From: r421@earthlink.net <r421@earthlink.net>
Subject:    a link to something beautiful

Take a look …
this is too beautiful to pass up!!!
http://www.greatdanepromilitary.com/Life/index.htm

Turn On the Sound and LISTEN!

August 20th, 2009

Subject: FW: Page 425 of Health Care Bill…Educate yourself…PASS ON

This page 425 of the proposed health care bill is just terrible and horrific.  And to think this is in the health care bill that O wanted signed without our Congressmen & Senators could read it in July!   It’s too disturbing for our future and our loved ones!  This is not health care!  And to think the British have been doing this for some time!

Best wishes,

Nancy

Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:29:41 -0700

Fred Thompson: Interviews

The Anti-Empire Report

August 4th, 2009
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Keeping track of the empire’s crimes

If you catch the CIA with its hand in the cookie jar and the Agency admits the obvious — what your eyes can plainly see — that its hand is indeed in the cookie jar, it means one of two things: a) the CIA’s hand is in several other cookie jars at the same time which you don’t know about and they hope that by confessing to the one instance they can keep the others covered up; or b) its hand is not really in the cookie jar — it’s an illusion to throw you off the right scent — but they want you to believe it.

There have been numerous news stories in recent months about secret CIA programs, hidden from Congress, inspired by former vice-president Dick Cheney, in operation since the September 11 terrorist attacks, involving assassination of al Qaeda operatives or other non-believers-in-the-Empire abroad without the knowledge of their governments. The Agency admits to some sort of program having existed, but insists that it was canceled; and if it was an assassination program it was canceled before anyone was actually assassinated. Another report has the US military, not the CIA, putting the plan — or was it a different plan? — into operation, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya that proved to be a severe embarrassment and helped lead to the quashing of the program.¹

All of this can be confusing to those following the news. And rather irrelevant. We already know that the United States has been assassinating non-believers, or suspected non-believers, with regularity, and impunity, in recent years, using unmanned planes (drones) firing missiles, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, if not elsewhere. (Even more victims have been produced from amongst those who happened to be in the same house, car, wedding party, or funeral as the non-believer.) These murders apparently don’t qualify as “assassinations”, for somehow killing “terrorists” from 2000 feet is morally and legally superior to doing so from two feet away.

But whatever the real story is behind the current rash of speculation, we should not fall into the media’s practice of at times intimating that multiple or routine CIA assassination attempts would be something shocking or at least very unusual.

I’ve compiled a list of CIA assassination attempts, successful and unsuccessful, against prominent foreign political figures, from 1949 through 2003, which, depending on how you count it, can run into the hundreds (targeting Fidel Castro alone totals 634 according to Cuban intelligence)²; the list can be updated by adding the allegedly al Qaeda leaders among the drone attack victims of recent years. Assassination and torture are the two things governments are most loath to admit to, and try their best to cover up. It’s thus rare to find a government document or recorded statement mentioning a particular plan to assassinate someone. There is, however, an abundance of compelling circumstantial evidence to work with. The list can be found here.

For those of you who collect lists about splendid US foreign policy post-World War II, here are a few more that, lacking anything better to do, I’ve put together: Attempts to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which had been democratically-elected.

After his June 4 Cairo speech, President Obama was much praised for mentioning the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. But in his talk in Ghana on July 11 he failed to mention the CIA coup that ousted Ghanian president Kwame Nkrumah in 1966³, referring to him only as a “giant” among African leaders. The Mossadegh coup is one of the most well-known CIA covert actions. Obama could not easily get away without mentioning it in a talk in the Middle East looking to mend fences. But the Nkrumah ouster is one of the least known; indeed, not a single print or broadcast news report in the American mainstream media saw fit to mention it at the time of the president’s talk. Like it never happened.

And the next time you hear that Africa can’t produce good leaders, people who are committed to the welfare of the masses of their people, think of Nkrumah and his fate. And think of Patrice Lumumba, overthrown in the Congo 1960-61 with the help of the United States; Agostinho Neto of Angola, against whom Washington waged war in the 1970s, making it impossible for him to institute progressive changes; Samora Machel of Mozambique against whom the CIA supported a counter-revolution in the 1970s-80s period; and Nelson Mandela of South Africa (now married to Machel’s widow), who spent 28 years in prison thanks to the CIA.⁴

• Gross interference in democratic elections in at least 30 countries⁵
• Waging war/military action, either directly or in conjunction with a proxy army, in some 30 countries
• Dropping bombs on the people of more than 30 countries
• Attempts to suppress dozens of populist/nationalist movements in every corner of the world⁶

The Myths of Afghanistan, past and present

On the Fourth of July, Senator Patrick Leahy declared he was optimistic that, unlike the Soviet forces that were driven from Afghanistan 20 years ago, US forces could succeed there. The Democrat from Vermont stated:

“The Russians were sent running as they should have been. We helped send them running. But they were there to conquer the country. We’ve made it very clear, and everybody I talk to within Afghanistan feels the same way: they know we’re there to help and we’re going to leave. We’ve made it very clear we are going to leave. And it’s going to be turned back to them. The ones that made the mistakes in the past are those that tried to conquer them.”⁷

Leahy is a long-time liberal on foreign-policy issues, a champion of withholding US counter-narcotics assistance to foreign military units guilty of serious human-rights violations, and an outspoken critic of robbing terrorist suspects of their human and legal rights. Yet he is willing to send countless young Americans to a living hell, or horrible death, or maimed survival.

And for what? Every point he made in his statement is simply wrong.

The Russians were not in Afghanistan to conquer it. The Soviet Union had existed next door to the country for more than 60 years without any kind of invasion. It was only when the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists; precisely what the United States would have done to prevent a communist government in Canada or Mexico.

It’s also rather difficult for the United States to claim that it’s in Afghanistan to help the people there when it’s killed tens of thousands of them simply for resisting the American invasion and occupation or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; not a single one of the victims has been identified as having had any kind of connection to the terrorist attack in the US of September 11, 2001, the event usually cited by Washington as justification for the military intervention. Moreover, Afghanistan is now permeated with depleted uranium, cluster bombs-cum-landmines, white phosphorous, a witch’s brew of other charming chemicals, and a population, after 30 years of almost non-stop warfare, of physically and mentally mutilated human beings, exceedingly susceptible to the promise of paradise, or at least relief, sold by the Taliban.

As to the US leaving … utterly meaningless propaganda until it happens. Ask the people of South Korea — 56 years of American occupation and still counting; ask the people of Japan — 64 years. And Iraq? Would you want to wager your life’s savings on which decade it will be that the last American soldier and military contractor leaves?

It’s not even precise to say that the Russians were sent running. That was essentially Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev’s decision, and it was more of a political decision than a military one. Gorbachev’s fondest ambition was to turn the Soviet Union into a West-European style social democracy, and he fervently wished for the approval of those European leaders, virtually all of whom were cold-war anti-communists and opposed the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan.

There has been as much of the same “causes” for wars that did not happen as for wars that did.

