On the Mandatory Potentially Lethal Injections

Let’s examine the phrase “mandatory vaccines.”

A Context for this Essay

Let me begin by acknowledging the free and independent existence of our Native ancestors, extending back to the beginning of our time, contrasted with the now existing system of domination that centuries ago was carried by ship across the ocean, and imposed on everyone and everything. This contrast provides a view-from-the shore perspective of our Native ancestors looking at those invasive ships sailing toward them, and the viewpoint of the people standing on the ship’s deck looking toward shore.

This essay is being written with a heightened awareness of our view-from-the-shore perspective and our original free existence as Native nations and peoples, meaning free from foreign mandates.

Note: Don’t forget to click the links below even if it’s just to scan the documentation provided.

Speaking of Mandates

A mandate is a command by a person defined as seated in a superior position of authority in relation to people who are classified as being in an inferior or subject [“thrown under”] position. The person in the “inferior” position is regarded as obligated to do that which the “senior” person or group of people commands. A mandate requires someone to do a specific thing or take a specific action.

The political entity termed a “state” is one context within which a mandate can be issued. Some scholars have referred to a “state” as a system of domination. Max Weber referred to a political state as “a relation of men dominating men.” Such a “state” cannot exist, he said, unless the people who are being dominated submit themselves to the authority claimed by the powers that be.

This is why a political “state” is sensibly regarded as a system of domination. Francis Lieber and John Edward Burgess were two eminent nineteenth century political scientists. In 1967, Bernard Edward Brown published American Conservatives: The Political Thought of Francis Lieber and John W. Burgess (AMS Press).

The term that Brown uses to identify Burgess’s understanding of the origin of “the state” is “despotism” (p. 122) (author’s emphasis), which in Latin traces to “dominatus” and “dominatio,” i.e., “absolute power.” I’m sure at some point we’ve all come across the expression “a state of happiness.” The brief phrase “a state of” for the purpose of this essay is a partial expression of a more complete thought “a state of domination.”

Suppose the people who make up the leadership of a state, or a subdivision thereof (such as a “county”), presume they have a right or prerogative to assert a right of domination (e.g., a mandate) against and over the people who live within the geopolitical boundaries claimed and mapped by the people who control that particular “state.”

Now imagine a scenario in which the military of a state [of domination] decides to treat those who are termed the “citizens” of that country as valid military targets. If this were to happen, the people would need be alerted to the fact that they are in mortal danger and need to take whatever steps are necessary to protect themselves from that predatory military force [of domination].

Now that we have set a general context for the purpose of this essay, let’s get more specific. When we hear or read the phrase “U.S. government officials” we have been conditioned to assume that such officials occupy the office they hold based on an oath by which they swore to preserve, protect, and defend the principles of the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution reads:

“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wouldn’t it be a violation of the above language for the Bioterrorism Program of the U.S. Government to develop and roll out a specific form of bioweaponry (a life-weapon) to use against the American people and against other peoples throughout the planet for depopulation?

In my view, a legitimate U.S. government official would have to be, at a minimum, someone who operates faithfully based on the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Once they fail to do so, aren’t they then operating under color (the mere appearance) of law?

Imagine a scenario in which people purporting to be legitimate U.S. government officials issued a mandate, which required and coerced the American people to let themselves be injected with what some experts have claimed is an experimental liquid biological weapon, the specific nature of which was, at the time of the mandate, kept hidden from the intended recipients, i.e., the public.

Keep in mind that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wanted to keep some 450,000 Pfizer research documents on the mRNA shots secret from the the American people and the world for 75 years, which calls to mind the words of President JFK: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society.”

A frantic assurance that the CV-19 “vaccine” [i.e. bioweapon injection] was “safe and effective” was the primary mantra repeatedly stated by U.S. government officials and collaborative state press media sources.

No studies were cited. No evidence was provided. It was an article of blind faith: “Believe and roll up your sleeve.”

Everyone was expected to assume that blindly accepting an injection of whatever liquid the U.S. government and its federally funded scientists had devised was the correct “public health measure” that would keep everyone “safe” by supposedly protecting their health and well-being.

Now, years later, alarming information concerning the Legal Frameworks for State-sponsored Biochemical Warfare has been researched in great detail. Included in this investigation is a brief on the Legal History of the American Domestic Bioterrorism Program through enabling statutes, regulations, executive orders guidance documents and budget allocations. For some of us who believe it is critical to investigate how the world actually operates, based on a claim of a right of domination, certain observations are in order: When any group of people learns about a well-laid long-range plan to destroy them, they ought to feel a natural need for self-preservation and a sense of alarm.

They ought to unceasingly seek out the information necessary to determine whether such a plan 1) exists, and 2) is being carried out. And if it is being carried out, the People have a life-protecting duty to do everything within their power to steadfastly refuse to submit to the plan for their demise because they have a sacred responsibility to keep themselves and their families alive. Remember that old maxim about “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? It doesn’t add, “by means of an experimental mRNA platform injection.”

For people who identify as “U.S. citizens,” they ought to ask themselves a pertinent question based on the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

Specifically: “How could it have ever made sense for U.S. government [domination] officials to assume that to maintain “domestic Tranquility,” to uphold “the common defence,” “to promote the general Welfare,” to maintain “Justice,” and to maintain “the Blessings of Liberty,” the citizenry of the United States needed to receive an injectable bioweapon countermeasure sponsored and funded at U.S. taxpayer expense by the U.S. government, including the U.S. military?

And for anyone who thinks this is not what took place, ask yourself this question: Why would the people and entities who planned and carried out the long-range plan being discussed here need to be legally and rhetorically shielded by being given legal immunity, and, in at least one case we know of, even given a preemptive presidential pardon (think “Fauci”)?