Nation

Sorry, one of the references did not come out above. Here is the essence of the Nuremberg COde again that Hal likes to talk about.

https://goldenageofgaia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Nuremberg-Code.jpg

https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/04/06/the-nuremberg-code-the-universal-right-of-informed-consent-to-medical-interventions-has-been-recognized-in-us-law-since-at-least-1914/#:~:text=The%20Nuremberg%20Code%20provides%20legal%20justification%20to%20litigate,who%20can%20be%20prosecuted%20for%20crimes%20against%20humanity.

Unfortunately, there is a mass exodus of Medical professionals that are refusing the so called vaccine. The rest will be dead in three years. There will be no one left to treat people for legitimate medical emergencies.

go to
https://www.thehealthyamerican.org/
peggy explains in a very easy to understand way. We can not take back our Republic if we do not know our rights and responsibilities.


and watch all her videos and read her articles. Everyone needs to educate themselves so they actually understand the law, the real law, the supreme law of the land. The devil's law or legalese is not supreme and is false and inferior to our God given rights guaranteed by the state and national constitutions.

We also need to understand the fda, biden, judges, legislatures,colleges, etc are subject to the supreme law, not superior to it, nor to us, the people. Our bodies are our most sacred property, and any violation of our bodies is rape. This includes tests, medical devices such as masks, and of course the poison jab.

Informed consent for all medical procedures and devices is a must, it is not optional, no matter what some treasonous public servant tells you.

If you go the route of raising a religious objection, you don't need a doctor to "sign off". Just send the letter in. If you get a doctor involved to raise other types of objections, employer will now have a foothold to tell you that you don't have a true religious objection, but just a general dislike of the "vaccine". Do one or the other, but not both.

Also heard from a friend that someone raised a religious objection, but the employer argued Bible verses with the applicant, and rejected the application. LESSON: DON'T GIVE THEM A FOOTHOLD BY IDENTIFYING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If you go the route of raising a religious objection, you don't need a doctor to "sign off". Just send the letter in. If you get a doctor involved to raise other types of objections, employer will now have a foothold to tell you that you don't have a true religious objection, but just a general dislike of the "vaccine". Do one or the other, but not both.

Also heard from a friend that someone raised a religious objection, but the employer argued Bible verses with the applicant, and rejected the application. LESSON: DON'T GIVE THEM A FOOTHOLD BY IDENTIFYING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Well, there you go. Thanks for encouraging everyone, BH.

.
They are preparing people to accept that kind of crap coming out in the open.

You know, to the point where some liberal idiots will start saying, "Oh, it's just another religion; if you're against it you're a bigot".

This is nothing specific, but a general approach might be to inform them that academic expert-based information that is easily available to the general public indicates the vaccine is deadly in the medium- or long-term, and that no long-term studies have been undertaken. Provide them with some of the Nobel Laureate, Pfizer ex-VP, mRNA co-inventor, and journal articles' attestations of severe doubt and known mechanisms of vaccine toxicity in the longer run.

Possibly have a lawyer draft a cover letter along the same lines, stating your objections to subjecting your child to something that is demonstrably deadly. The ultimate civil right is life, and this issue can be taken to Federal Civil Rights court. Once again, the defense will claim the so-called pandemic emergency justifies the draconian measures, but when the court is confronted with serious doubt-casting testimonies from experts from the very field under contention, only a corrupt court could fly in the face of this and claim you have no basis for concern. And no, all courts are not yet corrupt.

This would probably not fly with private colleges, but State university cases become a State institution demanding you not be allowed to participate in a publicly-funded institution due to their ( now unsupported ) claims of "safety". It becomes a State appearing to be willing to threaten your life in exchange for compliance with their opinion, which your attorneys have cast great doubt upon, if they did their job well. That should be really bad optics to a court.

Academic administrators are probably one of the biggest coward groups of all, if they lose their aura of intellectual superiority. Like corporate executives, they realize their hyperinflated pay could never be raked in without some credential or other artificial limit to entry to their lofty position. They accomplish very little productive their whole life, and they know it subconsciously. So they will fold fast if they think anything will jeopardize their huge unearned income, like a major policy loss would do.

Just a suggestion, to be further refined if found to have any merit.

Quoting SBG: "... I know these execs are basically cowards who want to take what they think is the path of least resistance, which is what lowers their career risk. They don't really do much actual managing - their main goal ... is to cover their rear ...

My experiences with management were similar.

As the saying goes: "It's warm inside the herd."