Henry Allingham died in Britain on July 18 at age 113, believed to have been the world’s oldest man. A veteran of World War I, he spent his final years reminding the British people about their service members killed during the war, which came to about a million: “I want everyone to know,” he said during an interview in November. “They died for us.”⁸

The whole million? Each one died for Britain? In the most useless imperialist war of the 20th century? No, let me correct that — the most useless imperialist war of any century. The British Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, and the wannabe American Empire joined in battle against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire as youthful bodies and spirits sank endlessly into the wretched mud of Belgium and Germany, the pools of blood of Russia and France. The wondrous nobility of it all is enough to make you swallow hard, fight back the tears, light a few candles, and throw up. Imagine, by the middle of this century Vietnam veterans in their 90s and 100s will be speaking of how each of their 58,000 war buddies died for America. By 2075 we’ll be hearing the same stirring message from ancient vets of Iraq and Afghanistan. How many will remember that there was a large protest movement against their glorious, holy crusades, particularly Vietnam and Iraq?

Supreme nonsense

Senate hearings to question a nominee for the Supreme Court are a supreme bore. The sine qua non for President Obama choosing Sonia Sotomayor appears to be that she’s a woman with a Hispanic background. A LATINA! How often that word was used by her supporters. She would be the first LATINA on the Supreme Court! Dios mio!

Who gives a damn? All anyone should care about are her social and political opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas is a black man. A BLACK MAN! And he’s as conservative as they come.

Supreme Court nominees, of all political stripes, typically feel obliged to pretend that their social and political leanings don’t enter into their judicial opinions. But everyone knows this is rubbish. During her Senate hearing, Sotomayor declared: “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It’s the law.”

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Charles Evans Hughes, would not agree with her. “At the constitutional level where we work,” he said, “ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.”⁹

By Sotomayor’s own account, which echos news reports, she was not asked about her position on abortion by either President Obama or his staff. But what if she is actually anti-abortion? What if she turns out to be the swing vote that overturns Roe vs. Wade?

What if she’s a proud admirer of the American Empire and its perpetual wars? American dissidents, civilian and military, may depend on her vote for their freedom from imprisonment.

What does she think about the “War on Terror”? The civil liberties and freedom from torture of various Americans and foreigners may depend on her attitude. In his 2007 trial, Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was found guilty of aiding terrorists. “The jury did seem to be an oddly cohesive group,” the Washington Post reported. “On the last day of trial before the Fourth of July holiday, jurors arranged to dress in outfits so that each row in the jury box was its own patriotic color — red, white or blue.”¹⁰ No one dared to question this blatant display of patriotism in the courtroom; neither the defense attorney, nor the prosecutor, nor the judge. How can we continue to pretend that people’s legal positions exist independently of their political sentiments?

In the 2000 Supreme Court decision stopping the presidential electoral count in Florida, giving the election to George W. Bush, did the politics of the five most conservative justices play a role in the 5 to 4 decision? Of course. Judges are essentially politicians in black robes. But should we care? Don’t ask, don’t tell. Sonia Sotomayor is a LATINA!

Given the large Democratic majority in the Senate, Sotomayor was in very little danger of being rejected. She could have openly and proudly expressed her social and political positions — whatever they may be — and the Democratic senators could have done the same. How refreshing, maybe even educational if a discussion ensued. Instead it was just another political appointment by a president determined to not offend anyone if he can help it, and another tiresome ritual hearing. The Republican senators were much less shy about revealing how they actually felt about important issues.

It didn’t have to be that way. As Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun.org pointed out during the hearings: “Democratic Senators could use their time to ask questions and make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.”

NATO and Eastern Europe resource

No one chronicles the rise of the supra-government called NATO like Rick Rozoff in his “Stop NATO” mailings. NATO has become an ever-expanding behemoth, making war and interfering in political controversies all over Europe and beyond. The United States is not the world’s only superpower; NATO is another, as it surrounds Russia and the Caspian Sea oil reserves; although the distinction between the two superpowers is little more than a facade. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the NATO/US 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia. On April 23, 1999 missiles slammed into Radio Television Serbia (RTS) in downtown Belgrade, killing 16 employees. The station, NATO claimed, was a legitimate military target because it broadcast propaganda. (Certainly a novel form of censorship; not to mention the fact that NATO could simply have taken out the station’s transmitter.) What apparently bothered the Western powers was that RTS was reporting the horrendous effects of NATO’s bombing as well as passing footage of the destruction to Western media.

To mark the anniversary, Amnesty International recently issued a demand that NATO be held accountable for the 16 deaths. Amnesty asserts that the bombing was a deliberate attack on a civilian object (one of many during the 78 days) and as such constitutes a war crime, and called upon NATO to launch a war crimes probe into the attack to ensure full accountability and redress for victims and their families.

Readers might consider signing up for the “Stop NATO” mailing list. Just write to: rwrozoff [at] yahoo.com. Rozoff scours the East European press each day and comes up with numerous gems ignored by the mainstream media. But a warning: The amount of material you’ll receive is often considerable. You’ll have to learn to pick and choose. You can get an idea of this by reading previous reports at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages.

Notes

1. The Guardian (London) July 13, 2009 ^?
2. Fabian Escalante, “Executive Action: 634 Ways to Kill Fidel Castro” (Ocean Press, 2006) ^?
3. William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 32^?
4. William Blum, Rogue State, chapter 23 ^?
5. Ibid., chapter 18 ^?
6. Rogue State, chapter 17, intermixed with other types of US interventions ^?
7. Vermont TV station WCAX, July 4, 2009, WCAX.com ^?
8. Washington Post, July 19, 2009 ^?
9. William O. Douglas, “The Court Years, 1939-1975″ (1980), p.8 ^?
10. Washington Post, August 17, 2007 ^?

–

William Blum is the author of:

• Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
• West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
• Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

(Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

Home

Share with others: Our NEW BLOG
W.H.O. Flu Pandemic Research (updated daily) http://blog2.cephasministry.com/
latest website: http://www.cephastamingthelion.com/
http://www.cephasministry.com/index2.html
and subscribe or unsubscribe to our free International Social Pulse:
http://www.cephasministry.com/mail
“.. Through God we shall do valiantly: for He it is that shall tread down our enemies. (Psalms 108:13)
Shalom, Rita Williams at Cephas Ministry

Governance - What Is It ?

The authority to guide or organize?

Who has the authority to guide or organize or govern us?

Why do we have governors?

Do we need governors?

Who should choose our governors?

Who should be our governors?

In America, we are led to believe and accept that the Constitution has the authority to govern us. We are told that the Constitution tells us what we must do and what others must do. Does it tell us what we can do?

The Declaration of Independence talks about government. It first tells us about Rights, that to secure those rights, men institute government.

What is government? An organization that issues policies that direct and control actions that affect the behavior of people? Where does government get an authority to issue policies? From people? Where do people get the authority to create policies that direct people? Their Creator? When and where did their Creator give people the authority to govern their selves? At their birth? Why did their Creator endow people with the authority to govern their selves?

