What a fantastic essay. You’re right, the vaccine adherents are practicing a religion which can’t be forced on anyone without violating our Constitution.

This is the hill to die on, or rather, not die on, that is.

Expand full comment

How about, thank you, a literal read of 14th amend.

Harmacide is an abridgement of my immunities....

My natural immunities are the ones I choose, not the scamdemic needlerape

Expand full comment

The constitution may or may not withstand the challenge, but I will.

Expand full comment

The People Who Own the Country Ought to Govern It: The Supreme Court, hegemony, and Its Consequences

Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, December, 1987


(23 pages, a lot of it footnotes)

This paper presents an interesting understanding of our US Constitution and our actual governance that many of us are beginning to see doesn't follow it. Written by a law professor at Boise St in 1987 it is provocative to those of us who were taught to revere the nation's founding document and the assertions of our inalienable rights that grew from the Magna Carta, a recognition of civil liberties we enjoy that no sovereign can take from us, monarch or republic. It's hard to accept that our rights have been under assault from the very moment the constitution was adopted and these United States were created. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, asserted that "the people who own this country ought to govern it." While some rights have expanded in the nearly 250 years since, many of the most consequential have been gutted.

Remember, the law is just words. And words are subject to interpretation. Most pre-law students major in English, to study how words work, linguistics. Lawyers and judges engage in a linguistic dance in their arguments and decisions. Little differences in language, like "and," vs ",and" make big differences in interpreting law. Rather, in divining law. Because any knowledgeable jurist can make any decision they are predisposed to make reading the same words in the same constitution, law or regulation. It's how you get 5-4 decisions. All nine read the same regulations, laws and constitution. Some decisions are very obviously the product of linguistic gymnastics by linguistic contortionists. Tortured pretzel logic applied to reach a desired ruling.

Judges ARE political creatures, no matter how much Justice Roberts objects. They are appointed by politicians. They make the short list appointments are drawn upon through networks they interact and mingle with. You'll find lawyers and lower court judges clanking glasses with business leaders, politicians, the owners of a community at cocktail parties, charity balls, fundraisers and the like. Glad-handing and ego-stroking fetes. Proving their fealty to the elite system that is required to become a member of the court that protects the elite's interests, a part of the "priesthood." I know. I went to those cocktail parties, charity balls and fundraisers, glad-handed and stroked egos. It's how realpolitick is done.

What our constitution actually says, what you share is accurate and true. Whether or not our current priesthood judiciary divines and ordains that truth is another story. The paper raises some issues that are a bit dated, but the concepts are timeless. It is also written through the prism of a professor who obviously has some Marxist beliefs and values. But, again, the concepts go beyond ideology. The most important takeaway from this is that we must get over the likelihood that the courts will not protect us and save our constitutional rights as we understand them. Trying to cajole the elite system to respect our individual liberties and rights is a necessary, but largely ineffective strategy.

Our focus must be on appealing to our fellow citizens, our neighbors, families, coworkers, friends, our communities that individual liberties and rights are important, valuable, and produce a much better society and human condition than what we have been experiencing and negotiating away for our collective safety and protection. We must grow our forces to become sufficient to push back on the forces of the elite. Think of Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A. We, The People are object B in this analogy.

Expand full comment

I was thinking about masks in a similar vein. We have framed the argument ineffectively, I believe, by largely focusing on their lack of proven effectiveness and known and potential harms. I believe a better argument is "how dare you force me to protect you!" I would not reasonably expect you to take a bullet in my stead or stand between me and a charging rhino, would I? You protect you and I will protect me and we can go about our business as we see fit. If you think your mask protects me, how on earth does it not protect you?

Expand full comment

Who runs the WHO?

That is the question.

Expand full comment

I like your line of argument, simply stating non-membership in the vaccine religion. However, my own perspective on this is that I would like to see someone press, as a legal argument, religious accommodation on the simple grounds of "sincere belief in the sanctity of informed consent," including its third precept, that of "voluntary consent", which requires that consent to medical procedures should be given in the absence of "any element of coercion," in keeping with the Nuremberg Code. If people have a right to informed consent in this sense, then it follows that employers as well as others do not have a right to infringe on this right. "Voluntary consent," as here understood, is totally different with what authoritarians following Jacobson try to have accepted, namely their notion that everyone has a right to choose (right to "consent"), provided that the non-consenter comply with whatever sanctions the authorities may choose to impose for non-compliance. This is why I bristle at the "not-forced" distinction made regarding the Jacobson decision. Under its terms (as I recall them - it's been a long time since I read it), the policy imposing a fine on Mr. Jacobson _does_ qualify as a mandate, and is indeed the background in law for all mandate policies ever since. But of course, the authors of that decision and all mandates like to stress that no one is "forced." We should be most wary of repeating that argument.

