_JPG.jpg)
Vaccine mandates and passports are a form of coercion that leads straight to medical tyranny and are enabled by those who should know better.
Coerced to Take the COVID Vax
Recently a friend told me that he got the COVID-19 vaccination. He found himself forced between a rock and a hard place when his employer all but demanded he get vaccinated. His choice was either take the damn vaccine and continue to work, building for retirement, and possibly risk his health or even his life, given the ever-growing list of problems with these medical experiments. Or he could refuse, which would result in ostracization from job assignments, effectively cutting his salary to zero while finding a new way to earn a living. Foreclosure on his home, repossession of his car, liquidation of his savings, additional stress, possibly leading to divorce, were all potential consequences for refusing the vaccine. While not impossible, it would nonetheless be enormously challenging and time consuming to switch careers in his mid-fifties. A third option would have been to submit to near continual COVID testing, which has problems in and of itself, given that the PCR tests, even with the lower cycling numbers, are notoriously unreliable and do not actually test for COVID-19. A false positive would put him in lockdown, which while not as bad a losing all job assignments permanently, would still significantly cut into his earnings.
The Slippery Slope Towards Socialism
My friend is fully aware of what is going on with the COVID scamdemic, his wife refuses to take the vaccine, and he was very embarrassed to admit he took the shot. However, his employer coerced him into doing so. When he told me my first reaction was one of prayer, “Please God, do not let anything happen to John from this vaccine.” My very next reaction was anger.
I am angry for the same reasons I’ve been angry for the last fifteen months. We are on a rapid descent into absolute tyranny, which began with the lockdowns at the end of March 2020. The governments across the country, and indeed the world, took a situation, a virus that even in last year was known not to be a serious threat, turned it into a “crisis,” and with the aid of mainstream media, scared the daylights and common sense out of nearly everyone, so that a weak-minded, weak-willed, marginally educated population, would roll over and acquiesce to giving up God given liberties, and go along willy-nilly with lockdowns, business closures, mask mandates, and now coerced, and potentially, mandatory vaccination with a medical experiment that is proving far more dangerous than many ever realized.
The Sheeple
As always, there are two perspectives to the story of what happened last year, and continues to happen with the vaccine coercion. One side is the perspective of the many who simply folded, and perhaps I’ll address that perspective in a future essay. The other side is the perspective of those who are pushing this vaccination agenda, which is part of a far larger and nefarious effort. But those who are participating in the aggressive effort to vaccinate the entire planet can split into two groups. The first group are those at the top of the game, such as Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Anthony Fauci, and the CEOs of the pharmaceutical companies. The second is the rest of the people in the general population who are going along with it all.
These second group includes millions of people, who are better described as “sheeple.” These include groups such as: the minions of bureaucrats in government agencies at all levels; the thousand of scientists, technicians, and administrative staff at the pharma companies; the writers, technicians, and supposed journalists at so many broadcast media companies; the software writers at social media companies who enable the blocking or restriction of posts about the truth of COVID and the vaccines; the executives and middle managers of thousands of companies both large and small, but in particular of airlines, cruise lines, sports franchises, and entertainment venues. Simply put, as I commented on a thread on Gab Friday,
They Have No Right
What gives someone, be they the collective group of people in a legislative body that passes a “law,” an owner of a small business, or an executive at an entertainment venue the right to tell me, or anyone else, what to do with my own physical body, that I have sovereign authority over? I would argue none, they have no right to do so. At the core of any edict mandating such things as lockdowns, masking, and vaccines is a lack of respect for others’ individual sovereignty and bodily autonomy, which flows from a lack of respect for one’s own individual sovereignty and bodily autonomy, and the maintenance of such edicts requires, more than anything else, coercion. If something involves coercing someone into complying, any right that the coercer may have had to begin with becomes invalid by the act of coercion.
Some Definitions
There is a fine line between persuasion, manipulation, compulsion, and coercion. The words and the concepts behind them, are closely related, however, there are distinctions, which are important to examine. The following definitions are all from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : URGE
2,b: to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
//being used and manipulated by the knowing men around him
— New Republic
2: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure
//Public opinion compelled her to sign the bill.