Their Creator endowed each person with certain unalienable Rights to use opportunities that are based on principles that most likely would support the powers that could secure their rights to life, liberty, safety and happiness.

To exercise those powers, are an appropriate supply of goods and services needed for each person, to pursue their happiness? To satisfy those needs, should people design an appropriate cooperative agreement, which would guide and organize each person to use an appropriate standard of living, as an important unalienable Right of each person?

Does each person need to use their talent to fulfill their potential for happiness? Does each person also need an opportunity to contribute to the well-being of humanity? Does our pursuit of happiness need appropriate instruction through forms of education, that provide understandings and skills that other people successfully used to form their pursuits of happiness? Is appropriate education an unalienable Right of each person?

The Bible explains that the Creator of people endowed each person with the assignment to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea, … the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth … and God saw everything that He had made and beheld it was very good.” How were people able to exercise their dominion? Did dominion mean that man has supreme authority over the Earth and all of its creatures of the sea, the air and the land? How is man able to exercise dominion?

How is man to determine what is good and evil? Did it start out as a lesson of what to eat? Man was made with a body and mind that needed energy to live, and food was his source of energy. Man had an appetite for food and a curiosity that would enable him to find food that was tasty and safe. Like a good father, God told Adam he could eat the fruits of all of the trees in the garden except fruit from one special tree. If he ate the fruit of that tree, he would die.

“That’s a lie,” said the serpent, “Eating the fruit of that tree will make you as gods.” We know now, as Adam learned then, the serpent was lying.

Did God plant that tree? Why?

To this day, Adam and Eve’s descendents continue to fall for the belief that ignoring danger might be an opportunity for good instead of evil. We choose men to be our governors, but many if not most of them use the powers of governments to satisfy their lusts for power and riches, which they expect will make them happy. Like us, they make their decisions to secure their comfort. From their comfort, they view the people to be a problem that might affect their comfort, so they prefer to subdue people, rather than help them have dominion over their selves.

Is it possible, that the people could govern their selves? Does the Constitution see this possibility as feasible? Does the Declaration of Independence see this as feasible? Do the intents of these documents differ from each other? What are the differences?

The Declaration says that people have the right to institute new government and change, abolish, or throw off any form of government that becomes destructive of the unalienable Rights of the people. Does the Constitution suggest this?

The Constitution established money as the basis of how government determines its service and the value of all things and human labors.

The Declaration does not suggest or provide for government to coin money. Why?

Did the writers of the Declaration understand that the right to pursue happiness could not be purchased by money or the value of happiness itself to be determined by the government issuance of money?

Did the writers of the Declaration understand that money would impose its values as costs of how the people would exercise their rights to life, liberty, and their pursuits of happiness? Did they choose to not allow money, because it would control how people would pursue their creative potential as stewards of their dominion?

As governors of our selves, and in a nation, our right, to make decisions in making a policy, is a choice of the responsibility for its consequence. Since we humans have been given dominion of the earth and the seas, should our decisions as stewards be based on concerns of profits or the loss of money, or should we make decisions based on what good works need to be done by us, as stewards of the Earth and seas? Is this our true manifest destiny?

- WJAnthony

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OUR BASIC CHARTER OF AMERICAN RIGHTS, CONDEMNS ALL VIOLATIONS OF INHERENT NATURAL RIGHTS

The Declaration of Independence is, I believe, the greatest ethical and political document ever penned by human hand or human wisdom, the greatest document of Human Rights and Liberties, Basic Ethics, Civic Religion and Democratic Government ever written and all expressed in its one essential paragraph, as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

We have been accustomed to call this great document a ”Declaration of Independence,” but it should more properly be called a “Declaration of Rights” because “Independence,” or self-government, is only one of the several “unalienable” rights declared in this great charter. It is in fact our great “Bill of Rights,” being our first Charter and Declaration of those essential, natural, inherent and ineffaceable rights of mankind, which all governments must respect, defend and enforce, and which cannot be ignored or invaded by any authority, organization or government whatever. It is indeed our American “Magna Charta” of fundamental rights and our first or Pre-Constitution preceding our formal Constitution, and, of course, equal to it as a basis for all law and government, and particularly expressing what may be termed our Pre-Constitutional Rights, that is, those rights which always existed by “Natural” and “Divine” endowment before any human laws, charters or constitutions were ever written; and it, of course, antedates, and therefore takes precedence even over our State and National laws and Constitutions, which, to be valid, must be based on the fundamental principles of inherent human and natural rights which are naturally and divinely and equally conferred upon all mankind. It must be remembered at this point that the official title of this great document is “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,” which shows that it is the official statement or code of the foundation governing principles of the New Nation issued by its first Congress and has, therefore, the full effect of a “Constitution,” “Pre-Constitution” or “Bill of Rights.”

THE CODE AND BASIS OF AMERICANISM

This great primary Code of Rights, which is adapted for the just and beneficent rule of mankind in all their relations, has not been half well enough understood or appreciated by our American people heretofore, and it has been usually looked upon as chiefly a political document, whereas, it is essentially much more than that, being in fact a great code of basic ethics and civic religion, in addition to a code of democratic government, with a wide scope and character, which fits it equally to individual, national, or international relations; and this makes it truly our American Bible and Creed and our basis for a great American and Universal “Religion” both ethical and political, which can and should be now adopted by the “League of Nations” as a standard code or basis for the moral and political government of mankind the world over, and should be taught in all our schools as the basis of Americanism.

It is time, therefore, that Americans clearly understood and appreciated the full ethical, legal and political scope and sense of this wonderful code of one paragraph, and it is time also that this great and simple Code of Essential Americanism was plainly emblazoned on our public walls, spaces and monuments like the inscription “Holiness to the Lord” displayed on the forefront of the high priests, as directed in Exodus, Chapter 28, so that all our people can get fully acquainted and inspired with the broad and simple principles of Right and Justice in this sublime Code of Americanism.

This great paragraph of basic Americanism should, therefore, be conspicuously posted on every public building, school, and church in the land, over the Judge’s bench in every Court, over the rostrum in every Legislature and over the desk of every public officer, and particularly over the desk of every public doctor, Medical Board and Board of Health in the land, which have been heretofore some of the worst violators of this code of unalienable human rights in their various barbarous practices of medical domination, dictation and compulsion, and forced infliction of disease.

Now I do not intend, in this article, to show just how the Declaration of Independence can be seriously considered as a clear and sure basis for rational ethics and civic religion for the legal and moral government of mankind, in all relations, having reserved that important subject for full treatment in a separate article, but I do intend to show here how the evil of compulsory vaccination and all other forms of compulsory medicine are gross violations of the Declaration and its principles of basic Americanism and inherent human rights so clearly defined therein.

THE FIVE ARTICLES OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, JULY 4, 1776

First: All men are created equal.

Second: All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Third: Governments are instituted among men to secure these unalienable rights.

