a statistician and a third person, local, to sort of moderate.
Small gatherings, or maybe large and larger? ongoing and continuous, all over the land.
The segregation dimension of this crime still in progress created useful illusion for these enemies of the people; to make it seem that meeting in person was a crime.
The institutional diktats, of one-dimension message, all geared in opposite direction of actual public health, embedded with the social segregation dimension.
Organizing in person, small [and maybe someday large and larger] community information sessions all over the land is: antidote to begin to measurably cut away from this propaganda and segregation-inducing choke-hold that continues working its tragic harms on all ages, all races, all economic/social classes, and all geographic sections of United States.
A working group of folks such as Dr. Nass and people of good will and knowledge and courage, willing to go the miles and miles across the land, can accomplish more than they could ever imagine, possibly.
The Southern Christian Leadership Conference eventually led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King -- a man, let us not forget, who prior to his theology and seminary studies, had earned a degree in sociology.
People across the land are crying and dying for leadership at this most fragile hour.
A coalition of health experts, statisticians, men and women of the cloth, people of good will, community leaders of good will. . . this sort of strategic orientation can make a difference.
-30-
ReplyDelete''EXCLUSIVE''
1.) Wuhan Lab Partner Dr. Ralph Baric Reviewed Coronavirus Vaccine in December 2019 – After Scheming in 2018 on How to Make Money from a Pandemic.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/wuhan-lab-partner-dr-ralph-baric-reviewed-coronavirus-vaccine-december-2019-scheming-2018-make-money-pandemic/
2.) While speaking at a conference in 2018, Wuhan Institute of Virology and collaborator and gain-of-function advocate 'Dr. Ralph Baric' advised attendees on how to “make money” in the next pandemic.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2021/06/13/wuhan-lab-partner-scheming-on-pandemic-profits/
3.) Dr. David Martin: Who “They” Are, “The Names and Faces” Of Covid!
https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/11/20/dr-david-martin-who-they-are-the-names-and-faces
Yes, it would be nice to have a system in place -- a rigorous, enforceable, contractual obligation -- which bound politicians to their campaign assertions.
ReplyDeleteAs it is now -- and as we know -- politicians say anything, make any promise, to get elected. And then once elected, abandon their promises without qualm at any moment. Without any real legal consequence or penalty.
This is the system we've come to accept and expect. It is so ingrained, we don't even talk about it. It runs roughshod over us.
Here's the thing: we already have systems in place -- with legal authority, to which our politicians could and should be bound. From our constitution to the sworn oaths of office.
Yet we have reached the point where none of this system seems to matter anymore. As the events of the past few years have only served to emphasize, all this existing legal framework is non-op. Politicians and authorities at every level ignore and violate the law, their sworn oaths, and the precedent rights of citizens once deemed inviolable. The framework of law is not enforced, violations are ignored, the criminality is never adjudicated.
I do support your effort here. For one thing, it highlights the ignominies and illegalities which have oppressed the populace the past few years. These issues need expression as forcefully and publicly as possible. We do need to have a platform, and a way to identify and support those who sign on to it.
As part of this campaign, I would suggest an additional component. And that is: no politician, of any party, will be supported in their re-election. None, not one. No matter what they sign, no matter what they promise. They have all failed. They have all, through either their voice or their acqueiscence, violated the constitution and their sworn oaths of office.
We need to get serious here. We need a clean house, a fresh start.
We need to define our own terms for the great reset.
I find it disgracefull, that even up to now the legal cases against employer mandates almost all do so on the basis of the traditional idea that such mandates are acceptable so long as appropriate "religious accommodations" are offered. Although I disagree with this US legal tradition (because _any_ such employer or other mandate infringes on the norm of informed voluntary consent to medical treatment), it's outright scandalous that it is considered applicable to products that are not even licensed. The question of "accommodation" should not even arise, since it is a peremptory norm that experimental medical treatment should _never_ be coerced.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if part of the problem is that the broad liability protections are being specifically interpreted as green lights for infractions on informed consent. If so, perhaps any "emergency use" law that allows certain standards to be relaxed in emergency needs to explicitly specify that actions that infringe on informed consent rights can be considered as part of what constitutes "willful wrongdoing" (or whatever the relevant terminology is) not considered to be within the scope of liability protections. In the main, we want something like this to apply to decision-making at the level of the CDC, but also this principle should apply to other individuals. While not the main targets, for example, an individual administering a vaccine in knowledge that the person receiving it would not have decided to do so absent, say, an employer mandate, should be informed that they may be held liable for infringement on informed consent. And this should be specified in relevant legal codes.
Hopefully, people with legal expertise would know how this might be worded, but I hope that someone might take up the idea, perhaps as part of Dr. Nass's excellent proposal.