1: to compel to an act or choice
//was coerced into agreeing
//abusers who coerce their victims into silence
2: to achieve by force or threat
//coerce compliance
//coerce obedience
3: to restrain or dominate by force
//religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious
— W. R. Inge
The term “coercion” is also defined several times in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and each time, the definition is nearly verbatim identical. The following is from 22 U.S. Code § 7102 - Definitions:
(3) Coercion The term “coercion” means—
(A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person;
(B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or
So, we can see that as one moves from the act of persuading, which merely involves making a verbal or written argument, to manipulation, which involves nefariousness to gain advantage, to compelling, which involves some form of pressure, be that psychological, emotional, physical, financial, or social pressure, to coercion, which involves the threat of harm, the degree of atrocity involved increases rapidly. Notice in both the plain language and legal definitions of coerce and coercion, the type of potential harm to the one being coerced is non-descript. It matters not whether the implied harm is psychological, emotional, physical, financial or social. The mere fact that some type of harm is implied is enough to make the act involved coercive.
In Exodus 20:15, God commands, “Thou shall not steal.” When we coerce someone into doing something, when we threaten them with some aspect of harm, we steal from them. We steal their hope, we steal their confidence, but perhaps most egregious, we steal their dignity. And so, coercion is one of those instances where morals, ethics, and laws intersect for coercion is at once immoral, unethical, and illegal. Therefore, if coercion is involved, we have no right, whatsoever, to engage in that endeavor. None.
Historical & Constitution Considerations
We could leave the discussion there, however, a few more points bear consideration. Section 39 of the Magna Carta of 1215 reads:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
The Fourth Amendment and a pertinent clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
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.
No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …
Notice that the sections of the Constitution read closely to that of the Magna Carta. However, both these excerpts from historical and foundational documents are concerned with the law of the land. To quote myself, in my article on authority,
Legality, morality, ethicality, and justice rarely, if ever, intersect. Just because congress, or the local town council, passes a law, does not mean that it is moral, ethical, or just. In fact, laws are often far from any of those concepts.
Humans are fallible and often legislative bodies pass “laws,” which are contrary to the protection individual person, life, liberty, and property. We’ll come back to that point directly when discussing Jacobson v Mass below.
It is important to note the following…
Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, he took much of that, mainly the list of grievances against King George, from his Draft Constitution for Virginia, written a month earlier.[1] However, even Jefferson credited Locke, et al, for much of his inspiration. A year or so later, in his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, he wrote, in Section II:
… no man … shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall, otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinion or beliefs; … [1]
In this, he establishes the first incarnation of what will become religious freedom clause of the First Amendment.
The Articles of Confederation, adopted initially by five states on August 8, 1778 and enacted fully on March 1, 1781, did not address the subject of natural rights at all. They were essentially a loose description of how the colonies/states were to work together to prosecute the war against Britain.
As an aside, Britain, upon the surrender of Cornwallis on October 19, 1781, the crown officially recognized each state as free Sovereign and independent States in the Preliminary Articles of Peace a year later. While not entirely pertinent to the discussion at hand, it is an oft forgotten point by many today who have not learned actual U.S. history.
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which Washington presided over, Jefferson was in France and Italy. He received a copy of the Constitution in November, and while he supported ratification, he urged Maddison, et al, to incorporate a Bill of Rights. [1] Note the verbiage of the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …
The concepts discussed above from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were later reiterated in the second sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I’ve written elsewhere on the Fourteenth Amendment, and why states are obligated to follow the Constitution, although some may argue otherwise against “incorporation.” However, I submit that the written text, not the intention is what is binding, and the Fourteenth Amendment is clear in that regard. Although the limits of government imposed by the Bill of Rights apply only to the Federal Government, and thru the Fourteenth Amendment, to the state governments, the Supreme Court has often extended those guarantees to the private sector.
The other point worthy of notice, which is the second point we’ll return to when discussing Jacobson v Mass below, is that there was significant controversy surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. As DiLorenzo points out in his 2002/3, The Real Lincoln, which I reviewed earlier,
After being ruled by military dictatorships for a number of years, the Southern states finally acquiesced in the Four-teenth Amendment. But at that point New Jersey and Ohio, disgusted by Republican Party tyranny, voted to revoke their previous ratifications of the amendment. Congress failed to secure the constitutionally required three-fourths majority of the states, but simply issued a “joint resolution” declaring the Amendment valid anyway. To this day, the Fourteenth Amendment has not been properly ratified.[2]
Of note, three states, Oregon, New Jersey, and Ohio rescinded their ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment throughout the year of 1868. Oregon recertified it in 1973, but it wasn’t until 30 years later, in 2003, that New Jersey and Ohio recertified it. Thus, for some 135 years the country was operating as if the Fourteenth Amendment was actually ratified, when in fact it wasn’t. Nonetheless, as of 2003, all states that existed at the time of reconstruction have ratified it, thus it is now properly part of the Constitution.