Fourth : Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Fifth : Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

Let us now take up the first article of the Declaration “All men are created equal” and see what it means, and what it does not mean. It surely does not mean that all men are created equal in worldly possessions or natural advantages, in physical strength, personal beauty, moral sense or mental power, as it is notorious that mankind differ unavoidably and universally in all these conditions. But it clearly does mean that all men are created equal in a moral, legal and governmental sense, equal as members of society or citizens of the State, no matter how much they may differ in inherent or acquired advantages. It means that one man shall count no more than any other man before the law or in the State by reason of worldly possessions or personal advantages, but that each man shall count alike and equal, no matter how rich or poor, strong or weak, smart or dull, handsome or plain he may be. It means also that the “Creator” has not arbitrarily picked out any particular person, group, family, or race, as His special favorites, to rule or lord it over any other person or mass of persons; and, particularly, that the Creator has not specially “ordained” any favorite person to rule over any part of mankind without their selection and consent. It does mean that the Creator has no “favorites,” but that all men are “equal” before Him, and, hence, that barbarous and oppressive fallacy of “Divine-Right-Monarchism” is emphatically repudiated in this first Article. It means that all “one-man-rule” or “one-race-rule,” and all vile Germanism of the “Gott-Mit-Uns” or “Germans-Over-All” type, is flatly condemned. But, per contra, this Article does plainly mean that the Creator has divinely ordained each and every human individual to be an equal “sovereign” in his own right and that all government depends on the selection and consent of these individual and equal sovereigns who are “endowed” with the “divine right” of collectively forming their own government and selecting their own rulers, instead of having a rule and a ruler forced on them by alleged “divine” command, and without their selection or consent. In other words, this Article obviously means, pure and simple, “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Now if each individual American is divinely ordained as an equalized sovereign in his own right, and this is surely a grand distinction of the American Institution and the American citizen, he obviously has a sovereign right to his own body and all his natural possessions; and the most sacred and essential of these rights and possessions is, obviously, the right to his own physical body, the sanctity of his own person, and the right to decide how it shall be treated or taken care of in health or disease; and if he has not this sacred and sovereign right to his own body he has practically no right at all and might as well be wiped out and would be better dead. Therefore, if any doctor or other person claims the right to possess the body of any man, to experiment or operate upon it, to medicate, cut, inoculate, or treat his body as he might see fit, without the free choice, consent or approval of that man, it is obvious that the man is no longer a sovereign or the owner of his own body, but is a mere “slave” or domestic animal and that the doctor really owns his body and is his “master” as much as if he were a pig or dog; so that, therefore, all “equality” and “sovereignty” of the individual is destroyed by this medical “hoggery” and we have not a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” but a government of the doctors, by the doctors, for the doctors, which in fact we now have to a very dangerous extent. And, indeed, medical organization, compulsion, dictation and domination have now got to such a stage that it is one of the most dangerous powers in our body politic and must be curbed, as I will show later on.

It therefore follows that all compulsory or dictatorial medicine is an absolute violation of the first or basic principle of Americanism as expressed in our great Declaration of Rights, and our first or Pre-Constitution, and therefore must be abolished if we would be true to basic human right and fundamental American principles.

We will now take up the second Article of the Declaration and study its meaning. This Article, with a slight variation of the official words, is as follows:

“All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Now the great keynote-words in this clause, “unalienable rights,” mean “inseparable rights,” rights which the citizen cannot be separated from, rights which cannot be removed or taken away from the people or denied or invaded by any government or power whatever, but which all governments must respect and defend.

This second article from the Declaration of Rights is, I think, the wisest, most important and significant statement in a political, legal and moral sense that was ever written by human hand or human mind, because it is the essence of the essential paragraph of the Declaration and clearly expresses the basis of Democratic Government, Rational Ethics, and Civic Religion, in one simple clause or sentence! This basis is simply the inherent and “unalienable” rights of our fellow men necessary for human life, liberty and happiness, which are naturally or divinely conferred upon all men, equally, and cannot be ignored or violated by individuals or governments. And it is obvious that the honest and general recognition of these rights will at once establish true justice and righteousness among men and nations, and the disregard and violation of these rights is now, and ever has been, the cause of all wrongdoing, war, and other evils between men and nations the world over.

This simple and potent statement of basic human rights is therefore equal in ethical and legal force to the bulk of the Decalogue itself and to the Golden Rule of Humanity, Honesty and Justice in its three best versions from the world’s greatest moral teachers, Confucius, Plato and Christ; so that in this simple sentence from the essential paragraph of our first great national document we have a code of Democratic Government and of Human Ethics in one sentence, which, as before suggested, should be taught in all our schools as the basis of Americanism.

THE GOLDEN RULE AND THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS COMPARED

It may be worth while to consider here for a moment what is perhaps the best version of the “Golden Rule,” viz., the version of Plato in Plato’s Laws, Book XI, Prof. Jowett’s translation, which is in these words, dated about 360 B.C.:

‘Thou shalt not touch that which is mine, if thou canst help, or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent: and may I, being of sound mind, do to others as I would that they should do to me.”

This is surely a most righteous ethical code, clear, broad and simple, and in moral and logical effect it is nearer like our American Declaration of Rights than any other formula, particularly as regards the recognition of the sacred personal rights of the individual which is equivalent to the principle of “un-alienable rights” in the Declaration. The phrase, ‘Thou shalt not touch that which is mine or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent,” is certainly a most righteous rule of human honesty, sanctity, justice and security which surely condemns everything like compulsory medicine which touches and violates the body with inflicted disease, without consent of the patient, and removes and destroys the most sacred possession of the individual, viz., bodily sanctity, health and life.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ANALYZED AND DEFINED

It will be noted that the significant words of the second article of the Declaration state that “all men” are endowed by their Creator with “certain” “unalienable rights” among which are “life” “liberty” and the “pursuit of happiness.” By the word “certain” is, therefore, clearly meant various, many or several rights, most of which are left unspecified or not categorically stated except where it refers to the chief or general rights of “life”, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And it is obvious that by these expressions are clearly meant all essential natural or “unalienable” rights which are necessary to life, safety, liberty and happiness of the individual and which do not interfere with, invade or endanger the life, liberty or happiness of any other individual. The right to “life” of course stands first, and is stated first, because without life we have nothing; and the right to “liberty” is stated second, because without reasonable liberty life itself would be useless, and without ample liberty to pursue our ideas of happiness in our own ways, without infringing on the liberty or happiness of others, the right to nominal liberty might itself be useless and meaningless.

Let me now remind you, Mr. President, at this point, that all the reform we ask for in this whole matter is the very important and essential right of Medical Freedom, viz., the free right of every person to accept or reject any medical operation whatever as the citizen or patient sees fit, which is obviously an “unalienable right,” and, as I will soon show, is as clearly covered in the Constitution by direct implication as the right to religious freedom is covered by specific guarantee. And of the two it is obvious that the right to medical freedom is even more important than the right to religious freedom, and that medical compulsion is to-day a far more dangerous evil than religious compulsion ever was.

