We Are Change Colorado: Military Confirms States Deciding Mandatory Vaccination

While asking questions with the CDC Pentagon representative, We Are Change Colorado was able to get a video confirmation that States will be deciding on the issue of mandatory vaccinations, not the Federal government.

We Are Change Colorado attended a CDC meeting held in Denver, Colorado to advise on a vaccination program. They educated everyone at the event on vaccinations and the reality of what we are faced with right now, the Military representative from the pentagon who was there was so frustrated with our objections and questions he left before the meeting was even done.

Also, We Are Change Colorado is launching a website dedicated to Vaccination Awareness called VaccinationEducation.com where free downloadable fliers and information will be made available as well as videos and so fourth. The website is in development now and will be up soon. It will offer DVDs as well for actions and begin a Vaccine truth day similar to the 11th of the month actions. Vaccine Awareness has never been more important. We are also considering starting a Pledge similar to Oathkeepers to have nurses and doctors pledge that in a mass forced vaccination program implemented, if ever, they will not give it if the person refuses.

See CDC H1N1 “Community Engagement” Meetings — Register and Make Your Voice Heard

Thankd you for reading, please subscribe and comment.

Maine TV Station Airs Report on National Guard and Flu Pandemic Riots

WMTW, a television station in Portland, Maine, owned by Hearst, has produced a slick propaganda piece as part of an emerging effort to stampede people into submitting to a toxic and cancer virus flu vaccine this autumn.

On Thursday, Paul Joseph Watson reported on a National Guard “riot scenario” exercise conducted at Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School in Paris, Maine. The school was chosen as a distribution site for the H1N1 flu vaccine by state officials. “The National Guardsmen will take on the roles of panicked citizens and military police and practice what they would do, such as using tear gas, in the case of a riot,” the Sun Journal reported on August 13.

Sgt. Skip Mowatt of the Paris Police Department told WMTW 8 desperate citizens — arriving without proper ID or living outside the designated area — may overwhelm local police and engage in violence in an effort to get their soft kill vaccination. In such a situation, the television station reports, the police in Paris would team up with the National Guard to baton, pepper spray, and tase rioters.

In late July, the Pentagon said it will establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a pandemic. The plan calls for all branches of the military to team up with FEMA. CNN reported on July 29 that the proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Northern Command’s Gen. Victor Renuart. The Pentagon, however, often announces plans after it has already moved to implement them. “Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall,” CNN reported.

“Much of the groundwork for the intervention of the military has already been established,” writes Michel Chossudovsky, who notes that “regional teams” have already been established under NORTHCOM, which has been involved in preparedness training and planning in the case of a flu pandemic. “The pandemic is being presented to public opinion as an issue of National Security, with a view to triggering the militarization of civilian institutions in blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,” Chossudovsky noted in an earlier article (Martial Law and the Avian Flu Pandemic).

As Infowars reported on August 6 and investigative journalist Wayne Madsen confirmed on the Alex Jones Show earlier this week, an international conference on the coming flu pandemic will be held in Washington next week. Breakout sessions detailed in a brochure for the conference include discussions on mass fatality planning, business continuity planning, and COOP or Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government Planning. Additional sessions cover enforced quarantines, mass vaccinations, and how to “control and diffuse social unrest and public disorder.” In short, how best to implement martial law.

The WHO and CDC have played prominent roles in hyping the coming pandemic and propagandizing the public on its expected severity. On July 25, the Los Angeles Times reported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expects the flu pandemic expected this autumn to kill hundreds of thousands. “The number of potential deaths is much higher than that usually seen in seasonal flu, which kills an estimated 36,000 Americans a year, and is even higher than the nation’s most recent pandemic.” The 1957 pandemic of Asian flu killed 70,000. The 1918 Spanish Flu claimed between 500,000 to 675,000 lives in the United States.

The U.S. government has bought 195 million doses of H1N1 swine flu vaccine for a possible autumn vaccination campaign, a U.S. federal official told Reuters on July 23. The U.S. Health and Human Services Department has also contracted for 120 million doses of adjuvant, a compound to stretch the number of doses of vaccine.