So, the Federal Government, state governments, and by multiple SOCTUS decisions, local governments and private enterprises cannot infringe upon an individual’s religious opinions or beliefs. That some do, is topic for another discussion, for now, let’s stay with what folks are supposed to do, which is respect an individual’s religious opinions or beliefs.
One last point before moving on. Let’s take a look at the definition of religion at the time of the Founders, turning once again to A Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson, A.M., London, 1792.
Religion
1. Virtue as founded upon reverence of God, and expectations of future rewards and punishments.
2. A system of divine faith and worship as opposed to others.
The Body as Sacred
Many Christians believe that the human body is sacred. Indeed Christ alludes to this in Matthew 6:22-23 & 6:25 and Luke 11:34 & 11:36. Many Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, view the body and mind as inseparable. Some suggest that the human mind is an organic connection to the Divine.[3] Some take a more “New Age” perspective that the body is a temple, and work diligently to maintain optimum physical health, forgoing common pleasures such as a glass of wine or a scoop of ice cream.
My personal perspective is that humans are Divine souls, spirits, incarnate in flesh, and as such, my body is a reflection of the Divine and therefore sacred. My consciousness, my soul, has been given incarnation with this body and it is my choice to as to how I see to care for it; as it should be the choice of the reader as to how to care for their body. I have faith in a Divine consciousness that is of a power, knowledge, and capability that is far greater than I currently understand. Whether I call that Divine consciousness God, the Force, Allah, or Gobbledy Gook is immaterial as far as the government is concerned. While I am not, by any stretch, what one would call religious, I don’t go to church nor do I call myself a Christian, I do know that He walked the earth, I do have believe in a Divine, I do try to orient my behavior around what I know to be right, true, and correct, and I do pray, of late far more often than years past. This is my “system of faith,” and my beliefs concerning my physical self, which demand that I honor the sanctity and purity of my Divinely inspired and created body, flow from that system. The COVID vaccines are medical experiments that have grave issues, and to use Jefferson’s words, I will not be “molested on account of my religious beliefs” into being forced to take any of them.
But one need not be religious, nor have any system of faith to understand that the body, and bodily autonomy is sacred. From even a purely secular perspective, this understanding was codified in the Nuremberg Code, which was established after the horrific medical experiments the Nazis conducted during WWII. The very first item in the Code stresses consent of the subject when conducting medical experiments and the absence of
… force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; …
Other sections of the Code discuss the importance of limiting suffering, disability, and death in the consensual subject.
Regardless of one’s religious inclination, there is ample justification for maintaining the integrity of bodily autonomy, from either a religious or secular perspective, even if the COVID vaccines weren’t still in the clinical trial stage. “My body, my choice.” Isn’t it nice to flip that around?
Time now to return to this important case, which dealt with the smallpox vaccine in 1905 Massachusetts.[4] Henning Jacobson refused to take the mandatory smallpox vaccine, was tried, found guilty, and ordered to pay the fine, which was $5.00. He appealed the case to the state supreme court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which ruled in favor of the lower state court.
The case presented to SCOTUS revolves around Jacobson’s Constitutional Rights at the state level as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The first error the court makes is the presumption that Fourteenth Amendment was actually part of the Constitution, which as shown above, in 1905, it actually wasn’t. While this point would weigh against Jacobson had the court recognized it, it is nonetheless the first of several logical errors Chief Justice Fuller’s court makes.
However, for the sake of the discussion, let’s assume that the Fourteenth Amendment was actually incorporated at the time of the case, then all provisions of the Constitution, including the entire Bill of Rights, would apply. The Ninth Amendment would also apply, which stipulates that the enumerated rights are only a partial listing of Natural Rights humans poses. So while not listed specifically, the right to individual bodily integrity and autonomy is absolutely retained and inferred by the Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The grievous error in legal, moral, and historical logic the court makes first appears on Page 197 U. S. 29 in the case document.
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. But it is equally true that, in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.
Several pages down either side of Page 197 U. S. 31, the court presumes that a proper role of legislative bodies is to provide for public health and safety, and to provide for “protection of the public against disease.” The discussion then cites several cases,
… if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.
And concludes in the very next sentence that,
Whatever may be thought of the expediency of this statute, it cannot be affirmed to be, beyond question, in palpable conflict with the Constitution.
Further down, on Page 197 U. S. 34 & 35, the court cites the New York Court of Appeals case Viemeister v. White, President &c.[5]. Fuller’s court does not cite this passage, but it is at the core of the error:
When the sole object and general tendency of legislation is to promote the public health, there is no invasion of the Constitution, even if the enforcement of the law interferes to some extent with liberty or property.