Medical compulsion is therefore not only immoral, illegal and unconstitutional, but is also contrary to all true medical ethics, which call for the absolute medical freedom and right of the patient to decide what operation is or is not to be performed on his own body and blood; and, if any doctor, or any government behind the doctor, has any sovereign right whatever to force any medication or operation on any patient, however humble, against his will, consent or desire, will some one please tell us where the doctor, or the government, got this right morally, medically or legally?

ALL POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE TO THE GOVERNMENT-NOT VICE VERSA

Every true American and Democrat knows, that according to our immortal Declaration of Rights and our great Constitution our Government has no rights or powers whatever except what the People have given to it and that the source of all power is in the People and comes from the People to the Government, and not vice versa, as in the Monarchic systems which we have been fighting in the Great War. Under our democratic system, government does not give any rights to the people, as in monarchic systems, but the people are endowed originally and in herently with all necessary or unalienable rights for life, liberty and happiness, and their government exists simply or chiefly for the purpose of protecting and enforcing these rights, not for granting or denying rights which exist unalienably in the people themselves.

It will therefore be found that our wonderful Constitution, as well as the Declaration, covers these fundamental points most distinctly as to inherent, unalienable rights retained by and dwelling in the people, where it states in Articles IX and X as follows:

“The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here we plainly see that the Constitution, as well as the Declaration which preceded it, show that the People have a whole series of “certain” “unalienable “ “reserved” and “retained” rights, and that these several rights, both specified and unspecified, are divinely conferred and naturally inherent and cannot be invaded or taken away by any government, but must be respected, defended and enforced by all governments, and that governments exist for the chief purpose of defending and enforcing these rights.

Now we might ask just here: Where and when have the People ever given up their most sacred, obvious and essential right to their choice of medical treatment and to the freedom and sanctity of their own bodies and
abandoned their bodies to the doctors to seize when they see fit to inject with disease as in vaccination, to experiment on as they might wish or to operate or medicate as they might choose, without any regard to the free will, consent or desire of the patient?

As government therefore derives its “just powers” only from the “consent of the governed,” so it is obvious that doctors can derive their “just powers” to operate only from the consent of the patient; and surely the unanswerable question in the preceding paragraph shows clearly the utter barbarity and illegality of all medical compulsion not only in a basic moral, constitutional and legal sense but also from the basis of true medical ethics, which surely no true medical doctor can attempt to deny for one moment.

MEDICAL FREEDOM AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT

In conclusion, it therefore follows that the right to Medical Freedom is the clearest and most essential of the “unalienable” “retained” and “reserved” rights possessed by the People under the Declaration and the Constitution; and as these rights cannot be legally invaded or denied by any Government, it follows, therefore, that all compulsory vaccination is clearly un-American, illegal, unconstitutional, and medically barbarous and unworthy of a place on any American, military, medical, or legislative Code, and should be absolutely abolished as fit only for some Code of Prussianism, from which, as before said, it has been, in fact, copied.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION CONDEMNED BY OUR COURTS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In illustration of the principles stated in preceding paragraphs, I might here cite a few decisions from our higher courts showing the outrageous illegal and unconstitutional nature of all forcible or compulsory vaccination.

Judge Bartlett, of the New York Supreme Court, in the case of Walters in 1894, decided that:

“To vaccinate a person against his will, without legal authority so to do, would be an assault.”

Judge Gaynor, of the same Court, in the case of Smith against Health Commissioner Emery of Brooklyn in 1894, gave the following important decision which was afterwards fully sustained by the New York Court of Appeals:

“If the Commissioner [of Health] had the power to imprison an individual for refusing to submit to vaccination, I see no reason why he should not also imprison one for refusing to swallow a dose. But the Legislature has conferred no such power upon him, if, indeed, it has the power to do the like. … If the Legislature desired to make vaccination compulsory it would have so enacted. Whether it be within its power to do so, and if so, by what means it may enforce such an enactment, are not for discussion here.”

Judge Woodward, of the New York Appellate Court, in the Viemeister case in 1903, declared that:

“It may be conceded that the Legislature has no constitutional right to compel any person to submit to vaccination.”

The Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts, in the case of Jacobson in 1904, said:

“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of five dollars.”

Judge Fitts, of the Supreme Court in Columbia County, New York, in the case of Bollinger in February, 1909, charged the jury as follows:

“I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the courts of this State in construing the authority and power so conferred upon local health officers who are the executive members of the board or the local boards, have held that there is no warrant or authority in law for the compulsory vaccination of any individual.”

At the second trial of this case in February, 1910, Judge LeBceuf charged the jury in these words:

“Now, I have charged you that this assault which is claimed to have existed here, due to the forcible vaccination, if it was a forcible vaccination, that is, if it was against this man’s will, is one which you must consider. And the reason of that is this: This man, in the eyes of the law, just as you and I and all of us in this court-room, has the right to be let alone. We all have the right to the freedom of our persons and that freedom of our persons may not be unlawfully invaded. That is a great right. It is one of the most important rights we have.”

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE PREEMINENT RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

In conclusion on this most vital point, let me call your special attention, Mr. President, to a most significant and important decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the vaccination case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, rendered in 1905, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. In this long and interesting decision, one of its most clear and conclusive paragraphs emphatically declares the preeminent rights of the individual in certain spheres, as follows:

‘There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will.”

Now, what is this “sphere” within which this highest court in our land tells us so clearly and emphatically that “the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government, existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will” ?

The context both before and after this paragraph shows clearly that this “sphere” of individual right and freedom exists wherever any unalienable or inherent natural right secured by our constitution is invaded or violated, or where any act or practice forced upon the individual is potentially or actually dangerous to the health or life of that individual, such as I have shown every act of vaccination to be, in its very nature being an act of septicemic infection or blood poisoning pure and simple, which sometimes causes wide-spread epidemics and frequently causes serious injuries and many deaths, even more deaths than smallpox itself, as has been demonstrated beyond question.

Surely, therefore, there is no individual or personal right more inherent and natural and more sacred and obvious or more surely guaranteed in Declaration and Constitution than the right to medical freedom of the body, the right to health and life and the right of the individual to select and decide freely for himself the medical treatment of his own body, and the right to guard it against any medical treatment or operation which in his own judgment and conscience may be unnecessary or undesirable or may involve great risk or suffering to himself or may seriously endanger his health or life. This right is, I think, so obvious, so fundamental and necessary and so unquestionable under the letter and spirit of our basic laws and constitution, and by the decisions of our courts as well as by all common sense, logic and ethics, that I do not think another word of argument is necessary to establish this right in the conscientious conviction of every rational mind.

DECISION OF U. S. SUPREME COURT FURTHER ANALYZED

In further consideration of the meaning and significance of this important decision of the U. S. Supreme Court it may be now explained that the law of Massachusetts here considered was a Statute passed by the Legislature requiring the vaccination of all persons, child or adult, under penalty of fine of $5 for refusing vaccination. This law made an exception for children or minors in delicate health or such physical condition as would be injured by vaccination, but made no such exception for adults like the defendant Jacobson.

The Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts in its decision, from which this appeal was taken, had already decided, as I have shown, that the State could not enforce actual compulsory vaccination upon any person, but could only enforce the fine of $5 if vaccination was not voluntarily adopted.

The U. S. Supreme Court concluded its decision in these words:

“We now decide only that the statute covers the present case, and that nothing clearly appears that would justify this Court in holding it to be unconstitutional and inoperative in its application to the plaintiff in error.”

From this conclusion Justices Brewer and Peckham dissented, thus evidently holding that the law of Massachusetts, which inflicts a fine of $5 for refusing vaccination, was unconstitutional, whereas the majority of the Court seem to hold that this State law, which can enforce the fine but cannot compel the vaccination, was legal and constitutional, but that nevertheless this fine could not be enforced against any persons who could show that vaccination was dangerous to their health and life, and that the Courts would interfere to prevent its enforcement in all such cases and thus protect the constitutional rights of the individual within that “sphere” of preeminent individual right as already quoted.

Now it seems that the defendant Jacobson did not properly plead that vaccination was dangerous to health and life, in his own case, or offer to prove this, in his own case, and hence the decision was technically given against him, but really, in principle, for him; which decision, as we have shown, was rendered by a divided Court with two judges dissenting who evidently held that compulsory vaccination by fine, as called for in the law of Massachusetts, was unconstitutional.

We therefore believe that this decision, when properly applied, will invalidate all forms of coercive vaccination, whether by inflicted fine, or by denial of some civic right, such as public education, whenever the prosecuted case is properly tried on the correct legal pleas and issues and carried up through our highest Courts on the principles laid down in this great decision and outlined in this analysis.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS RIGHTS OF MAJORITIES.    FALSE IDEA OF THE SUPREMACY OF MAJORITIES SCORED

We often hear it stated that this is a government essentially of majorities and that any majority can legally and properly force its opinion or will upon any minority, no matter how objectionable to the minority this law or will of the majority might be; and that it is the clear right of the majority thus to oppress itself upon the minority and the loyal duty of the minority to yield to this oppression, however odious.

This rank idea of the supremacy of majorities is, I believe, a great legal and moral and cowardly mistake and a gross misconception of our Democratic American Government, because it entirely loses sight of the great basic principle of inherent and unalienable human rights, which seems to have been first, or best, expressed in our immortal Declaration of Rights. Therefore, under this basic principle of “unalienable” right, no majorities, however powerful, can legally or morally invade or set aside any of the “unalienable” or inseparable rights of the People, as this is obviously the clear significance and meaning of the terms “unalienable rights,” as I have already shown. Hence this fundamental American principle of “unalienable rights” calls in trumpet tones from the lines of the Declaration and Constitution and gives this warning to all majorities, however powerful: “Thus far shalt thou go but no farther, and here must thy power be stayed,” that is, stayed at the approach to every sacred inherent and unalienable right of the individual necessary to the life, liberty, health and happiness of the individual.

We have often heard the phrase quoted, “This is a government of laws and not of men,” which is only another way of stating what I am here contending for, viz., that this Government of Americanism is not based essentially on mere numbers or majorities of “men,” but chiefly on naturally or divinely ordained principles or “laws” of eternal human right and justice, and, more particularly and essentially, on the great basic American law or principle of “Unalienable Rights” of the People, which is the great American “Sanctuary” of Liberty and Right that no majority or minority can invade or profane.

Majorities can, of course, properly prevail over minorities in all matters that are purely selective or elective or which can be determined only by preponderating vote, but cannot prevail over any defined or established inherent, unalienable or constitutional right of the individual, and it has often been well said that Constitutions are made especially to protect minorities, and not majorities, who already have the preponderant political and legislative power in their hands and do not need such protection.

MEDICAL FREEDOM  AND  ALIMENTARY  FREEDOM ARE EQUALLY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND NECESSARY FOR HUMAN LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS

We have already seen how compulsory medicine is a gross violation of the American principle of Unalienable Rights and need say nothing further on that point here; but, as the exposure and condemnation of one evil may show us the way to suppress another and similar evil, so it may be excusable for us to digress here for a moment from our main subject and call attention to the fact that the same moral, legal and logical principles against Compulsory Medicine apply equally to that latest dangerous invasion of the unalienable rights of the people involved in the extraordinary scheme of National Prohibition or Compulsory Abstinence in certain foods and drinks recently forced upon the people by what is alleged to be a majority of the voters of this country. Now, I do not believe that any majority of our voters have ever approved either compulsory medicine or compulsory abstinence, but, on the contrary, that these errors have been forced upon the people by audacious, well organized and arrogant minorities who have temporarily gotten control of political and legislative power and have deceived the public mind with the allied necessity, utility and righteousness of these oppressive errors. But even if it can be shown that a majority of our voters approve either of these errors, such alleged majorities would be morally and legally unjustified in overriding any inherent right of the people under our basic American doctrine and law of Unalienable Rights.

I intend to treat, in a separate article, this important subject of Alimentary Freedom, in certain fermented foods and drinks, as an unalienable right of the people, established by world-wide and age-long usage and by the highest civic, moral, legal and religious sanctions, and need give no further attention to that special subject here.1

1 This subject of Alimentary Freedom as an unalienable right of the people in time of peace has been treated in a separate pamphlet issued November 25, 1919, entitled “Unalienable Rights and Prohibition Wrongs.”

MEDICAL DESPOTISM WORSE THAN RELIGIOUS DESPOTISM.

The old religious heresy
“Let us sin that grace may abound,”
compared with the modern vaccination fanaticism,
“Let us force and spread disease upon the people so that health may abound!”

In the past centuries, before our great American Institutions of Civil and Religious Liberty were established, it was the Doctors of Divinity who were wholly responsible for inventing and maintaining that great evil of Compulsory Religion, where one type of religion or one conception of Deity was forced on the whole population under penalty of torture, disfigurement, mutilation, or death; and these misguided men seem to have actually had the absurd and diabolical idea incredible to us to-day that by this mutilation and murder they could increase the sum total of morality in the whole community!

This dogma of compulsory disease is, of course, just as false and evil as the dogma of compulsory religion; but, of the two evils, compulsory disease is far more dangerous to human right and safety, health and life, and it would probably not be difficult to prove that where one person was mutilated or murdered by compulsory religion in the barbarous past, ten are now injured or killed by the modern medical barbarism of compulsory disease.

There was an old sect of heretics about the time of the Reformation which seemed to have a poor idea of the value of personal virtue and good works in salvation as compared with mere dogma, “grace,” and “faith,” and whose motto seemed to be: ‘The more sin, the more grace,” or “Let us sin that grace may abound.” Now, this seems to be very similar to the doctrine of the coercive vaccinators of today, which appears to be simply and literally this: “The more disease we inflict, the more health we create,” or “Let us inflict and spread disease widely upon the people so that health may correspondingly abound.”

