It's really cute how many people will standby and do nothing but cry, complain and spread hopeless messages.
It's OUR government. When it fails to represent the people, It's OUR duty to replace representatives, hold representatives accountable and/or tear it down and start over.
I understand your feelings but WE have to change. Just because it's never happened doesn't make it right or tolerable. There's a first time for everything and most of the population are just waking up to the horrible injustice in our government. We cannot stand for it ! Our ancestors wouldn't stand for it and future generations deserve better.
God bless.
PS. I joined this group after reading the reasonable and humble comments. Never have I seen so many good people admit their mistakes, apologize, and be courteous to one another.
Has the vaccine/s been taken to court? Until the vaccine is proved to be worse than the pandemic, any authorisation of it is without question. Emergency powers. An oxymoron.
Everyone ignores that the shots MAKE YOUR BODY PRODUCE THE SPIKE PROTEIN. I don't understand why, but that fact is more than enough to prove it's harm.
You're missing the point. Yes a very good argument against them. But until the vaccine/s have been defeated in court, their harm versus good. That data, what access. Anybody authorising them suggestively acted within their powers, emergency, granting them. Emergency, the state of the nation, pandemic offered a wider spectrum of power, decisions, also away from the courts at the time of an emergency. There's no real debate until the pandemic has ended. But before there's a debate, the vaccine has to be reviewed in court. Anybody else as an oppositional government could have also used them with the power, decisions, and advice available.
Good luck proving it. Circumstances, don't matter much because there was a pandemic where the global advice from its relevant committees and institutions was vaccinate. Government acted accordingly. Irregardless of any presumed conspiracy. Until a court case can actually prove against the other data suggesting it was partially effective, that the vaccine/s, there are a number of them, are ineffectual and lethal, there is no case against any individuals acting in public interest on the advice given. Then what are your rights, the immediate vaccine/s are brought into question and could become liable. But you're determined to prove that the presumed treatment, vaccination, see how easy you're to label, and protocols like quarantine stopping pandemics are against human rights. No wonder the fact checkers moved in prior to trial on this topic.
The Nuremberg trials were against war criminals, held at war crime tribunals. I won't debate the why and what not. But prior to WW2 there was virtually no human rights. Nothing stopping slavery. Despite it being abolished. Your government sending you into a chaingang for a petty crime for life. Where every prison, asylum, hospital, school often had mass graves on site and even incinerators prior to WW2. The procedure of lobotomy won the Nobel Peace prize prior to WW2. The USA didn't stop electro shock therapy for its inmates until the 70s?
Ridiculous misconception, but the argument is not without merit. Although it has to be challenged prior to an assumed conspiracy and then it's possibly at completely different courts.
There is at the Hague, the human rights court, and other international criminal courts, as well as war crimes. But internationally not every nation is its members and not every nation complies with its rulings.
There hasn't been a war-crime. It requires war. Or the proof of warfare. Creating, war crimes. Hence Nuremberg only becomes loosely associated rhetoric where in essence it shaped the creation of human rights.
No it does not necessarily cover the question of vaccination. But for any other trial to commence. The vaccine/s have to be proved to be ineffective and lethal first. Then you can argue against individuals, or the institutions that practiced it, and the protocols enforced by them.
It's so cute how people think the government is gonna put the government on trial.
It's really cute how many people will standby and do nothing but cry, complain and spread hopeless messages. It's OUR government. When it fails to represent the people, It's OUR duty to replace representatives, hold representatives accountable and/or tear it down and start over. I understand your feelings but WE have to change. Just because it's never happened doesn't make it right or tolerable. There's a first time for everything and most of the population are just waking up to the horrible injustice in our government. We cannot stand for it ! Our ancestors wouldn't stand for it and future generations deserve better. God bless. PS. I joined this group after reading the reasonable and humble comments. Never have I seen so many good people admit their mistakes, apologize, and be courteous to one another.
Has the vaccine/s been taken to court? Until the vaccine is proved to be worse than the pandemic, any authorisation of it is without question. Emergency powers. An oxymoron.
Everyone ignores that the shots MAKE YOUR BODY PRODUCE THE SPIKE PROTEIN. I don't understand why, but that fact is more than enough to prove it's harm.
You're missing the point. Yes a very good argument against them. But until the vaccine/s have been defeated in court, their harm versus good. That data, what access. Anybody authorising them suggestively acted within their powers, emergency, granting them. Emergency, the state of the nation, pandemic offered a wider spectrum of power, decisions, also away from the courts at the time of an emergency. There's no real debate until the pandemic has ended. But before there's a debate, the vaccine has to be reviewed in court. Anybody else as an oppositional government could have also used them with the power, decisions, and advice available.
Good luck proving it. Circumstances, don't matter much because there was a pandemic where the global advice from its relevant committees and institutions was vaccinate. Government acted accordingly. Irregardless of any presumed conspiracy. Until a court case can actually prove against the other data suggesting it was partially effective, that the vaccine/s, there are a number of them, are ineffectual and lethal, there is no case against any individuals acting in public interest on the advice given. Then what are your rights, the immediate vaccine/s are brought into question and could become liable. But you're determined to prove that the presumed treatment, vaccination, see how easy you're to label, and protocols like quarantine stopping pandemics are against human rights. No wonder the fact checkers moved in prior to trial on this topic.
The Nuremberg trials were against war criminals, held at war crime tribunals. I won't debate the why and what not. But prior to WW2 there was virtually no human rights. Nothing stopping slavery. Despite it being abolished. Your government sending you into a chaingang for a petty crime for life. Where every prison, asylum, hospital, school often had mass graves on site and even incinerators prior to WW2. The procedure of lobotomy won the Nobel Peace prize prior to WW2. The USA didn't stop electro shock therapy for its inmates until the 70s?
Ridiculous misconception, but the argument is not without merit. Although it has to be challenged prior to an assumed conspiracy and then it's possibly at completely different courts.
There is at the Hague, the human rights court, and other international criminal courts, as well as war crimes. But internationally not every nation is its members and not every nation complies with its rulings.
There hasn't been a war-crime. It requires war. Or the proof of warfare. Creating, war crimes. Hence Nuremberg only becomes loosely associated rhetoric where in essence it shaped the creation of human rights.
No it does not necessarily cover the question of vaccination. But for any other trial to commence. The vaccine/s have to be proved to be ineffective and lethal first. Then you can argue against individuals, or the institutions that practiced it, and the protocols enforced by them.
"enemy combatants" implies they must be shot on sight. If I were a fed poster, I too would post encouragement to shoot govt officials.
This post glows.
Glowing or not, it's the reality we're heading toward.
nuremberg 2.0 is coming, and will be led by the UK. mark my words
The government isn't gonna hold the government accountable.
My source? The entire history of the world
How about your solution? Give in to slavery, give up your rights, children and property? Not a chance in hell.