The court does, however, cite Viemeister v. White, President &c., here:
In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action; for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does, in fact, or not.
And in citing those two passages from the New York Court of Appeals, which proceed from multiple other cases, the Fuller Supreme Court cements a grave error that has resonated through the legal system for over a century now. What the court started to acknowledge on page 29, but then ignores entirely and cements that snub, is the concept, which is threaded in a straight line thru the ages from the Torah, the Old Testament, Plato, Aristotle, the New Testament, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, et al, is that the overriding function of government is to protect individual liberty. Edward Younkins at the Foundation for Economic Freedom sums it up in an article from twenty years ago:
Each person has the right to protect himself against all forms of external aggression initiated by private individuals or by the state. The proper role of government is to protect the freedom that allows individuals to pursue happiness or the good that each defines for himself. Government ensures the common good when its functions are restricted to protecting the natural right to liberty and maintaining peace and order. The necessity of self-direction provides a rationale for a political and legal order that will not require the autonomy of any individual to be sacrificed. Limited government only guarantees man the freedom to seek his own happiness as long as he does not trample the equivalent rights of others.
By allowing the myth of the “common welfare,” aka the “common good” to creep into their logic, the Supreme Court justices in Jacobson v. Massachusetts allowed the cracked can of worms, which contained the “police power of a State,” to be fully opened, thus setting the stage for the atrocities which would eventually appear 115 years later during the COVID-19 scamdemic.
There can be no one size fits all solution when it comes to individual health, and this is especially so with vaccines. Legislative bodies, local health departments, school boards, airline, travel and entertainment corporations, CEOs and owners of business large and small are ill equipped to mandate anything when it comes to an individual’s health. They lack knowledge of specifics, they lack knowledge of risk, and they attempt to steal an individual’s bodily autonomy and dignity by pontificating health mandates.
Pundits and so-called scholars will often reference this case as the Supreme Court giving wide latitude to Executive Branches to protect public safety, and they are correct as we’ve just shown. These “experts” usually quote the first sentence of the sixth paragraph of the case syllabus (italics). However, I submit that it is equally important to read the entire fifth and sixth paragraphs, with special consideration to the bolded text.
While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.
The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
In that second paragraph, the Fuller court got it right, however they totally negated that with their ruling that the state has the power to mandate and enforce vaccination. The current situation has state and county governments exercising police power to the contravention of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein. Furthermore, we have a minority of persons, i.e., elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, who are, in fact, supported in their action by the authority and police power of the State, dominating the majority and infringing on individual liberty and bodily autonomy. And to add insult to injury, we now have corporations supported in their action by the authority and police power of the State, doing the same - infringing on individual liberty and bodily autonomy.
The Road to Tyranny
What many people today fail to understand is that the road to tyranny is never a single path, nor does that path occur in a step function. When tyranny finally rears its ugly head, it is almost as if the society goes thru a phase transition, one day a country is a republic, the next a dictatorship. Except it wasn’t a phase transition. It happened slowly, over time, facilitated by million upon millions of small decisions made by millions of supposedly well-intentioned people until suddenly, the cumulative effect of all those decisions manifests into tyranny. The analogy of the frog in a pot over a low flame that doesn’t realize it is being boiled to death until the water actually starts to boil is apropos.
The country has been on this trajectory for decades now, and we are at the precipice of those decisions manifesting into downright tyranny and the country being transformed into a communist puppet state of the CCP. Everything from the feminism in its current incarnation, the intentional obfuscation of language (think gender confusion), the continued race baiting, CRT, the COVID scamdemic, the lockdowns, the masking orders, and now the push push push to vaccinate vaccinate vaccinate is all part of a coordinated, long term effort.
Once established, the track record of communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, and I’m going to throw in Islam as well, is not one for the human race to be proud of. The common element of all those is coercion. Those systems are always, always, about control, and theft of individual dignity, liberty, and far too often, life.
What is especially disturbing is that those who should know better, like the frog swimming happily in the slowly warming pot, fail to see how their decisions play into the trajectory towards communism.
Several years ago, Virginia Grohl, Dave Grohl’s mother, wrote From Cradle to Stage, Stories of the Mothers Who Rocked and Raised Rock Stars. I’ve not read the entire book, but I have certainly read the chapter on Mary Weinrib, the mother of Geddy Lee. I’ve know for several decade that his parents were holocaust survivors, and in the book Mary details some of her experiences at Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and Morris Weinrib’s (Geddy’s father) experiences at Dachau.[6] Recently, the book was made into a series, and of course, we watched the episode with Geddy and his mother; the trailer for the series below.