Micropaleontologist Dr. Viera Scheibner and others have conducted research into the adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines and concluded that the an oil-based adjuvant known as squalene is responsible for severe autoimmune diseases and contributed to the cascade of reactions called Gulf War syndrome. A U.S. Federal Judge ruled that there was good cause to believe squalene to be harmful, and he ordered the Pentagon to stop administering it in October 2004 (see Swine Flu Vaccination Poses Serious Threat to Your Health, June 17, 2009).

On July 24, Prison Planet reported that an experimental H1N1 vaccine will contain squalene. The experimental vaccine is to be tested on 12,000 children nationwide, according to the Oklahoman. The experimental vaccine will be dispensed to the public in the autumn.

On August 7, a German health expert warned that the swine flu vaccine developed by pharma giant Novartis will contain cancer viruses. The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals and “we do not know if there could be an allergic reaction,” Wolfgang Wodarg told Bild. “But more importantly, some people fear that the risk of cancer could be increased by injecting the cells,” Bild reported.

A censored WGBH public television (Boston) documentary — produced public health expert Dr. Leonard Horowitz — contains an interview with leading vaccine expert, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who explains how Merck vaccines have spread AIDS, leukemia and other deadly plagues worldwide. The documentary provides evidence that Merck vaccines have long contained cancer viruses (including SV40 or Simian vacuolating virus 40).

If we are to believe the Hearst affiliate WMTW — and Hearst is the progenitor of yellow journalism — people will be rioting this autumn or early winter in order to injected with a deadly vaccine that demolishes the immune system and causes cancer.

The reporters and news staff at WMTW may not know it, but they are foisting slick propaganda on a largely unwitting public. The coming H1N1 vaccine is an engineered eugenics weapon. The promised flu pandemic will likely not be on the scale ominously predicted by the CDC and WHO, although it may be large enough to stampede people into lining up for their soft kill vaccination.

Thanks to InfoWars.com
Please subscribe and comment, thank you for reading.

Forced Vaccination "Home Visits"

Among the countless horrors our Dear Leader wants to visit upon us with his health care “reform” bill is this: ”grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”

“The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting ‘interventions.’ Method ‘E’ calls for ‘home visits’ which can include ‘provision of immunizations.’”

In other words, whether you want your kids (or yourself) to receive certain vaccines, the state can forcibly administer them in your home.

Anyone think that Big Pharma won’t back this bill 100 percent?

Thanks to Infowars.com
Please subscribe and comment, thank you for reading!

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination Alert

It’s crucial to understand that these vaccines are experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous to the human immune system.

On July 13, a World Health Organization (WHO) Global Alert headlined, “WHO recommendations on pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccinations” suggest that universally mandated ones are coming. It stated that on July 7, the pharmaceutical industry-dominated Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization held an “extraordinary meeting in Geneva to discuss issues and make recommendations related to vaccine for the pandemic (H1N1) 2009.”
It’s crucial to understand that these vaccines are experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous to the human immune system.
There’s no pandemic. Yet WHO said the virus “is considered unstoppable,” while admitting little evidence of spread so far, most cases are mild, and many people recover unaided. Nonetheless, all countries will need vaccines and should follow these priorities as initial supplies will be limited:
– immunize health care workers “to protect the essential health care infrastructure;” then
– pregnant women; children over six months of age “with one of several chronic medical conditions;” healthy young adults aged 15 – 49; healthy children; healthy adults aged 50 – 64; and finally healthy adults aged 65 or older.
WTO suggested the risks in stating “new technologies are involved in the production of some pandemic vaccines, which have not yet been extensively evaluated for their safety in certain population groups…” As a result, “post-marketing surveillance” and “post-marketing safety and effectiveness studies” are essential so that countries can adjust their vaccination policies.

