Oct 09, 2021
6 mins read
Florida's Wolf in Sheeps Clothing
by J.W. Wilson 10/9/2021
This past May, yes I know that this was a while ago and years ago when you look at it through all things political (things happen that fast); Governor Ron DeSantis (R) of Florida signed into law Senate Bill 2006 (SB2006) which has been touted as "Landmark Legislation to Ban Vaccine Passports and Stem Government Overreach". The above quote was taken from none other than Florida State's own government website and can be found HERE.
This legislation has been in the news as Florida become one of the first States in the Union to ban the implementation of Vaccine Passports. It outlines the banning of business, government, schools or any other public gathering to "ask to see your papers" of vaccination status or immunity to COVID-19 virus. All well and good. I'm for it. Yes, I do have an issue with government overreach and dictating to private business what they can or cannot do. This is authoritarian in itself, but the climate of this day's politics - if this didn't happen, what would be allowed by Federal and other State organizations that would far more dangerous to the Liberty of the people of Florida? We may never know. The question in this article is this: Is the banning of vaccine passports worth the risk, the loss of other freedoms?
On page 38-39 of SB2006 you will find some concerning matters that were also signed into law.
"Ordering an individual to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated or quarantined for communicable diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and present a severe danger to public health."
"Individuals who are unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be subjected to isolation or quarantine."
"If the individual poses a danger to the public health, the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation or quarantine the individual. The State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual."
"Any order of the State health Officer given to effectuate this paragraph is immediately enforceable by a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012"
As most of those who follow me or Liberty Movement Radio, know that these are explicit violations of any sort of principle that would be considered proper for a free human, a free society.
Which if the Constitution of the United States wasn't enough to guarantee a free human and free society, we even have the results of WWII and the Nuremburg Trials in the Nuremburg Code (1947). I will highlight the parts under "Permissible Medical Experiments" - which is an essential piece of history that we should not overlook with regard to the vaccination mediums for COVID-19.
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
It's clear that the parts represented in SB2006 could be used in direct violation of the Nuremburg Code.
We know that any of the vaccines for COVID-19 have not been thoroughly tested and essentially society itself is the proverbial guinea pig to see what the short term and long term effects are.
According to the wording of SB2006 anyone who is considered a danger to public health can be forcibly quarantined or isolated.
But those words "considered to be...." and "danger to public health.....". Now, most would believe this would have to be about a communicable disease. But is it only about disease? The words are somewhat ambiguous. It could mean anything, really. And I believe words used in this way is meant to mean anything that they want.
Either way, COVID-19 or not, the attack on the freedom of any individual by the State of Florida and her Governor, Ron DeSantis, is an egregious overstep of State power and should be called out and peacefully resisted at all costs.
James is a father of three, and lives in Florida. Has been an activist for 12 years being involved in marches in Upstate NY with IVAW and the (formerly good) Tea Party, protests against mandatory vaccinations and overall distributor of dissent wherever and whenever a listening ear is available.
Now, a published author and writing for Liberty Movement Radio