As I stated in my article, The Red Songs of Grace Under Pressure,
Finally, while listening to Red Sector A one might simply ponder what has transpired over the last year. With Canada essentially establishing COVID concentration camps, one cannot help but wonder what Geddy’s mother must be thinking and feeling….
During the course of the interview, Dave comments,
... It was funny for me to sit with Geddy and his Mom because ... he changed my life. Rush really changed my life. I loved music. I loved singing in the car to AM radio. But I never *listened* to the drums until I heard Rush. As we were sitting with Geddy and his Mom, I was thinking ... if it weren't for her I might not be a drummer ...
Indeed, if it weren’t for Geddy’s parents surviving the horrors of Nazi Germany and the concentration camps he would not have been born, he and Alex Lifeson would not have met, and there would not have been a band called Rush, at least not the Rush that we all know and love with Geddy, Alex, and Neil Peart. Had it not been for Rush, we probably would not have ever had Scream, Nirvana, nor The Foo Fighters.
Andrew Cuomo has been one of the worse COVID tyrants and continues to force medical tyranny on the state of New York. Current executive orders, which are not laws, require an audience to be fully vaccinated if a venue is to be at 100% capacity, and patrons are required to show proof of vaccination thru paper form, digital application, or the State's vaccine passport, Excelsior Pass. Venues could opt for less than 100% capacity, but patrons must social distance, and be segregated. Either way, the result is the same - medical tyranny. Period. It has zero to do with health and everything to do with control. And the fact that the none of the COVID vaccines are yet FDA approved, makes it all the more egregious. There is coercion and nefarious manipulation to the nth degree, and the entire affair is no different than experiments conducted on the unwilling in Nazi Germany.
Last weekend, the Foo Fighters played Madison Square Garden (MSG) to a full capacity audience, which would require, under Cuomo’s dictates a fully vaccinated audience. The band could have played anywhere as there are plenty of states that are not requiring this nonsense. Yet they choose to play at MSG. And rumor has it that they requested a full house. But even if they didn’t they are still participating in tyranny.
I used to think that Dave Grohl was one of the good ones in the music business, that he was a smart guy. After listening to Mary Weinrib’s Holocaust stories, in person, one would think that Grohl would be able to connect the dots on the medical tyranny that is transpiring today. He heard from someone who was there, first hand, the horrors that humans are capable of inflicting on each other. Yet he is unable to relate that to what is going on today. The amount of cognitive dissonance is unbelievable.
Dave Grohl is not one of the good guys in the music business, nor is he a smart guy. Artists who participate in the COVID games, especially anything having to do with the COVID vax nonsense are sheeple, sellouts, and willing, complicit, enablers of medical tyranny and discrimination. Imagine if the Foo Fighters took a stand and refused to play any venue that demands any kind of COVID protocol, what a message that would send! Kurt Cobain must be rolling over in his grave. The fucking irony of it all!
Shame on you Dave Grohl and the rest of the Foo Fighters. Shame on you.
The road to communist hell and medical tyranny is paved with a million decisions made by those who should know better.
Namaste and thanks for reading folks,
Mark Stansell
June 28, 2021
(58 today 🎂)
Update February 15, 2024
The link to the trailer for episode 6 of From Cradle to Stage, featuring Geddy Lee and his mother, has been taken down. I have replaced it with the trailer for the series and edited the previous sentence slightly to reflect that.
References (not hyperlinked within)
[1] Jefferson, Thomas (1990). Public and Private Papers, Vintage Books.
[2] DiLorenzo, Thomas J.(2002, 2003). The Real Lincoln, The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[3] Kelly, Edward, F., et al. (2007). Irreducible Mind, Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, Rowman & Littlefield.
[4] Several paragraphs in this section are taken directly from my previous article on the unconstitutionality of the lockdowns.
[5]
[6] Grohl, Virginia Hanlon, (2017). From Cradle to Stage, Stories of the Mothers Who Rocked and Raised Rock Stars, Seal Press.
Bibliography
[A] Laslett, Peter, editor (1960). Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press.
[B] Paine, Thomas, (1791, 1792, 1979). The Rights of Man, The Easton Press.
[C] Miller, John C. (1943). Origins of the American Revolution, Little, Brown and Company.
[D] Bailyn, Bernard, (1967). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
[E] Freedman, Robert (2014). Rush: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Excellence, Algora Publishing.
[F] Kibbe, Matt, (2014). Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff, A Libertarian Manifesto, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Another great read! It will be interesting to see in the months to come if the Foo Fighter’s manager’s recent death before the MSG concert was another COVID vax casualty.