WHO “recommendations” are binding on all 194 member countries in case a pandemic emergency is declared under the 2005 International Health Regulations Act and April 2009 WHO pandemic plan.
They contain squalene-based adjuvants that cause a host of annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases. They must be avoided, even if mandated. It’s also known that vaccines don’t protect against diseases they’re designed to prevent and often cause them. They should be banned but proliferate anyway because they’re so profitable, and if globally mandated to the greatest extent ever.
Get ready because that’s precisely what’s coming – universal orders to risk toxic vaccine hazards. In the coming weeks, the dominant media globally will get into high gear fear-mongering mode to convince people voluntarily to submit to jeopardizing their health and well-being. It’s essential to refuse and be safe and international law absolutely protects us.

Thanks to infowars.com

Thank you for reading and please subscribe.

Remember to donate so we can have our own website.

Number of People Seeking Vaccination Exemptions Rising

A Team 5 Investigates review of Department of Public Health records finds the number of parents seeking exemptions for immunizations has been steadily rising. The number is growing despite a declining number of kindergarten students over the past decade.
The number of exemptions was .77 percent in 1998 and is now 1.3 percent. Religious exemptions have more than doubled in the past decade.
“I think it’s horrible,” said Dr. John Cohen, a pediatrician and staunch supporter of vaccination. “There’s no religion in this world that says you shouldn't immunize your child.”
The state allows medical and religious exemptions but some parents admit they really have a philosophical opposition. Some believe vaccines can cause autism or are simply unnecessary. Team 5 Investigates has reported on Web sites that show those parents how to apply for religious exemptions.

Full Article Here.

Please read this article two following articles for reasons to avoid the Flu Vaccine:

Swine Flu Hoax

How To Avoid Forced Swine Flu Vaccine

Thank you for reading, please subscribe and donate for a new domain.

How To Avoid Forced Flu Vaccine (AKA Religion Finally Helps Us?)

I apologise for not updating recently, I will try to post at least once a week now. I'm very glad to see all the new viewers from so many countries. It's always a pleasure helping out so many people (over 250+ so far!)

This next post is about avoiding the flu vaccine, which is probably the best thing I could help you with so far.

Later this year in America we might get forced flu vaccines, the borders may close etc.

This new swine flu vaccine is by far the worst their has ever been (please read my post: Swine Flu Hoax,)

The best way to avoid a forced flu vaccine is telling them it is against your religion... sounds simply right? Anything that is against what they want us to do is never simply. But to practice your rights, you must read the following article:

