She calls herself the "Patriot Nurse." Addressing the issue of vaccine choice in this video, she explains how the term "herd" in "herd immunity" very subtlety suggests that we are livestock that are "owned." The question then is: "who owns us, if not ourselves? Does the medical community own us? Does the State own us?"
Genocide is not too strong a term for what is now happening in South Dakota. The huge, shocking violation of legal and human rights being carried out by the state is tantamount to genocide against the Native American nations, the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Sioux, residing within its borders. It is the abduction and kidnapping by state officials, under the cover of law, of American Indian children. South Dakota is committing blatant and flagrant genocide against the Sioux people by transferring Indian children to white homes, and also amid allegations of sexual abuse and drugging of Native children in DSS foster care. This is a most serious case of ethnic cleansing.
Dr. Lee Hieb joins the growing ranks of doctors speaking out against forced vaccinations and the current hysteria in the mainstream media. Dr. Lee Hieb is an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery. She is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Hieb's voice is a voice of reason and common sense on the current vaccine debate. Contrast this with most of the mainstream media today, heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which are parading doctors into their shows calling for mandatory vaccines by force, and the removal of all licenses to practice for doctors who disagree with them. Dr. Hieb correctly points out the logical conclusions to allowing government make medical decisions "for the good of society" which include injecting chemicals into our body. Dr. Hieb does not stop with her discussion of the medical ethics and political implications of government forced vaccinations, she goes on to address two crucial issues that you are unlikely to hear in the mainstream media: Are vaccines safe, and are they effective?
When does the State have the right to remove children from a home where they are living with their parents? We have been covering medical kidnapping stories now on MedicalKidnap.com for about 3 months. This website was started to document the many stories that were coming to our attention where families were losing their children to the State, and the foster care system, over medical disagreements. In many of these cases, their children were taken away simply because they disagreed with a doctor, or wanted to take their children to a different doctor to get a second opinion. Does the State have a right to take children away from parents for what is now being called "medical abuse," a term used by medical authorities when parents disagree with doctors, or want to seek a second opinion? Most of the people who follow MedicalKidnap would state "no." And we have published many stories now showing that this is indeed happening all across the country, in every state, every single day. But what about in other situations? Are there any situations where authorities should step in and remove children from their homes, taking them away from their parents? Judging from comments made in social media from many commenting on some of our articles, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people in the United States today feel that in certain situations, the State has a legitimate right to step in and take children away from their families, removing them from their homes. However, I would like to suggest that the Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of individuals and families, and that it is never lawful for social services to remove a child from their biological parents, taking them out of their home and making them a ward of the State, removing legal custody from their parents. This phenomena is a recent development in the history of our country, and if it is not lawful to take such actions, we are correct in calling such actions "state-funded kidnappings."
A new federal executive order expands the list of illnesses for which you could be detained, isolated, and treated against your will if you are entering the US or traveling between states—even if you are completely healthy. Some states have similar or worse laws that would even allow entry into your home. The Public Health Service Act allows the government to apprehend and detain individuals based on communicable diseases named in the Act, or named by presidential executive orders. Executive orders do not have to get congressional approval.
So who are these parents who want to refuse vaccines for their children? The mainstream media generally portrays these parents as "anti-science, ignorant, foolish, etc." It was refreshing, therefore, to read an honest journalistic piece on this topic on the "Michigan Live" website which actually interviewed some parents who exercise their lawful rights to refuse some vaccines. In contrast to the predominantly one-sided media reports labeling all parents who refuse vaccines as "uneducated," here is a description of the parents refusing vaccines based on demographic data in Michigan: Statewide, about 6 percent of Michigan schoolchildren have vaccination waivers, which equates to about 150,000 children who are unvaccinated or undervaccinated. Many are clustered in affluent communities such as Rochester, and have well-educated, health-conscious parents who buy organic food and eschew antibiotics in favor of a homeopathic approach to illnesses. They fear injecting so many viruses into their children could do more harm than good, and see widespread immunizations as being driven by "Big Pharma," which they see as more concerned about profits than public health.
Are Americans' freedom to choose what is injected into their body at risk in the United States today? Is it possible that the day is not far off when if you refuse a mandated vaccine at your place of employment, or refuse a mandated vaccine for your child, that you could come home one day to find your residence quarantined, restricting you from leaving your home or having visitors simply for exercising your right to refuse a medical treatment? There is compelling evidence that this is not some conspiracy prediction of a future Orwellian society, but something that is already in process in the United States of America. Many fear that a person's choice of accepting or refusing mandatory vaccines could restrict one's ability to travel in or out of the United States, one's ability to send their children to school, one's ability to continue working at their place of employment, or even one's ability to leave one's own privately owned home.
The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a family’s right to privacy and the government’s need to enforce the law. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need. This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment. All too often, law enforcement officers and child-welfare workers act as if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to CPS investigations. They are wrong.
Commissioner Thomas Verge ruled Friday that Cleave and Erica could have their three babies back, after CPS had removed them from their home, as first reported by Health Impact News on our Medical Kidnap website. The original story has been read by over 1.5 million people and shared on Facebook by over 1 million, creating a national outcry. It is but one of many stories we have covered at MedicalKidnap.com. We get multiple requests every day from families begging us to publish their stories of "medical kidnap." If we had not picked up this story and published it on behalf of the parents who requested us to do so, would they be going home today with their children? Judge Verge, in allowing the parents to have their children back, reportedly made several conditions, threatening the young couple that their children would be removed again if they did not comply with his directives.
Lindey Magee of Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights recently commented on an article published in Mississippi's Clarion Ledger on their front page, boasting about the state's 99.7% vaccine rate for kindergartners. Mississippi has the highest rate of childhood vaccination because it is one of only two states in the U.S. that does not allow parents a choice regarding vaccines, as a requirement for attending school. Only a medical doctor can provide an exemption, as religious and philosophical exemptions are not allowed. The Clarion Ledger was obviously proud of their vaccination rates, and many around the country want to follow their model and remove vaccine choice from parents and families. Lindey Magee, however, does not think Mississippi should be so proud of their vaccination rates, given the fact that Mississippi ranks last in the U.S. in infant mortality rates and very low in other key health figures for children. More: