As a resource, this is the link to immunization laws by state.
And I won't call you a vaccine pusher if you don't call me pro-disease :)
I think you might be confusing my acknowledgment, understanding, and defense of the viewpoint as me overstating. Obviously, main stream media outlets are not spoon-feeding reality to the people, they never have. The income tax portion of the seven petitions that were served on every member of the government in 2002 is the one I'm least concerned with actually, because I don't really object to an income tax - but I *do* object to the current system and code. My issues really surround the Federal Reserve and Central Bank, the income tax is simply by extension... you need one because of the other.
The fact of the matter is that every member that was served has a legal and Constitutional obligation to respond as outlined in the First Amendment. The entire purpose of the petitions was to obtain a *legal* review of the Constitutional torts. SCOTUS has an obligation to interpret the last ten words of the First Amendment - they are there for a reason.
You are certainly free to feel the argument was/is frivolous, but I disagree emphatically...we're not talking about a two or three people here. If we were discussing infectious disease and the same number of people contained in the petitions fell dead tomorrow of H1N1, it would be statistically significant.
Some people simply don't have the wear-with-all to legally and successfully escalate their injustice and reverse its effects. I will agree that case law is a guide, but that's all I can give it. I do read a fair amount of it by the way, but over the last 6 years (in my limited free time) I've concentrated specifically on the SCOTUS cases that surround the 16th Amendment, beginning with the original suits. Moving on to the Federal Reserve and the UCC was a natural shift of focus, as has been with most people that share my POV.
**** edited for typo
Anyone who reads at least three books on a subject, already knows more than 95% of the population.
>>To say these are not laws is incorrect. The requirements for attending school are enforced by the school boards, state departments of education and the constitution of the state and nation. They may not be arbitrarily ignored. <<
If they were truly laws, then a child would have to be vaccinated whether or not they were attending public/private schools. They are recommendations as shmedley said.
They may be "laws" according to the school, but only in a sense that the rules I make in my house are considered my "laws".
Yeah, just so you know, when you post full web pages like that, it cuts off half, so...yeah.
>>If the federal government calls it a law, it's a law.<<
The federal government would actually have to call it a law first. Other than the headline, did you read the site?
Here's some snippets for ya:
--Each state has immunization requirements, sometimes called "school laws," that must be met before a child may enter school
That explains their definition of the word "law" when they use it.
--There are no legally mandated vaccinations for adults, except for persons entering military service. The National Immunization Program does recommend certain immunizations for adults, depending on age, occupation, and other circumstances, but these immunizations are not required by law.
This also disproves your law theory.
--Immunizations were once required for persons traveling overseas. None are required at this time, but some vaccinations are recommended.
...and again here.
--Workers in public health and in law recognize the growing need for an international code of law.
They recognize the need, meaning there isn't a law.....
And here is the only immunization law on the page you tried to use as proof of vaccine laws.
--Under new immigration laws passed in 1996 and in effect as of July 1, 1997, all individuals seeking permanent entry into the U.S. must prove that they have been inoculated against all vaccine-preventable diseases. This includes infants and children being brought into the country for international adoption.
Was that what you were talking about?
And why do you keep talking about your Anthrax vax?
>>I am not going to hijack this board into a discussion of political structure.<<
Might as well hijack a thread that has no relevance.
>>You have served<<
Lol is that your backing for everything? Military? You, of all people, should know that unless you are in the highest of high offices, everything is on a "need to know" basis. So even when you think you know every secret, you don't even know 1% of them.
>>You are SPREADING information which is false.<<
Could you provide quotes or links to times when critical has spread false information? Otherwise, feel free to stop what you're doing. Attempting to talk circles around people does not make you right. You accused critical of being a conspiracy theorist without proof or reason.
Just because one person supports you doesn't mean everyone does.