The Law On Vaccine Religious Exemptions: What You Need to Know

There's a lot of information on the Internet about vaccine religious exemptions. Unfortunately, much of it is misleading or incorrect. The law on religious exemptions is inherently complex. The truth is, for most U.S. citizens, the law on vaccine religious exemptions is not clearly defined. In addition, law continually changes and evolves, so staying on top of your rights requires ongoing vigilance.
A complete explanation of vaccine religious exemption law is beyond the scope of an article (which is why I'm writing a book on the subject -- be on the look-out for this in the near future!), but an introduction to some of the complicating factors may not be.
First, in the U.S., vaccine requirements and exemptions (also known as exceptions or waivers) are addressed at the state law level, as the federal government lacks authority to address vaccine requirements and exemptions for state residents (federal laws do address vaccine requirements and exemptions for immigrants and the military; they also provides a means of avoiding vaccines in the workplace). Vaccines are legally required in all U.S. states and territories, but exemptions are also available in each state and territory that at least some residents may exercise.
One's right to refuse immunizations in the exercise of one's religious beliefs is a right afforded by both state and federal law in all but two states (Mississippi and West Virginia), primarily by way of state code and the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments. So, right off the bat, vaccine religious exemptions necessarily involve a potentially complex mixture of state and federal law. Furthermore, on the state level, there are both statutes and regulations that must be reviewed to determine fully one's rights and options, and state constitutions may play a role as well.
Rights are seldom if ever absolute. One person's right to exercise their religion is limited by opposing rights -- in the case of vaccine religious exemptions, the state's right to require immunizations for the presumed benefit of society. Furthermore, determining your rights is not simply a matter of reading a state statute or a Constitutional Amendment. While those may be necessary starting places, they contain only broad generalizations that tell you little if anything about how that law applies to the specific set of facts and circumstances in your life. Make no mistake -- the application of those laws can vary, sometimes radically, with the widely varying circumstances of different individuals and families.
How do we determine, then, how the law applies to specific situations? We must look to legal precedent, or case law. Legislatures may make the laws, but it is the courts that interpret it -- on a case-by-case basis, one individual dispute at a time. When a case in a lower court is appealed to a higher court, the higher court (or federal district courts and some state trial courts) may issue a written "opinion" that serves as guiding precedent for the lower courts in future similar disputes. So, for starters, then, to determine what the law is for your specific situation, you must determine whether or not there is any legal precedent that applies.
Needless to say, the totality of court opinions constituting the body of precedent in any given area of law, at any given time, can never precisely address all of the different hypothetical future circumstances that may arise in that same area of law -- especially where there is limited precedent in the first place, as is the case with vaccine religious exemptions. When a situation comes up that doesn't clearly match any existing precedent, it may be difficult to say with any certainty what the law is for that specific situation. When precedent bears some resemblance to a current situation but is distinguishable from it, there may be opposing arguments about how the existing precedent applies to the present situation, with corresponding uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome.
Unfortunately, the complexity doesn't end there. Even if there is precedent that clearly applies to your specific situation, you still have to look to whether or not that precedent is "binding" or "persuasive." This depends on whether or not the precedent was issued by a court within your jurisdiction. If not, it is "persuasive precedent," and your local courts don't have to follow it. It may still support a legal argument for what your rights should be (e.g., how a court may or should rule if the matter ends up in court), but it won't determine what your rights are, and the bottom line is, a court could rule contrary to that precedent -- against you -- if it felt that doing so was the more just outcome in your particular case (and as you might well imagine, arguments favoring immunization often have the advantage).
Most of the federal precedent pertaining to vaccine religious exemptions comes from cases that arose in federal courts in New York State. Those precedent-setting cases were in federal district courts and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which jurisdiction encompasses the states of New York, Vermont and Connecticut). If you live outside of New York (with regard to those court opinions from New York District Courts), or outside of NY, VT and CT (with regard to the opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals), this precedent is not binding on the courts in your jurisdiction and serves only as a legal argument in support of a desired outcome. Sometimes, that argument is enough to get the exemption without having to take the case to court (though as a matter of practical reality, the argument may need to be made by an attorney); other times, it isn't.
One frequent question concerns those states with laws that require one to be a member of an organized religion with tenets in opposition to immunizations in order to qualify for a religious exemption. Such laws have been ruled unconstitutional in some state and federal courts. But that doesn't mean that similar laws in other states that have not been challenged in court are presently unconstitutional -- it only means that if such present laws in those other states were challenged in court, they may be ruled unconstitutional at that time. So, if you live in a state that has these requirements, you are legally bound by them unless and until the laws are changed, despite the likelihood that if challenged, those laws would be ruled unconstitutional. This doesn't mean there's no possibility of exercising a religious exemption in those states if you don't belong to the right kind of church, but if you did succeed, it would probably be because local officials chose not to spend the time and money defending a case they were likely to lose, and not because there was any uncertainty about the enforceability of the law as it currently stands.
Another common complication to exercising a vaccine religious exemption is the "practical reality" aspect. Even if you are clear about your rights under state and federal law and know the strengths and weaknesses of your position, you still have to deal with local authorities that may or may not know your legal rights, and who may or may not cooperate with you even if they do. Sometimes, exercising an exemption is very straightforward and proceeds without incident. Other times, local officials resist efforts to exercise a valid legal exemption. They have sometimes reportedly been rude, uncooperative, and even coercive or confrontational in their efforts to thwart efforts to exercise a valid, legal vaccine exemption.
Most of the time, these folks are genuinely concerned about the health and safety of you, your children and your community, but sometimes they overstep their boundaries in their zealousness to "protect" those concerned. But even those people who successfully exercise a religious exemption on their own inadvertently leave themselves susceptible to challenge, because of what they "don't know that they don't know" about the law on exemptions. For these reasons, and because of the many inherent legal complexities associated with vaccine religious exemptions generally, many people wisely choose to consult a knowledgeable attorney before declaring and exercising a vaccine religious exemption.

Some of this post is taken from http://chetday.com/vaccineexemption.htm