David asks,
Media reports refer to the SCOTUS Jacobson vs. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905) case as the precedent as to making vaccines mandatory for the populations. The definition of a vaccine is “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease”. This is the definition of a vaccine from multiple sources. The CDC website states the mRNA “vaccine” does not use a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Instead, they teach our bodies how to make a protein that triggers an immune response in our bodies. So, if the mRNA “vaccine” is not really a vaccine by the definition of the word how could a ruling 115 years ago by SCOTUS dealing with vaccines have any applications to mRNA today?
Poor David! Through how much impenetrable legalese did he wade to so neatly defeat Our Rulers?
Alas, dictators who have repeatedly and incorrigibly demonstrated their supreme contempt for the Constitution, us, and even simple decency probably won’t relinquish their grandiose schemes because of a definition.
So while I congratulate David on his scholarship, I fear it won’t persuade our enemy.
When I said as much to him, David responded, “You are right … [but] We just want to give the friendlies more ammo.”
Yo, Friendlies: lock and load.
4:48 pm on December 10, 2020