A striking example of the evil effects of this dangerous vaccine doctrine in recent times is found in the case of Japan, whose awful record in vaccination and smallpox and in epidemic disease transmitted by vaccine virus is exposed in the next paragraphs.

AWFUL RECORD OF JAPAN IN VACCINATION AND SMALLPOX AND IN EPIDEMIC DISEASE CAUSED BY VACCINE VIRUS, AS GIVEN IN U. S. GOVERNMENT REPORTS

Japan has been perhaps the most extensively vaccinated country in recent times, with most rigid compulsory laws, copied from Germany, which require re-vaccination at different periods of infant and adult life. Now vaccination, as I have already shown, is simply one of the varied forms of smallpox, being an artificially propagated or cultivated form of the disease involving human smallpox and cowpox combined, and is often more dangerous and deadly than the natural disease. This being the fact, what therefore should we expect to result from the dangerous practice of impregnating the blood of a whole population with repeated inoculations of the virus of human smallpox and cow disease? Should we logically. expect anything else but that epidemics of smallpox and cow disease should break out in due time in such a generally vaccinated and infected population, and that vaccine or cow disease should be extended to other populations wherever the virus made from human and cow diseases should be carried and used?

This logical expectation is what seems to have actually happened in the case of much-vaccinated Japan, and instead of being made immune from smallpox epidemics by general vaccination and re-vaccination, which is one of the positive claims made by vaccinators, Japan, on the contrary, seems to have suffered from the worst epidemics of smallpox known in modern times, not only worse than in poorly vaccinated countries like England and the United States, but worse than experienced in old times before the days of vaccination!

This conclusion seems to be fully proved from the U. S. Public Health Reports for September 2, 1910, which give this frightful record of smallpox epidemics in Japan for several years past. The population of Japan at that time, 1910, was about 48 millions, and the high waves in the epidemics in the preceding ten years were as follows: In 1898 there were 149,012 smallpox cases with 40,971 deaths, mortality 27 1/2 per cent.; in 1905 there were 10,704 cases with 3,388 deaths, mortality 31 1/2 per cent., and in 1908 there were 18,075 cases with 5,835 deaths, mortality 32 1/2 per cent.

These figures, considering the vaccinal conditions existing in Japan, under most rigid compulsory laws, are surely terribly significant, to say the least, and fully shatter the fallacious vaccine doctrine that vaccination is the only effective remedy against smallpox and that it always lowers the mortality in epidemics! Per contra, here we see from these official U. S. Health Reports that in this much-vaccinated population there was not only a series of severe epidemics with a very high mortality, but a constantly ascending mortality from 27 1/2 per cent, in 1898 to 31 1/2 per cent, in 1905 and 32 1/2 per cent, in 1908!   Whereas the usual mortality given by good authorities in old times before the days of vaccination was only 15 to 20 per cent.! See “History of Smallpox” by Dr. James Moore, Jenner’s chief assistant, London, 1815, page 243.

Now I believe that there is no country in modern times, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, which has shown worse epidemics of smallpox than much-vaccinated Japan, as above shown from official data, whereas the epidemics within the same period in the poorly vaccinated countries of England and the United States have been small in comparison. Surely, therefore, our “Yankees of the Orient” seem to have copied some of our antique medical barbarisms even more fully than they have copied our real modern improvements. And, surely, poorly vaccinated England is much better off with less vaccination and more sanitation when its Minister of Health, Hon. John Burns, can publicly declare in Parliament on April 12, 1911, that, “Just in proportion as, in recent years, exemptions from vaccination have gone up from 4 per cent, to 30 per cent., so deaths from smallpox have declined.” This also is the experience of Leicester, the sanitary English city, unvaccinated for the past 30 years, as previously shown at page 22; and such, I believe, will be the result wherever that irrational system of inflicting disease to produce health is abandoned and the rational system of sanitation and hygiene is adopted in its place.

JAPANESE VIRUS CAUSES EPIDEMICS OF CATTLE PLAGUE IN MANKIND AND ANIMALS

Not only, therefore, has general compulsory vaccination failed to protect Japan from some of the worst smallpox epidemics known in modern or olden times, as just shown, but, what is perhaps still more damning, it is proved by U. S. Government Reports, quoted on pages 95 and 99, that Japanese vaccination was the source of the deadly epidemics of Cattle Plague, known as “Foot and Mouth Disease,” which afflicted both animals and mankind in the United States in 1902 and 1908, this dangerous infection being imported in vaccine virus from Japan and used by two of the largest makers of virus in the United States. See Year Book, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1914, page 21. See also page 99 in Supplement. These epidemics raged in several of our States, as previously shown, and caused the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals, an unknown amount of human mortality, and a loss of millions of dollars to the Government and people of this country. Surely such awful results from Japanese vaccination are a shocking mockery and a stinging rebuke to all vaccination as an alleged “health” remedy and call loudly for the abolishment of all compulsory vaccination as a most dangerous public evil and a flagrant violation of vital human rights to Medical Freedom, Sanity and Safety.

MEDICAL FREEDOM NECESSARY FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, MEDICAL TRUTH AND HUMAN SAFETY

As we now enjoy the great Democratic Institution of a Free Church in a Free State, with all church control of government and all compulsory or forced religion prohibited, so, in the near future, we must bring about an equally important reform for human welfare in preventing all medical control of our departments of government, in securing true medical freedom and prohibiting all compulsory medicine as effectually as all compulsory religion and church control of government is now prohibited. And as full freedom for all religious sects, in religious matters, has surely brought about an undoubted advance in religious progress and in true religion and morality throughout the world, so it is sure that full medical freedom will bring about a similar increase in true medical progress and efficiency throughout the world.

Now in this most important reform of Medical Freedom I want to say at this point that 1 hold no brief for any school of medicine or religion, but what I contend for, as an American citizen, is something broader, more inclusive, more American, and more important for public right, health and safety than any one religious or medical doctrine, and that is a full Medical Freedom for all the people to adopt any honest or sincere doctrine or system of medicine which they may prefer, and a free public field for the exercise of this doctrine or system without any harassment or oppression from any other system of medicine which may falsely and foolishly think itself specially ordained to control the whole field of medicine. And just as we now enjoy a full constitutional guarantee for Religious Freedom, which prevents any one sect from infringing on the conscientious liberty of another, so we must have a full Medical Freedom with an equal guarantee which will give all honest or reasonable medical doctrines free scope and prevent any medical doctrine or practice whatever from being forced on any person against free will and consent, and which will recognize the full right of the individual to adopt any preferred system of medical treatment, whether with or without prayer and faith, with or without drugs and medicines, or with or without vaccines or serums.

This broad medical freedom for all systems of medicine is absolutely necessary for true medical progress itself, for only by testing these different medical theories and practices side by side freely in every-day experience and on a wide scale can the real truth and virtue of any particular doctrine or practice be determined. A great modern doctor uttered a most important truth on this head when he said that “He is the best doctor who knows the uselessness and dangers of the greatest number of remedies.” And the best way of finding out the uselessness, danger or virtue of any remedies is to try them carefully and freely side by side. And this free use and disuse of alleged remedies side by side in contrast or competition will ultimately sift out and condemn whatever is really evil or useless more effectually and justly than any drastic compulsion or dogmatic suppression could possibly do, thus making the best and surest contribution to true medical progress, safety and efficiency.