(The first and second precepts of informed consent are full _disclosure_ of risks, and full _comprehension_ of the risks thus disclosed.)

Expand full comment

I was reading Cynthia Chungs Substack yesterday.

This ALL, ties in w Tavistock in the U.K.

CIA here.

Huxley, The summer of love, orchestrated by the same. Brave New World

Sex, Drugs, no God, Free for All.

Making insanity normal and normal, insane.

It all ties back to just a few players, that have overstepped……

Time to cut off those tentacles ones and for all.

Expand full comment

How can someone sign someone elses rights away unless that person is property of the individual doing the signing?

That's right, boys and girls, you're a bunch of tax slaves owned by the federal government.

Get it now?

Expand full comment

"The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits anyone from imposing a religion on other people. Is vaccination a religion? If so, can a religious exemption ever be denied?"

I never heard of a religious exemption based on the premise that the vaccination is a religion. I also thought it was not necessary to say why I request the religious exemption. There are many reasons I can think of other than 'vaccination is a religion being imposed upon me."


I thought there was some less debatable part of the Constitution that protected our right for bodily autonomy and not having to submit to mandatory experimental medical procedures for which informed consent is not possible.

I was just thinking that perhaps the Fourth Amendment's

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

protections related to unlawful searches and seizures of my person, that is my body, in order to search for and obtain information regarding the results obtained from the procedure, the vaccination, that is experimental data information.


I am vehemently opposed to the prospect of the USA continuing in the United Nations and its subsidiary the World Health Organization. THAT is what is unconstitutional in my understanding.

What particularly concerns me is the realization that a pathogen, such as a virus, can be completely created in a laboratory and then have performed on it "gain of function" so as to make the "unvaccine" harmful to humans. Also of course there is the concern that it is perfectly legal in the USA for "vaccines" can be authorized and promoted based on false premises, called "


If it is legal for laboratories and governments to create pathogens in laboratories, then if the USA continues to remain World Health Organization, we the people of the USA can logically expect to have another off-the-shelf "pandemic" imposed upon us any time the totalitarian World Health Organization deems it proper for its purposes and goals.

On demand pandemics here we come!

That's probably very legally debatable too. Do not know the facts about this.


Expand full comment

Powerful article - deeply appreciate your writings ...

Expand full comment

I hope you're going to the Covid Litigation Conference!

Expand full comment

Additionally the sincerely held religious belief does not have to be held for any minimum amount of time, and it does not have to conform with the beliefs of a church and minister (if a member).

Expand full comment

Fantastic, wonderful read. I was just reflecting this morning on how I've watched certain internet players in the past few years suddenly become very christian religious in their assertions, and I've seen how there is loads and loads of money in this. So yeah, anyone as wants to make a good bunch online, just go with the christian and bible talk. It pays!!

Actually, this is a fact you may confirm with Suzanne Humphries...Vaxxination WAS defined as a religion in the UK, which actually called it "the church of vaccinia".

And the US...most people who strongly identify with this corporation of the US, ...identify it as "a christian nation". It's insane, but here we are.

Plus, there's this principle that everyone is allowed whatever "belief" they choose. Well, okay, but how about acting on that? Is that allowed?

Sure, if you're acting on the "belief" that killing that person over there is gonna be good to do. That's what the "belief" in militaries amounts to. Same folks as "believe" in the bible, which is filled with endless wars.

The beauty of "belief systems" is that they can be neither proved, not disproved. That's big jujus for a lot of maneuvers.

Expand full comment

The people who are pushing this are above the level of WHO, Blackrock and WEF and have already copromised governments all over the world. Is it possibe for the Constitution to block them. They have no consideration for life, civil rights or any national government, but the Constitution is the only recourse we have. We should support Russia in the Ukraine conflict because Russian dominance in Ukraine and survival as an entity will defeat US plans for one world order central banking system control and a US dominated world political and military economy instead of a multi polar world. IMO the United States government has declared deadly war on its own population and it is so evil that it deserves complete destruction. Hopefully the Constitution will survive the bankruptcy and destruction of the western cental banking system and affiliated governments.

Kim Iverson and Dr David Martin

The covid virus was developed by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina in cooperation with the Wuhan bioweapons development lab in China, which designed the spike protein to be incorporated into the virus and provide gain of function to make the coronavirus infectious to human respiratory system. The virus along with the fear inducing media campaign was designed to induce people to accept universal "vaccination" which the producers knew would cause deadly heart damage, strokes, blood clotting and cancer. Department of Defense contracts and NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease) provided cover to the private corporations and investment funds (Blackrock) who are profiteering on the death, disease and treatment revenues from worldwide health systems. Looks like a criminal conspiracy to me. Who will be held accountable for the pre-planned death and destruction.


Expand full comment