On the same principle, if all compulsory vaccination is abolished and each person left free to adopt or refuse vaccination, as he sees fit, which is his positive legal right, a true test of the virtue and safety or uselessness and danger of general vaccination will soon be arrived at. And if it can be shown in such a large and free test that the unvaccinated part of the population or the unvaccinated part of the Army and Navy is no more liable, on the average, to catch smallpox or typhoid fever than the vaccinated part, and is entirely free from the grave dangers of vaccination itself, surely a great lesson in medical sanity and progress will be learned. As a matter of fact, this test has already proved in the case of the U. S. Army in France that typhoid vaccination is useless as a preventive where sanitation is grossly neglected. See pages 207 and 210. It has also proved in the case of poorly vaccinated but sanitary England and particularly in the unvaccinated and very sanitary City of Leicester, as compared with much vaccinated Japan, Germany and Berlin, that good sanitation, isolation and hygiene without vaccination give the best result in reducing and preventing smallpox in the population and also in greatly reducing the general death-rate and infant death-rate as compared to the same rates in the heavily vaccinated communities named. On this point see one of the latest medical works on this subject by a pro-vaccinator, ‘The Vaccination Question,” by Dr. Millard, London, 1914.

Now, as medical freedom is absolutely necessary for true medical progress, as just shown, so it is equally necessary for medical truth and human safety. At this point I am sure it will be readily admitted that even if an alleged medical remedy were absolutely effective and sure, and absolutely safe, harmless, and beneficial, it would not be ethically or legally proper to force it upon any patient against free will and consent. But when an alleged remedy is very uncertain, doubtful or irregular in its action, or very dangerous and frequently fatal in its effects, such as vaccination has been proved to be, surely the forcing of such a doubtful and dangerous remedy on any person under pretense of its necessity and harmlessness is not only unethical but it is a question whether this is not also a gross act of sheer criminal malpractice.

When, therefore, any doctor forces such a doubtful and dangerous remedy as vaccination upon any patient under the pretense that it is necessary for public health and is perfectly safe and harmless, the doctor is obviously under a most vicious moral and professional bias and interest to conceal, deny or falsify any unfavorable facts that may arise in the case, such as the failure of the alleged remedy or its injurious or possibly fatal effects on the patient, which bias and falsification is of course the greatest enemy to medical truth, safety and progress. And it is obvious that this concealment and denial of the injurious or fatal effects of medical remedies forced on the people by doctors is not only against true public policy but is a gross violation of true medical ethics and a crime upon the people in the falsification of this most important point of vital statistics, viz., the nature and effects of alleged medical remedies on human health and life, which facts should surely be fully disclosed to the public, not only for the sake of medical truth and progress but for the greater reason of human right and safety.

And it must be here remembered that our vaccinating doctors and our dominant vaccinating medical sect have now such full control of our death certificates, our departments of health and vital statistics that they can deny or conceal the effect of their medical operations with the greatest ease and safety, which is obviously a very sinister fact, against the most vital interest of the people, in public health, medical truth and safety and accurate vital statistics, and this evil surely calls for an immediate reform.

On the other hand, where medical practice is perfectly free and voluntary, the practitioner has no bias or interest whatever to make false claims of alleged efficiency or to conceal facts as to failures, dangers and fatalities, so that it is therefore obvious that for both medical truth and progress and human right and safety, Medical Freedom is an absolute public necessity, and that, per contra, Medical Compulsion is a most dangerous public evil which must be abolished as completely as the less danerous evil of religious compulsion has been abolished.

MEDICAL DOMINATION AND COMPULSION MOST DANGEROUS POWER IN BODY POLITIC AND MUST BE SUPPRESSED

The most dangerous power in the body politic of the past age was formed by the organized intolerant and oppressive Doctors of Divinity, who had a great State Church and political organization behind them through which they dominated and coerced the people and by which they were enabled legally to force upon them the horrible, but now obsolete, evil of compulsory religion, as well illustrated in some of our early New England Colonies and in many other places throughout the Old and New Worlds, during the past centuries. And so, in a similar way, it is the Doctors of Medicine and the Medical Societies of one great dominating school or sect, the vaccine sect, which form the most dangerous power in the body politic today, and are almost wholly responsible for originating and forcing upon the people the barbarous evil of compulsory medicine and compulsory disease, in violation of the most fundamental, inherent, natural, and constitutional rights of the people.

President Lincoln, who was one of our greatest Americans, has told us that no man, however good, is fit to govern another man without the latter’s consent, and I think it will be generally admitted, as a sound Democratic and American doctrine, that no one class or profession of men, not even the great clerical or medical profession is quite perfect enough to be trusted with exclusive, unlimited or dangerous power over our fellow men. Nevertheless it is a fact that the medical profession, as now organized and possessed of political and official power, and in control of some of our most important departments of government, such as Public Health, Vital Statistics and Medical Legislation, has already a most dangerous power over the people, perhaps more dangerous and unlimited than any other class of men, and this dangerous power must be curbed as soon and as much as possible in the interest of true Medical Freedom and Progress and public right and safety.

My late esteemed friend and neighbor, the illustrious Judge Gaynor, New York’s greatest mayor, uttered one of his best sayings, which we may well note and apply here, when he said: “Beware of the men or the class who are too anxious to exert power.” And this warning we can now apply most pertinently to our dominating medical societies and vaccine companies, which together form a most gigantic medical interest which is the chief influence that has forced compulsory medicine and inflicted disease upon the people and controls our Departments of Health, and which should be fully investigated by the Executive and Legislative Departments of our State and National governments, which should adopt some radical reforms to curb this dangerous medical power and safeguard the rights of the people, as suggested in the next paragraph.

THE GIGANTIC MEDICAL AND VACCINE INTEREST SUPPORTING COMPULSORY VACCINATION A MENACE TO PUBLIC RIGHT AND SAFETY WHICH SHOULD BE CURBED

The latest official reports show that there are now ninety-nine concerns licensed by the U. S. Government to manufacture vaccines and serums for both human and animal uses! These ninety-nine concerns have a capitalization of about fifty millions or more. One of the largest of these manufacturers, located in Detroit, has a capital of ten millions, while another large concern located in Philadelphia has a capital of two millions.

The two great epidemics of Foot and Mouth Disease, or virulent cowpox, in this country in 1902 and 1908 were caused by the vaccine virus of two of these ninety-nine vaccine manufacturers; and these epidemics resulted in great mortality to animals and mankind, as already shown, with a loss of millions of dollars to the Government and people of the United States; but no recompense has ever yet been made, so far as I know, to the Government or People by these vaccine companies for this great damage, and I ask your particular attention, Mr. President, to this important point.

For more… go to:   todarethefuture.com